Verifying Sales

[residentialguy]

So the written words on the listings sheets, when verified with assessor data, registry of deeds, public records, etc. are data sources. But the verbal conversation with the same agent who wrote the words is verification. Got it!!!!

Kind of like when you are sitting at a red turn light and it's been clear and you can see for miles, yet you have to wait. Doesn't make sense. But if you run it, you'll still get busted if a cop sees it.

 

[ucbruin]

If you say so.
The judge apparently disagrees with you. And he isn't the first (judge) to find in my favor, with one of the reasons being the level of detail and (...dare I say it...) verification.
Or, perhaps each time I've been on a witness stand, I've been fortunate and faced a "bad" attorney, and they never thought to press your point?

It seems like some (and you) are going to great lengths to try to discount the added quality to the overall report that can be obtained by speaking with market participants and parties to the transactions.

I stated the following in post #147:


No one has refuted it (I wouldn't expect anyone to... but you never know!).

If you don't feel the need to interview market participants, then don't (or, interview them when you do feel the need).

I'll continue to follow my process. It works very well for me.
I'll let you know if it doesn't work well if I ever have to face a "good" attorney.

Believe it or not, I'm happy for you that your side prevailed and that your report could have been the tipping point in the case. And, I also believe that you prevailed because you provided an overall superior detailed report than the opposing side. I really believe this.

It's also my belief that it was your detailed report in its entirety that tipped the scales in your favor and not the fact that you called the "participants". I'm sure you would have prevailed without that testimony. Congrats!!!!!

 

[residentialguy]

I know that no one is perfect, but I'm just trying to see if you are consistent. And so far there is consistency except where logic comes in.

You're so far off base here. Denis is one of the most respected appraisers on this forum...one who we all have learned from. That slam was completely uncalled for. Congratulations, you've just confirmed you're an aspiring troll. Maybe you could post one of your reports and Denis could post one of his and see who has the due diligence and logic in conveying a supportive opinion. I know who my money's on...and I'm quite sure that it's the same for everyone else that's has been reading your skippy posts.

 

[ucbruin]

Kind of like when you are sitting at a red turn light and it's been clear and you can see for miles, yet you have to wait. Doesn't make sense. But if you run it, you'll still get busted if a cop sees it.

Good morning ResGuy,

I'm glad you're still talking to me.

 

[ucbruin]

You're so far off base here. Denis is one of the most respected appraisers on this forum...one who we all have learned from. That slam was completely uncalled for. Congratulations, you've just confirmed you're an aspiring troll. Maybe you could post one of your reports and Denis could post one of his and see who has the due diligence and logic in conveying a supportive opinion. I know who my money's on...and I'm quite sure that it's the same for everyone else that's has been reading your skippy posts.

Wow, I posted my previous response to you before your's came through. Let's get this out of the way, I'll be the 1st to acknowledge that the quality of my reports would fall short when compared to the reports written by any and all appraisers who read this forum. So I'm not trying to disparage a person's appraisal skills and/or ethics. I'm not judging or trying to change the way anyone appraises.

And really, are YOU, of all people, going to chastise me for my "logic" comment? I accept your comments directed at me as non-lethal tweaks and minor insults. Nothing for me to get huffy about, at least not real huffy. :laugh:

If, at times I believe that I've noticed some inconsistency on either appraisal process or logic, I may question it.

And I do apologize to Denis for my logic comment. It wasn't meant to be a "slam". I'm truly sorry to have offended.

 

[residentialguy]

Cool...I'm tired, too. Did a all nighter last night. Sorry for jumping on you like that.

Word of advice...open your mind up, sit back and learn from these guys/gals on this forum. I've learned more from them than all my 18 years of CE classes combined.

Going to bed.

 

[valuer guy]

Hire better appraisers.

 

[DMZwerg]

From the above quote its apparent to me that we have been talking apples to oranges. My responses have been geared towards tract cookie cutter properties located in cookie cutter neighborhoods with cookie cutter sales prices and sales comps. And it now appears that you have geared your responses towards complex properties. I would venture to say that most residential refi appraisals are for cookie cutters. Come on, get over your bad self.

Excuse me?
Just as I gave an example does NOT mean I can not comprehend other points of view, something you should have noticed given I also stated I used to work with an appraiser that did 10-15 per week average (cookie-cutters, stacking inspections, etc, all before the bust).

Here is one thing you have not mentioned in your scenario ... expenses. Given $0.55/mile if you have 2x-3x the number of inspections you may well have up to double the mileage per week. If two appraisers make the same $/week the one with lower expenses should have a higher net.

Just saying.

 

[DMZwerg]

If I understand correctly the steps you take in your appraisal process: before you inspect the subject property you run sales data and prior to inspecting the subject you've pre-selected "X" number of sales to photograph.

Hey, if you want to go photograph every sale in MLS for every assignment go for it, personally I think expenses can be better kept lower in other ways.

Here's what I don't understand:If information found on MLS, public records, assessor field cards, is not to be trusted for the comps, why do you trust them for the subject before you inspect it?

If you don't understand statistics and probability then I likely can not explain the logic to you. As for what can or can not be trusted, you can trust X so far, but VERIFICATION is another thing, and VERIFICATION is also required.
Best quote I can think of is from "The Golden Voyage of Sinbad" where a character said "Trust in Allah ... but tie up your camel!"

Let us suppose that GLA listed in MLS is either pulled directly from assessor records or some other source. Now let us suppose every GLA in MLS is off by up to 25% and either high or low (possibly random for each case). To estimate GLA prior to exterior inspection would likely require in depth analysis typing in room sizes and estimating hallways, bathroom, closet & other areas not in MLS. You could type in this data for every property in MLS or you could utilize probability to narrow things down a bit. Since the difference is up to 25% if you select properties within 30% of subject size you have a group of potential comps to consider. Now then, there are 3 methods to try to verify the size ... driving the comp and looking at the exterior (my mentor can usually estimate quite well from exterior), using statistical analysis (mentioned above), or calling the agent. If driving a comp takes < 5 minutes per, data analysis 10 min per, and calling an agent up to 15 min per then obviously the fastest method is exterior inspection (which often also yields other potentially comparable or divergent items) and you can check 3 properties that way compared to calling agents (who also could be wrong).

But hey, if you want to waste your time go for it!

I would have thought your process would have been to accept the assign and look up data for the subject property and only for the subject property. Then after you've completed the inspection, you go back to the office and run sales data. This way you have verified the subject's correct physical characteristics and you can now run your data search using the verified data to compare to.

... and thus ALWAYS have to take TWO trips, one for subject & one for comps. So even if you have to inspect 3x as many properties in the field you often still gain time.

In your scenario, you do as most form fillers do, you select possible comps before even inspecting the subject property. And then you call agents to "verify"/justify your pre-inspection sales data. Inconsistencies in responses make me question their validity.

I sense a reason break in there (aka, each sentence does not logically follow the one before it ... much like the "proof" that Alexander the Great has an infinite number of arms). You seem to be indicating an assumption that verification is used to massage non-comparable properties into "comps". No, you analyze the data, discover inconsistencies, and as ling as you are verifying sales anyhow try to discover why the apparent inconsistencies when making the verification calls. I mean, why verifiy terms of sale on a 300sf house on a city lot when your subject is a 3000sf house on 5 acres? Or why verify an REO/foreclosure that sold for less than half the price of non-reos if non-reos exist? (unless said has additional factors of importance, such as exact model match located next door when nothing else is either)

And I'm talking cookie cutter properties not the complex properties that you work on. For complex properties, I would think pre-inspection sales selection would be of little to no value to someone with your appraisal beliefs.

Sometimes that can be so (especially if there is NO data on which to base a search, such as a new built with nothing in assessment card and prior sale was for vacant land) but you either learn how to punt or get clipped way too often.



So, why is doing verification calls too early in the process likely a bad idea?
Because then you are making way more calls than necessary, taking up more time than necessary, and doing so with less data on what you need to verify than if you waited until the proper time to make the calls.

If you do not know the appropriate time then either you need to figure it out (aka, "learn") or look forward to your first encounter with the state board.

 

[DMZwerg]

I think we may have reached a point of common agreement. Yes, trust but verify is a necessary step. I hope every appraiser verifies.

There are several sources one can employ to verify. It's not just with agents. Agents are a good source but not the end all to be all.

They currently are for GSE appraisals ... well, them, the lender & the buyer/seller.