Steel Valley Football;450433 wrote:Wow, do you really believe what you are saying or are you just trying to debate for the sake of debaing???

You are not being reasonable or logical. Any court, jury, or debate room audience would have sided with my definition of market value a long time ago. If you want to have another definition that you alone adhere to then that's fine, but millions of people use my definition daily. My argument has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt at this point.

I know you are not dumb so my only other logical deduction is that your being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. Why explain any further?

I'm also a bit stunned you tried to use LJ's statement as support. Do you not realize that has nothing to do with our conversation? Your last two questions are irrelevant at this point. I mean, why would it matter...

Con_Alma;450412 wrote:I view the expectations as very rational and saw not inefficiency from an informational perspective. The expectations from both sides were rational in that the each received value for the price agreed.

It's a fair price between the two because there is an equivalent value derived by the transaction with consideration for the possible advantages and disadvantages that each will gain.

What's most interesting to me, however, is that you view this as a win lose scenario. In the beginning of the topic I think you stated that market value is not the price transacted at yet the above information states it can be. In addition, LJ has suggested that FASAB is currently debating the true definition giving credence to the fact that they not comfortable with a possible, presently accepted or practiced definition. At the very least they are doubting it.

Why did you ask me to come to this thread and discuss this with you? Was it in order to win?

queencitybuckeye;450438 wrote:Actually, if saying "I won" made it so, you'd be undefeated. For those of us who actually studied economics (from which come the only definintions that mean anything), Con_alma provided far more accurate definitions of the terms in question. IOW, you were schooled, and as the saying goes, it wasn't even close.

Con_Alma;450412 wrote:I view the expectations as very rational and saw not inefficiency from an informational perspective. The expectations from both sides were rational in that the each received value for the price agreed.

It's a fair price between the two because there is an equivalent value derived by the transaction with consideration for the possible advantages and disadvantages that each will gain.

Steel Valley Football;450066 wrote:http://www.rhas.com.au/Content_Common/pg-market-value.seo


Market value is a concept distinct from market price, which is “the price at which one can transact”, while market value is “the true underlying value”. The concept is most commonly invoked in inefficient markets or disequilibrium situations where prevailing market prices are not reflective of true underlying market value. For market price to equal market value, the market must be informationally efficient and rational expectations must prevail.

Market value is also distinct from fair value in that fair value depends on the parties involved, while market value does not. For example, IVS currently notes market value "requires the assessment of the price that is fair between two specific parties taking into account the respective advantages or disadvantages that each will gain from the transaction. Although market value may meet these criteria, this is not necessarily always the case. Fair value is frequently used when undertaking due diligence in corporate transactions, where particular synergies between the two parties may mean that the price that is fair between them is higher than the price that might be obtainable in the wider market. In other words "special value" may be generated. market value requires this element of "special value" to be disregarded, but it forms part of the assessment of fair value.[2]

Con_Alma;450456 wrote:It sent you over the edge?

Come on now. It's an internet bulletin board that you asked someone to re-visit a topic on...someone that has stated his views were based on his own opinions and that he doesn't work in the field in question while obliging he doesn't claim to know more than an "appraiser" ....and it was a comment by him that "sent you over the edge" after you declared there was a winner and a loser.

I think there's some perspective that needs to be considered here.

What is it that I could offer that might make you feel the opposite of being over the edge? I guess that's a different way of asking why did you ask me to come revisit this topic with you.

Con_Alma;450660 wrote:O.K. I can understand that. Thanks for clarifying. I have never heard "over the edge" used to represent "can't stand debating" before now.

Why then are you debating? Is that why you asked me to participate....to debate?

I honestly wasn't aware of that. I got the impression you wanted me to restate my thoughts on the subject. When you asked me questions I answered and sometimes expanded for clarification.

You know, I will be as honest as I can if you are clear with what you are looking for...honestly.

If you wanted to debate you can just ask. I have asked several time what outcome you were looking for. We can get there pretty quick if you let me know or if it is truly a longer, more detail breakdown of thoughts you are seeking we can keep working on that too. Just give me a direction and I'll do my best.

"Bud" ...is that short for Buddy?

Steel Valley Football;450026 wrote:I'm going to end this once and for all with my next post. Con Alma you either have your terms mixed up or are just making up your own definition. I'll show you why a little later, but right now I have an 18 month old girl and a 3 month old bouncing baby boy that need my attention.



LJ,

That post of yours is very interesting and very important, but it doesn't apply to our discussion of market value as bank liquidation of real estate does not constitute an arms-length market transaction.

I've been talking with other appraisers about banks' asset sheets not matching their worth for at least 10 years when I realized how rampant appraiser and mortgage broker fraud was.

Steel Valley Football;450859 wrote:What about the topic?

Market value is a concept distinct from market price, which is “the price at which one can transact”, while market value is “the true underlying value”. Let's talk about this. Then I'll answer all that other stuff.

Steel Valley Football;450433 wrote:...
I'm also a bit stunned you tried to use LJ's statement as support. Do you not realize that has nothing to do with our conversation? ...

LJ wrote:...See the whole problem is that people are basing too many things of theoretical pricing ...

Con_Alma;450990 wrote:LJ....My own personal definition comes from pure economics 101 and personal experience. That's not however acceptable to Steelvalley because millions of people define it differently.





...or guesses that are called market value.

LJ;450998 wrote:Well you know, in many circumstances I would side with what Steel Valley is saying, but the fact that the very premise of theoretical standards are under such scrutiny right now that many things are left open to interpretation. Growing up the son of a builder of course I think the value of a house is what someone is willing to pay, period. But until everything is straightened out in the housing market, opinions do have some value over definitions.

-Society-;451003 wrote:I grew up the son of a nurse, does that make me an "expert" like you believe your situation does? Period.

-Society-;451003 wrote:I grew up the son of a nurse, does that make me an "expert" like you believe your situation does? Period.

LJ;451007 wrote:also, your stupid ass wants to attack ME, yet, you can't tell me where I am wrong. You're just pissed that you are an absolute moron who's only thrill in life is posting stupid shit on a free internet forum. COOL GUY!!!

LJ;451005 wrote:So you helped day to day operations of the company from the age of 14 to 22? Cool! Yeah, I would think that would give you a pretty damn good base to go on.

-Society-;451009 wrote:Sure did. I actually started at the age of 8. Cool! How's that for a damn good base?

Can you start a list of topics that you believe you are an "expert" on? I get confused sometimes with all of this "knowledge" that you have to share.

-Society-;451009 wrote:Sure did. I actually started at the age of 8.

LJ;451007 wrote:also, your stupid ass wants to attack ME, yet, you can't tell me where I am wrong. You're just pissed that you are an absolute moron who's only thrill in life is posting stupid shit on a free internet forum. COOL GUY!!!

-Society-;451018 wrote:Wrong. My other thrill in life is going around punching puppies. It makes me feel like a "SUPER COOL GUY".

LJ;450998 wrote:Well you know, in many circumstances I would side with what Steel Valley is saying, but the fact that the very premise of theoretical standards are under such scrutiny right now that many things are left open to interpretation. Growing up the son of a builder of course I think the value of a house is what someone is willing to pay, period. But until everything is straightened out in the housing market, opinions do have some value over definitions.

LJ;450917 wrote:Actually it does. They are trying to determine if the definition of "market value" is what an appraiser brings it in as, or if it is what it sells for on the open market. For years "market value" has been determined by appraiser values, but obviously with everything selling under "market value" there seems to be a little flaw in the system dontcha think? What you are missing is that all of your industry terms and standards are top down, not the other way around. If FASAB were to say "ok, the value that banks use for their balance sheets, for loaning money etc is now the sale price not an appraised value" then the whole definition would change. It doesn't matter if it's billy selling a house to steve, or Heartland liquidating a foreclosure.

LJ;450917 wrote:See, I grew up the son of a developer and have dealt with appraisers for years. While they do understand their industry very well (coming up with values for a bank), most seem to have little grasp on the economy as a whole. What is happening is that FASAB, the body who makes these theoretical standards (which is exactly what is being debated here) is threatening the appraisal profession as a whole. If they change the theoretical standard from an appraisers estimate to the actual going price, then the whole definition will change, as will your profession. I am guessing that at some point during the next 20 years, there will be a major push to have real estate valued as an average of open market bids, not based off of sale comps and underlying "value".

Steel Valley Football;451817 wrote:Market value is not determined by appraisers. Market value is determined by the market and REPORTED by appraisers. There's a big difference in those two statements.

What do you mean by everything is selling under market value? Do you mean bank-held properties or homes owned by the general public?






Here's why I disagree that the FASAB's definition of market value is not what Con and I are debating. Market value exists in the market and is determined by the market participants collectively. The definition that you say is under scrutiny pertains to the assets that are bank-held properties that have been foreclosed upon. REO or “real estate owned” assets. Is that correct? That’s what you seem to be saying.

If the FASAB changes how banks account for those REOs then that’s fine, but it doesn’t affect market definition of the other 95% (or whatever the % is) of the houses not held by the bank. That‘s the market we are discussing and that will remain the same no matter what the FASAB does to banks internal books.

Also, even of the banks discontinue the use of appraisers on for their REOs, they certainly can’t and won’t stop using appraisers for purchase loans on sales between homeowners and home buyers. That process will remain the same.