Would Adding A 1004mc To A Completed Appraisal Comply With USPAP?

[DWiley]

If the 1004Mc is completed correctly, I fail to see how it could change the results.

If the data in the 1004MC grid is insufficient for trend analysis, then it should be supplemented with other data anyway (hence, the big blank space in the middle of the 1004MC) , and that supplemental data becomes part of the 1004MC itself.

 

[Have Laser-Will Travel]

Got narrative to explain the MC results? It seems you are looking for a reason to charge for the MC requested after the fact and that may be a reasonable request. Otherwise, a whole lot of drama over a simple request. So charge for your time and treat it as a new assignment. You didn't just re-invent the wheel. WTF?

Sorry, this isn't about me. It's about USPAP compliance.

 

[Have Laser-Will Travel]

Got narrative to explain the MC results? It seems you are looking for a reason to charge for the MC requested after the fact and that may be a reasonable request. Otherwise, a whole lot of drama over a simple request. So charge for your time and treat it as a new assignment. You didn't just re-invent the wheel. WTF?

Sorry, this isn't about me. It's about USPAP compliance.

Huh, ok. Guess we all do what we DO. I always complete the MC whether or not it is requested because it a handy tool that also aids in defining "the subject's market area of comparables, absorption, etc". For my reports, adding it or not would not change the report's "results" as of the date of the inspection. (UNLESS an agent added a property that was not there initially).

I rely on analysis via Spark from Choice Valuations. It works through an application originally used to fill the 1004MC. What it actually ended up doing was make sense out of the 1004MC grid results by providing different breakdowns. But there is usually a compromise between using very comparable sales and getting too few results and widening the criteria.

 

[Have Laser-Will Travel]

If the 1004Mc is completed correctly, I fail to see how it could change the results.

If the data in the 1004MC grid is insufficient for trend analysis, then it should be supplemented with other data anyway (hence, the big blank space in the middle of the 1004MC) , and that supplemental data becomes part of the 1004MC itself.

The 1004MC includes analysis that may or may not have been in the original scope. One example might be analysis of housing supply but, there are more. By going through the 1004MC you're looking at different things and may have relied on different data inputs and different statistical methods. It might be the same but, it might not.

 

[Have Laser-Will Travel]

If the inclusion of the 1004MC could change your report results, you might want to re-think how you are reconciling, compiling and analyzing your data. So its a new assignment. Do you have to start over from scratch? Does USPAP imply that in any shape, way, or form? WTF is so onerous of this request unless you have knowledge that the 1004MC is contradictory of your opinion and you lack the ability to explain the discrepancy? Hit dog barks.

I'll ask you to discuss the principle without attempting to make it about me.

 

[DWiley]

Sorry, this isn't about me. It's about USPAP compliance.

In what way? USPAP does not address file names, file numbers, etc.

 

[DWiley]

The 1004MC includes analysis that may or may not have been in the original scope. One example might be analysis of housing supply but, there are more. By going through the 1004MC you're looking at different things and may have relied on different data inputs and different statistical methods. It might be the same but, it might not.

Yes, I understand that. I know the guy that does Spark (he used to work for me). I still don't see how a properly completed 1004MC could produce different results (assuming the original was also done properly).

 

[DWiley]

The 1004MC includes analysis that may or may not have been in the original scope. One example might be analysis of housing supply but, there are more. By going through the 1004MC you're looking at different things and may have relied on different data inputs and different statistical methods. It might be the same but, it might not.

As a follow up, you cite housing supply. Well, that is addressed on page 1 of a URAR. So, analysis of that would have already been required Adding a 1004MC should not have any affect on that. it would just change how (the format) it is reported.

 

[TRESinc]

Imagine that the original analysis of the market did not rely only on comparable properties, as the 1004MC does, but was more general in order to obtain enough sales data.

i suggest you go back and re-read the 1004MC form. it has nothing to do with the subject's market. it's only concern is the neighborhood. taken directly from the first line of the form itself:

The purpose of this addendum is to provide the lender/client with a clear and accurate understanding of the market trends and conditions prevalent in the subject neighborhood. This is a required addendum for all appraisal reports with an effective date on or after April 1, 2009.

 

[CANative]

Sorry, this isn't about me. It's about USPAP compliance.

USPAP is merely a set of minimum standards. In this context you would just be adding additional analysis to the development and reporting. This would not contradict USPAP. You are preparing a new report of the same appraisal assignment. New signature and report date. Same effective date.