Having completed several "1004MC Workshops", read numerous forum posts and talked to many appraisers, one thing is clear, confusion reigns! Most do not see the merits of the 1004MC. They see the problems, including opposing opinions, various interpretations, and few immediate solutions given the limitations of their MLS data services.
At question is not the concept, but rather the execution. While many believe this to be a step in the right direction of mandating a standard for measuring trends, the format is a "time-consuming problem" versus a "problem solving solution". The unintended consequences over-shadow any potential benefit.
The 1004MC is not about medians, totals, percentages, and ratios, no more than it is about the neighborhood. The form is about "the collateral" and "the trends related to the collateral". While market conditions and neighborhood trends are important, the trends of properties similar to the subject are critical.
Lenders are not making a loan to the market area or the neighborhood; they are making a loan on the subject property, the collateral. As goes the trend for properties similar to the subject, as goes the value of the collateral securing their loan.
Highs and lows
The 1004MC gets an "A" for effort and the focus on the subject verses the neighborhood, "C" for layout and "F" for format and function. I understand the need to "standardize trend analysis", however, the format is such that the numbers may mislead more than "make transparent".
It does get a high mark for two factors, first for attempting to replace opinion with statistical fact, limiting subjectivity and secondly, it requires the analysis to focus on "competitive to the subject from the buyer's perspective", removing the influence of lesser or better properties in the neighborhood that do not compete with the subject.
Click here to continue reading . . .
Continue reading "First Impressions of the 1004MC: Part 5 - "Closing Thoughts"" »


















Recent Comments