Subject as it's own comp.

[Webbed Feet]

To All,

Just to confuse this all some more, I think the relative positioning of a comp in a form is meaningless. I prefer that people actually read the fricking report and stop assuming that anything is indicated by the physical position any comparable was placed, or simply left, in. Additionally, I put forth that Fannie's statement regarding this is being taken out of context if it is taken to mean the positioning of the comps on the form versus the number of comps needed. Needing four comps does not mean a requirement that any certain comp be presented in position number four.

Webbed.

 

[Fred]

I think one of the important aspects of the initial question has been lost...... very few comps ! I think all of us would agree, that utilizing it as one of the first 3 comps would only be done if you had very limited other comps.

Maybe some lost that aspect. You tell me limited comps, I am thinking closer to zero, because three doesn't sound that "limited" to me. I guess it's all just a matter of opinion, but I just don't think how limited the comps are or aren't is going to make telling the owner - that's what it's worth, because that's what you paid - any more credible.

 

[Queen City Gurl]

Well....you wouldn't tell the owner it's " because that's what they paid" As we know, sometimes people are willing to pay more for a property and that doesn't make it worth it.

You would tell them that's what was supported in the marketplace, if it was an arms length transaction. Just like any other market sale. I don't see why it should be viewed differently than any other market sale, just because it's the subject. But, that just my opinion. As Kevin stated, that was the thought process many years ago, and I still have the same viewpoint.

 

[Mike Boyd]

I have nothing against using it as an extra comp, if you wish. I also agree that Frederick wrote a great answer as usual.

But keep in mind, who is to say that the subject's recent sale was "legit". Maybe it sold way above market and they got Skippy to make it work. The new owners may have already robbed the first lender with a bogus sale and now could be looking to rip off a second lender with a HELOC or second mortgage before leaving dodge with a "windfall". This prior sale can only be verified through other independent sales which should be used as the actual comparables for the report.

THAT can be true of ANY comp. All sales must be verified...so what's the problem?

 

[Mike Boyd]

To All,

Just to confuse this all some more, I think the relative positioning of a comp in a form is meaningless. I prefer that people actually read the fricking report and stop assuming that anything is indicated by the physical position any comparable was placed, or simply left, in. Additionally, I put forth that Fannie's statement regarding this is being taken out of context if it is taken to mean the positioning of the comps on the form versus the number of comps needed. Needing four comps does not mean a requirement that any certain comp be presented in position number four.

Webbed.

Ever hear of "Putting your best foot forward?" No pun intended, Mr. Feet.

 

[Fred]

. Just like any other market sale. I don't see why it should be viewed differently than any other market sale,

If it is just like any other sale, you wouldn't be saying it was to be the "fourth" comp.

 

[Queen City Gurl]

IMO, it's a reliable market sale. The reason for the potential 4th comp use is, as I mentioned... for minimizing the "red flag" affect. While it's permissable, and in some appraisers opinion, reliable. The UW's often have a problem with it, since they don't see it that often. Just like there are many who have a problem with seeing a picture of a comp with flowering trees in February. They don't get, that of you have a pic of the comp from close to the closing date, and you use it again 6 mos later... they want a new pic, thinking it's better. When we appraisers know the older pic is more representative of the conditin at the time of the sale.

But, heaven forbid the seasons don't match up ! So, my statement addressed minimizing the red flag affect. Not my opinion of it's usuage.

 

[Webbed Feet]

Ever hear of "Putting your best foot forward?" No pun intended, Mr. Feet.

I know, I'm just myth busting.

Webbed.

 

[Fred]

The UW's often have a problem with it, since they don't see it that often.

Either that, or they recognize there is something inherently illogical in using a property as a comp for itself.

 

[Webbed Feet]

Either that, or they recognize there is something inherently illogical in using a property as a comp for itself.

Expressly due to being completely illogical themselves in the first place and lacking any decent training couldn't see good appraisal practice if it slapped them along side the head. Not to mention they failed to read the report to top it off so never understood all the good research the appraiser did and reported regarding the matter.

Webbed.