Hybrid Appraisals

[Joe Flacco]

Order a Muffler or Catalytic Converter free delivery in your area. Lmao )

Such a loser. Got nothing better to do in retirement than troll appraisers. So pathetic. lol

 

[djd09]

there are definitely reporting requirements for ansi...don't drink the kool aid

come on hot shot AQB chair...tell me how ansi does not have reporting requirements

 

[RCA]

Regardless of what the clanker says, the statement WRT the onsite pics and walk through and inventory stands

The question isn't "what does the paperwork resemble upon completion?"

The real question in this discussion is:

What did the appraiser actually do​

What didn't the appraiser actually do​

​

​

You are confused. Sure, the issue is what the appraiser did or didn't do. But one of the things the appraiser has to do is sign a statement that the final value conclusion is justified.

The appraiser HAS TO DECIDE if the data he has been handed is correct or not. That is what the APPRAISER HAS TO DO.

So, if you KNOW the inspector is competent and you TRUST the inspector to provide accurate data and observations, that is fine - but YOU take responsibility for that decision. If it turns out that the data was not correct, that's on you.

Avoid getting too caught up in regulations. You are the appraiser; there is an inherent ethical responsibility to provide a value opinion that is as accurate as possible. To this end, I believe that appraisers should provide a low and high value, or range, for their value in addition to a point value, to communicate their certainty/uncertainty in the value conclusion.

 

[Joe Flacco]

The appraiser doesn't TRUST that the information provided by the inspector is accurate. The appraiser uses the information provided by the inspector to make decisions. It's not the inspector makes the decisions.

 

[TC]

Anything that opened the door to Uber drivers performing appraisal services is going to be looked back on as a mistake.

I'd like to see some evidence of Uber drivers performing interior inspections.

 

[Joe Flacco]

Inspector information is like information on listings. Still requires some verification and thought. It's like when an agent says "renovated kitchen" and you look at the listing history and see that it's the same kitchen from the last two listings in 2018 and 2005 but has new appliances and countertops.

It's just extra information to consider.

 

[George Hatch]

You are confused. Sure, the issue is what the appraiser did or didn't do. But one of the things the appraiser has to do is sign a statement that the final value conclusion is justified.

The appraiser HAS TO DECIDE if the data he has been handed is correct or not. That is what the APPRAISER HAS TO DO.

So, if you KNOW the inspector is competent and you TRUST the inspector to provide accurate data and observations, that is fine - but YOU take responsibility for that decision. If it turns out that the data was not correct, that's on you.

Avoid getting too caught up in regulations. You are the appraiser; there is an inherent ethical responsibility to provide a value opinion that is as accurate as possible. To this end, I believe that appraisers should provide a low and high value, or range, for their value in addition to a point value, to communicate their certainty/uncertainty in the value conclusion.

That's mostly true except that we add a qualifier to that "knowledge". And that qualifier is both necessary for what we do and it detracts from the idea that we're responsible for the errors other people make. We do not assert an unqualified knowledge about the accuracy of the data. Lucky for us, too; because we run into inaccurate data about the subject and comps on a regular basis. I run into it on a weekly basis as I'm sure is the case with most appraisers.


That's one reason the GSE example looks like this




Which once again circles back to the question of what the appraiser actually did in their assignment (I believed the info was correct so I used it in my analysis).

 

[George Hatch]

Inspector information is like information on listings. Still requires some verification and thought. It's like when an agent says "renovated kitchen" and you look at the listing history and see that it's the same kitchen from the last two listings in 2018 and 2005 but has new appliances and countertops.

It's just extra information to consider.

Another example is when performing an appraisal review. In lieu of information or obvious indications to the contrary we normally believe the accuracy of the facts presented. If we disagree about those facts we have to support our reason for disagreement; we can't just arbitrarily call the appraiser a liar on a hunch or whim.

Either way, and as RCA elaborated, the decision to accept that info is on the reviewer - was their decision to agree with the info based on a reasonable assumption or not? In that case, one of the things the reviewer did was they decided to trust the appraiser's info. That's what is on the reviewer.

If JohnDoe#1 Can Collector has a reputation for being unreliable or inaccurate that might give us a reason to not trust his report. But that "have a reason" is the point.

 

[Joe Flacco]

Another example is when performing an appraisal review. In lieu of information or obvious indications to the contrary we normally believe the accuracy of the facts presented. If we disagree about those facts we have to support our reason for disagreement; we can't just arbitrarily call the appraiser a liar on a hunch or whim.

If JohnDoe#1 Can Collector has a reputation for being unreliable or inaccurate that might give us a reason to not trust his report. But that "have a reason" is the point.

I don't think we would see John the Can Collectors work enough to know their reputation. The reason not to trust wouldn't be based on who the inspector is. It would be based on the reputation of the inspection report in general.

 

[Joe Flacco]

For example, my need to not trust MLS data as reported is based on the reputation of the MLS data. It is not based on the reputation of a specific agent that puts in the data.