USPAP 2003--Clarification Of Prior Sales (3 Year History)

[Tim Hicks (Texas)]

Wah, wah wah! What's the big deal. It will help curb some of the "bad appraisers" who appraise homes on re-fi's for twice what it was paid for one year and one day ago. We have too many number hitting appraisers that will put any value a lender wants on a property, but did not like mentioning that the property was purchased nine months ago with no updates since for much less than they are appraising it for now. Now, this will do nothing to appraisers who just don't disclose it anyway. But, if we don't have these requirements, how will we nail them under review?

 

[Richard Carlsen]

"WE" are not in the enforcement business. My company is an appraisal company. We are hired to do appraisals. To give an opinion of value of a property. This type of collection work, if it is enforcement, is the purview of the state and federal authorities. As much as I dislike "number hitters", I object to my time and effort being required to collect and supply public data for some investigating authority. And I might add, without compensation.

Suppose the powers that be thought that there was a lot of illegal activity going on in a section of a community. And suppose that they required all appraisers who were doing reports in or near that section of town to drive through the area and snap a minimum of 10 digital photos to be turned over to the police with each report. Hardly any appraisers would stand for that? It's the same thing.

My license says "Appraiser".

Not investigator. Not data collection agent for the state and federal authorities.

 

[Jo Ann Meyer Stratton]

Not only do I agree with the reporting the sales history for the past three years--I have already been doing it for all the years I have appraised in Arizona and California (New Mexico is a non-disclosure state and twenty years ago there was no information!). It provides more information about the property, the neighborhood, marketing trends, etc. It just simply makes a better informed appraiser--not only for that specific assignment but for the market overall. For example in a tract subdivision, it so happens that the last sale for the subject and all comparables occurred the last time about 4-5 years ago in the same value range--now today most are still in a similar value range--one sticks out, you start searching why, it has been added on to or pool added or something is fishy about the sale. That red flag might not have popped up if you hadn't look at the last sale for each comparable. The new USPAP requirement is to the benefit of the appraiser in the appraisal process. If it alerts the appraiser to a scam going, all well and good, but the process is all part of due diligence!! So as I mentioned in another post, if another appraiser or reviewer or most important your state board is able to do a three year history of your subject and all comparables---DO IT! And USPAP does have an out, if that information would not be readily available to anybody.

 

[John SRA]

Jtrotta,

You are correct in noting that I have provided no reasoning to support my change in position. I prefer you, and others here, to read the material and make up your own mind. Although I agree with the change, I am not on a crusade to convince others.

In the time I have been reading this forum I have been amazed at the credibility people will assign to second-hand sources, when first-hand sources are readily available. In forming my own opinion on this issue I did not rely solely on the written explanations. As with other matters, I also discussed it with members of the ASB. I have found them very accessible, and very willing to discuss any appraisal issue.

JC

 

[jtrotta]

JC

nor do I want you to be on a crusade; and yes I have every intention to review what has been written, as i already have with most of the preliminary 2003 USPAP, but have not reviewed the final.

credibility - ( it ) I have had many thoughts on this word, spoken by many, yet laking every bit of credibility, IT, could muster when it comes to Politics - ( IT ) changed into a mystery word amoungst our language and then we added a few attorney's and (IT) was a Free for All, and I believe that was "First Hand Sources" ; Second Hand Sources; and possibly third & fourth hand information 8O - and I spoke with many folks on this matter; checked (it) out in the library and it was still battered & bruised by legal & political figures alike.

8)

 

[Bemis Pownall]

why not have the Realturds disclose to potential buyers and to FHA the last sale of the subject???

make them liable and responsible...

:morning:

 

[Mike Garrett RAA]

Bemis, I find your comment both insulting and juvenile. Do you work for Trent Lott? Go to your room and write on the wall 100 times..."I love REALTORS®".

 

[Bemis Pownall]

Sorry Mike

Actually....
I have my brokers license.
My stepfather(God rest his soul) was an acting broker.
My mother has her license. Retired from the state and Stewart L. use to be her boss.

Some are ok.

:morning:

 

[Bob Ipock]

The question has been answered by Danny Wiley, esteemed appraiser and USPAP Guru from Tennessee. Danny is Chairman of The Appraisal Standards Board and a renowned expert of all types of Tennessee sippin' whisky.


USPAP only addresses the sales history of the subject. However, Fannie has Supplemental Standards requiring sales history of the comps. And, as an AQB instructor, you know that Supplemental Standards have the same weight as other Standards.

And I don’t care if you quote me on this one

Danny

 

[Rob Bodkin]

Why are "we" as a profession so easy to cry foul when we are asked to consider and report more information? Would it not perhaps be usefull to know what the sales history of the subject and comparable sales has been not only for this year, but for recent years in general?

If your estimate of value was higher/lower than the sale 16 months ago, wouldn't you want to know what was going on then?

If your estimated value was higher than the house was listed for for the past 6 months would that not be information you would like to look at.

Doesn't the marketing time, sales history and trends of our comparable sales frame our estimates for the subject?

It seems as though they are only asking us to look at data that we should be looking at any way to form reliable work products. I absolutely do not mind our clients asking our help in making reasonable and supportable lending decisions. It seems to me to be our primary mission.

The only thing I don't like about the change is that OUR actions contributed to it's need. If we were better about our due dillagence (spelling) we would not need so many specific hand holding rules.

my 2 cents.

Rob Bodkin
Freestone Partners