It took me a while to understand that what Digger is advocating is correct; and correct on a USPAP basis.
As long as we appraisers meet the minimum USPAP requirements (which includes assignment conditions,applying the correct methodologies, and meeting whatever reporting standards given the intended use and user) then our appraisals will be credible and worthy of belief, and meet the client's requirements and expectations. If we do all of this, then (the favorite phrase of many...)
public trust in the appraisal process is maintained.
This is why I don't hold up my personal standard as some "gold" standard. It isn't; it is only my personal standard.
This is why I also do not work for clients who only want the minimum; because I'm just not comfortable competing in that space. I've tried to do the minimum, and I continually fall long on it.
High-volume lenders, for simple properties, only require the minimum. There are a lot of properties that fall into that bucket that are simple, the data is abundant, and the analysis is not difficult; all tied into a risk-profile for the loan which has identified what type of (if any) collateral valuation is necessary.
This thread is a prime example of that. The original assignment was for a 2055 drive-by. There is absolutely no expectation on the client's part, nor of a competent peer, for the appraiser to walk-through the subject property on such an assignment. There is the expectation that if there is not sufficient information available to properly identify the physical characteristics of the subject, then the assignment will be rejected and a recommendation for a interior/exterior inspection will be made. But, that isn't the case with the OP's scenario. Presumably, there was enough data available to meet the 2055 minimum subject-property identification requirements to proceed.
The OP goes out to the subject, and the owner of the property is there and invites him/her in. If s/he goes in, that exceeds the minimum requirements. Again, I would say that there is no expectation for the OP to go in even if invited to do so. Therefore, entering and walking through the house... to what ever degree... is more than what is required or expected for this assignment. Once the appraiser does it, then they have to deal with the outcomes of that decision (which, IMO, are always positive rather than negative).
I'd go in if invited, unless the owner looked like an axe-murder. I'd exceed the SOW and provide more than the minimum. That's me, but it isn't required. And, unless I found something there that was contrary to what I thought I knew, it isn't going to matter to the client, the borrower, or the regulators. It is only going to matter to me.
- If I found out that the kitchen was totally remodeled that will factor into my valuation and likely result in a higher value. However, it is doubtful that would matter materially to the larger loan transaction; it only mattered to the appraisal. I take on no additional risk doing this, but I do take on an extra 10-20 minutes (total) for the assignment. I'd be willing to do this and I'm not going to get any "thanks" for doing so. But it would matter to me.
- If I found out that the kitchen was gutted that will factor into my valuation and likely result in a "stop the process" decision by my client. In this case, it would matter materially to the larger loan transaction. However, while I exceeded what I needed to do, had I not done that, I would have not taken on any additional liability and I would have completed the assignment as per the requirements in a manner that is credible and maintains the public trust in the system. The fact that the loan transaction only required a drive-by and that I discovered a problem that would not otherwise be discovered (or expected to be discovered) doesn't make me a hero and won't move the needle on the next transaction that qualifies for a 2055. Nonetheless, I'd rather discover this if I had the opportunity (exceed the minimum requirements) with the consequence that it may potentially stop the loan from going through... not because that loan is going to break the safety and soundness of the lending industry, but because of my own personal standard of having the opportunity to confirm some things in excess of what the minimum requires for this type of scenario. That extra confirmation costs me 5 minutes in the field. I have no problem taking on that additional task without being directly compensated for it. That's me.
Those who only do the minimum requirements are not short-cutters. By definition, the minimum will result in a credible appraisal and appraisal process.
There are clients who only require the minimum. Typically, high-volume clients where the properties are simple and non-complex. They won't pay for more on simple properties because (a) they don't have to and (b) the minimum meets the credibility and regulatory standards. But you give a high-volume client an atypical property, and they'll expect more than the 3-comps and you are out minimum.
There are clients who will seek out appraisers who do more than the minimum; and some of these clients are lenders. Those are the clients I want to gravitate to because their expectations are in-line with my expectations.
