Blind Squirrel and Acorns

[George Hatch]

I'm glad that you "get" the fact that not all assignments are created equal or require what the GSEs require. Now all we need to do is move you away from using those as a benchmark for acceptable appraisal practice.

If I told you I could do an SR3-compliant appraisal review on a URAR in 10 minutes and that if I had written my boilerplate up in advance to accommodate such assignments that you would be incapable and unable to identify a violation of SR3, would you believe that?

No, it would not look like a Fannie Form 2000; and thank gawd for that.

 

[J Grant]

?? I would believe anything can be prepared in 10 minutes! I could microwave a report if I wanted to (use all boiler plate etc) So okay you can do a standard 3 complaint review in 10 minutes on some format...but still, what is there in the intended use that relives you as appraiser of responsibility for credible and supported assignment results that are not misleading?

I understand not all assignments are created equal and some can be completed faster due to client not needing certain detail or even an inspection, but the fact remains that no matter how brief the format, there still needs to be in work file research and a summary of what led to the assignment results.

Again, I am not referring to format, which can be delivered quickly, but what intended uses are there of appraisals that are so casual or superficial that they allow for poor appraisal results, regardless of how brief or lengthy the format or level of narrative/lack thereof?

 

[George Hatch]

If my SOW was limited to checking the math and the public record info and/or MLS listings for the subject and comps how hard or difficult or time consuming would it be for me to return credible results on that? I wouldn't need to be geographically competent to do that nor would I need to make any phone calls or send out any emails.


SR3 just isn't that comprehensive a standard to meet.

 

[CANative]

If my SOW was limited to checking the math and the public record info and/or MLS listings for the subject and comps how hard or difficult or time consuming would it be for me to return credible results on that? I wouldn't need to be geographically competent to do that nor would I need to make any phone calls or send out any emails.


SR3 just isn't that comprehensive a standard to meet.

You could probably do an SR3 on a xerox copy of the original using colored pencils.

 

[J Grant]

If my SOW was limited to checking the math and the public record info and/or MLS listings for the subject and comps how hard or difficult or time consuming would it be for me to return credible results on that? I wouldn't need to be geographically competent to do that nor would I need to make any phone calls or send out any emails.


SR3 just isn't that comprehensive a standard to meet.

Per above, why would you be doing such a limited SOW , aka checking math or public record info only, as an appraiser? What idiot assignment is that? Why can't a client hire someone else to do that? What was the assignment that led to this SOW?

Yes, if a client gave me an assignment to only check the public records or MLS I could do that quickly , but would that not be a consulting assignment as opposed to an appraisal?(no value developed or other opinions developed)

NOBODY has answered my question!

Question: USPAP says SOW/ results should be meaningful for intended users/intended use....what are some intended uses for an appraisal, that are so superficial or casual as to allow an appraiser insufficient research or to deliver poor/not credible assignment results?

The question is not about how long or short an assignment takes.

So, addressing time, briefer formats could save time and imo, lender staff could provide census and flood and other drone info and attach it to an appraisal report.

 

[J Grant]

You could probably do an SR3 on a xerox copy of the original using colored pencils.

It's not the format, it's the research ( assuming it's an assignment that involves research). An appraiser can deliver a one sentence oral summation or opinion of value, or write it on a napkin, assuming the research and analysis was done and is credible and market supported and in a workfile.

What intended appraisal uses are out there that require no research or cursory research? I'd like to sign up for that!

 

[George Hatch]

Let me put it this way, lenders and AMCs wouldn't be employing appraisers to review - at the superficial level - 20 and 30 reports a day unless they considered that SOW to yield a usable result. The reports that don't pass that triage get kicked up to another reviewer who proceeds with the more comprehensive SOW.

That you might have never seen one doesn't mean they don't exist.

Once I met a supervisory reviewer at one of the big AMCs who said he was doing 70-80/day. Believe it or not.

Not all reviews include developing an agreement or disagreement with the value conclusion.

 

[J Grant]

You answered the question in terms of review, not in terms of appraisal.(!) (since the OP concern is about poor quality appraisals)

So, I will address what you answered with these std 3 "reviews"

I undersrtand your point in stating that AMC's and lenders wouldn't be employing appraisers to reiew...at the superficial level, 20 and 30 reports a day unless THEY considerd that SOW to yield a useabler result. However, what is the user's motives to consider the result and SOW "useable"?? Profit? Meeting the bare minimum standard of the appearance of compliance with mandate to revie reports?

I would assume so. If they were REALLY interested in addressing the credibility/quality of the reports, they would not insist on such high volume quickie reviews. I would assume there are some lenders /AMC's with higher standards that allow for more time and comprehensive reviews btw (have seen it, exists).

Yeah, I believe a supervisoiry reviewer at a big AMC who said he was doing 70-80 a day. So what? They were probably trash, a scan read and a checklist. Sounds about right for a "big AMC". If it were the AMC's personal money at risk on the loans, one would imagine it would be different.

The intended users are greedy profit driven companies with no skin in the game whose goal is to maximize profit.. The intended use is to give appearance of compliance with the mandate to review reports .

(because real compliance would mean using local experienced appraisers and allowing them adequate time, or a more comprehensive review,) I suppose then, that technically, this intended use and these intended users are allowing meaningless SOW /shoddy results , but since it suits the needs of intended users, it satisfies USPAP?.

Imo, if that is what USPAP has accomplished, that part should be scrapped.

Ethics question:

If the intended user is a for profit AMC or lender who is pushing for volume and is doing the most cursory of reviews, what is the intended use and user? Is the specific low rent client the intended user? Or is the intended user the lending market of secondary backers who will actually be investing in the loans and relying on the appraisals? Is the intended use to satisfy these clients who want 20-30 reviews a day done, or is the intended use to produce review results that are relevant enough to be reliable, even given the short format of review form ?

 

[timd354]

What would an intended use be that allows for poor assignment results? I get that there are drive bys, or desktop products etc, and to a degree the level of research or narrative can be less extensive and some products don't involve an inspection or sketch...but that is format.....what intended uses of an appraisal are so casual or superficial that it relives appraiser of responsibility? I'd love to work on those assignments!

Were did I ever say anything about intended users needing or wanting poor assignment results or relieving the appraiser of "responsibility"? The fact is that some intended uses do not require an SOW that is as extensive as other intended uses in order for the assignment results to be meaningful or credible. Your inane post proves my earlier point about some appraisers simply do not understand that whether the SOW is adequate and the assignment results are meaningful is measured in the context of the intended use.

You are obviously one of those appraisers

 

[timd354]

NOBODY has answered my question!

Question: USPAP says SOW/ results should be meaningful for intended users/intended use....what are some intended uses for an appraisal, that are so superficial or casual as to allow an appraiser insufficient research or to deliver poor/not credible assignment results?

The fact that you ask this question in such a manner shows that you do not have even a cursory understanding of the USPAP SOW rule and your ignorance does not appear to be curable. Thank you for so clearly proving the point I made in post 49.