Con_Alma;438213 wrote:Yeah, I think so.

More specifically I think it was the determinants of market value.

Gotcha.

One of my main points then was that as appraisers we are acting on behalf of the bank making the loan. So our estimate makes or breaks the deal in question and that pretty much ends that deal if we come in below the sale price.

I think what I remember people saying was that if they wanted to pay a certain amount then that amount is the market value (what a market participant is willing to pay) and that no appraiser should be able to come in and say otherwise. And, that's true...except appraisers are acting in the interest of the lender who is (in theory) asking us to ensure that the asset backing that loan is worth enough for them to recoup their money in case of a default.

I think people took my stance as being "appraisers are the final word"...which is true with that individual loan. That is not to say that our estimate of value is better than the perspective buyer and seller's estimate. That's what people got out of what I was saying, though I really wasn't. I did say that we are the only ones licensed to legally give an opinion of value.

Can we discuss it again on another thread? IIRC, my other big point (and one that Manhattan Buckeye may have finally realized) is that bad appraisers had a whole lot more to do with the housing bailout than the American public is aware. It wasn't just people buying houses who couldn't afford them. It was bad appraisers jacking up values so banks ended up loaning double and triple, in some cases, the value of the asset.

There. It's all nice,friendly, and mostly on topic now.

First, let me say no posts have been deleted from this thread by me. If you can't see them, they've been unapproved. That way other moderators can see them, and if I have overreacted they can be restored. Since there were some additional complaints about the way it was moderated, I went back and edited or unapproved posts I had let slide before.

The posts that were unapproved and edited either had 0 relation to the topic at hand, or featured nothing but name calling, personal attacks, etc. As for who posted them, I don't even really pay attention. Until I went back through it, I couldn't have told you who posted what. While I may disagree with the language used, since it's not currently breaking any rules and it is technically related to the topic, I won't change it.

Gettin to be just like JJ's now. You should have left it alone - we are all big enough to handle a few insults and there's no need to protect us from ourselves...this isn't the U.S. govt LOL.

My concern wasn't for you guys. There have been many people who have told us that one of the things that brings this site down is the frequent bickering and trolling on threads. We're working on a solution, but until then that's how it will be addressed.

Can't argue with that, sej. Or, they could just not read those posts. Either way, Justin is the man and I will bow to his superior judgment.

Steel Valley Football;438729 wrote:Gotcha.

One of my main points then was that as appraisers we are acting on behalf of the bank making the loan. So our estimate makes or breaks the deal in question and that pretty much ends that deal if we come in below the sale price.

I think what I remember people saying was that if they wanted to pay a certain amount then that amount is the market value (what a market participant is willing to pay) and that no appraiser should be able to come in and say otherwise. And, that's true...except appraisers are acting in the interest of the lender who is (in theory) asking us to ensure that the asset backing that loan is worth enough for them to recoup their money in case of a default.

I think people took my stance as being "appraisers are the final word"...which is true with that individual loan. That is not to say that our estimate of value is better than the perspective buyer and seller's estimate. That's what people got out of what I was saying, though I really wasn't. I did say that we are the only ones licensed to legally give an opinion of value.

Can we discuss it again on another thread? IIRC, my other big point (and one that Manhattan Buckeye may have finally realized) is that bad appraisers had a whole lot more to do with the housing bailout than the American public is aware. It wasn't just people buying houses who couldn't afford them. It was bad appraisers jacking up values so banks ended up loaning double and triple, in some cases, the value of the asset.

I found it.

What's your question to me?

"...One of my main points then was that as appraisers we are acting on behalf of the bank making the loan...."
I agree with that and love the fact that you used the term "estimate".

"...
I think what I remember people saying was that if they wanted to pay a certain amount then that amount is the market value (what a market participant is willing to pay) ..."

That is the true market price....the price that both seller and buyer are willing to transact at.

"... and that no appraiser should be able to come in and say otherwise. ..."

An appraiser can say whatever they want in their "protection" of the bank. That doesn't mean it's a market price. It might be close but there is only one thing that determines the actual market price.

I'm not sure what question you wanted me to respond to. Sorry.

The question was: Can we discuss it again on another thread?