It’s just like, if one takes the time to really narrow in on the comps spectrum, so few adjustments are necessary. I’m more on with, we don’t even always need to go through so much market data extraction effort with the fancy tools and such. It’s the ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure concept. Put in more research time up front, the report data and writing closes out relatively simply in a standardized manner. Cheers.

Hey, don’t be an over achiever. I’m not trying to work that hard. jk lol. One does what works I suppose. Not getting any blowback is the ultimate test, so whatever is working, if it’s working, keep at it. I’ll remain mystified why some appraisers choose to outsource when they could simply hire, train, and have a real business, a real support network. Most of us don’t own businesses, we own jobs. If we personally do not show up, nothing happens. I’m not grounded yet, somehow managed to maintain operational capacity.

I routinely use several MC forms in my report Baggins with each being clearly identified with search characteristics (GLA, distance from, etc.), and with each being summarized in detail.

Most often my anchor comps will come from a narrowed and focused MC form, while my outliner odd bracketing comps (if need be) will come from an expanded search MC form.

I work from a base search criteria, expand as needed, and update the search criteria as I go.

Depending on what information in the report I’m trying to support, I refer my client to the correct MC form.

Of note, those that outsource the process to places like the Philippines so a churn and burn of 4 to 9 appraisals a day can happen, will not contain such detail and truth.

Seek the truth.

I’m not so sure Jerry, I for one like the MC chart. It’s easy to use and may carry meaningful data if there are consistent market trends within data subsets, aka; narrowly filtered MLS results. I’m going to keep using it regardless. Of course the scenario may be different based on cohesion and consistency of build types and sizes from any given location, but in expansive suburbia the MC quite often provides great indication of real world trends, specifically list to sale relationships, aka strength of the market, buyer acceptance, etc. Right now I’m watching some trends take a nose dive but can thankfully still use the stable market checkbox, but for how long…

It’s also a great liability protection for me personally, as if the MC results are not aligned with my perception, I can then write in additional liability protection language speculating about volatile market conditions and/or possibly dip back into research for a more pointed market data analysis window. One tries to limit final data sets which MC is derived from to like 30-50 local examples or so, however quite often that total data set figure may have substantial variance. The problem with MC is it’s too simple, without additional fields for multiple comparative data set statistical entries, including actual active versus under contract examples.

For real, who’s only performing MLS research in one simple way, or one standardized approach? I’ll always have at least 2-5 different data sets to select from. Drawing up an alternative review can often be as simple as just applying minor MLS data filtration criteria. Kick out the ranches, apply a size variance, or age of build limitation, etc, etc. That application usually then results in more cohesive and easily understandable MC trending results. That’s how one can know; finger on the pulse. I love the MC, it allows me to skip the trend and graph presentation effort. A substantial time energy and resource saver.

It’s all too subjective. One appraiser will research a mile proximate or more. The next will scrape total data from an entire zip code. The next only reviewing one neighborhood. Research is often structured around an appraisers personal time management goals. Some even outsource the task. The pointed argument is how subjective the appraisers research can be. Be careful what you wish for, removing predominant value puts us on a fast track to equitable value allowance, since the specific metric of comparisons which illustrate market reaction in one location vs the next, no matter how close or far or similar or dissimilar, may become absent.

Predominant is just one metric, it’s the reviewers whom assume this is reliable end all data in the first place which is the primary problem. If only the appraisal industry would insist that only qualified licensed appraisers provide appraisal review and administrative review services. Checkbox review has never worked as intended, never will either. My solution; Post within every report, single line MLS overview pages of a myriad of performed market research for that specific assignment. Then fill MC and other general market data with the data set which best relates to the subject. Widdle the data down.

If someone wants to take the time to turn raw and truthful MLS data into visual charts, they can have at it. Appraisers in my opinion are too reliant and hooked on extracted statistical data, charts and graphs. Any given data set and subsequent market data graphic may become instantly unreliable with one too many or one too less addition of data filtration criteria based on what is often dynamic mixed property characteristics in any given neighborhood. A line on a graph bedazzles the laymen but it also alludes to forecasting towards the future, something appraisers should consciously stay away from. For instance, in these annoying new age PUD developments where there are sf att, sf det, condo flats, patios, even commercial, all within a few block area. The predominant graph could be molded to fit any narrative regardless of current market conditions.

Joyce: I don’t think the issue is removal of predominant price, which can obviously be important to the lender / client. I think the issue is any mandate for a “single number” as predominant, and this is especially true in market with few sales and a wide range of quality, condition, and selling prices where a single price (median, not predominant) would not be meaningful at all. The issue is that a predominant price RANGE is more meaningful and will not result in report rejection when the subject appraised value is above or below the single number price point.

Michael Coyle, and declare the MC addendum a flawed snapshot of the current market forbidding clients from requiring it.

Yes

If your appraised value corresponds to this comparison — for example, the appraised value ranks on the 72nd percentile for the neighborhood, and the GLA ranks on the 70th percentile, then the appraised value is supported by more than the data and analysis in the sales comparison analysis. If this is not the case, you should have an explanation. That is, you should relate the appraised value to a broad measure of the local market, as standard procedure. Think of it as incorporating an element of Big Data in your report.