• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

3.6 Crunch Time

JustPlainTired said:
To an extent, yes. We are trying to decide between the two big guns in appraisal software right now (The stalwart and the startup) and so far it has been painful from both sides. As far as report production, our firm is outside the curve. We take advantage of any feature that relies upon programming and optimization. For example, for each appraisal that we produce, we run over 20 worksheets in the background for calculations & data analysis and then link them into the report. We stopped using our software's auto-adjustment feature due to limitations. There is also a lot of limitations that we have seen from the 3.6 providers we have looked at (a third provider fell away quickly). Right now, everything is rudimentary: only manual input or limited automated features, lack of customization, spotty AI, etc. As far as efficiency, the current 3.6 software is a HUGE step backward.

The problem we have come across in 3.6's design (beyond software limitations and complete lack of readability) is the reporting data that is now included in the grid and what is being left out. As mentioned in the prior post, we rely upon numerous sources and calculations for our adjustments and the effective age is a documented and supportable market-based coefficient that we have great confidence in using. It is a precise number that provides flexibility--not a range. Below-grade bedroom/bathroom count is missing. The same can be said for the amenities described in the previous post. No value is to be assigned for a closed porch or a 3-season rm? Unless another category was designated in 3.6 to adjust for these characteristics, how are we to account for the contributory value of these features?

Appraisers have been hammered for the last 5 years regarding their adjustments. We were told they needed to be precise, factual, resourced, documented & reproduceable. And now in the 3.6 summary, a comparable weight is no longer measured as a percentage, it is either "More", "Less", or "Not Weighted". As far as the report we are doing, we expect the page count to be at least 50% larger with far less of the information that was previously included in the General Text Addendum.

And here we are...
Click to expand...
Ever heard of analysis paralysis?
 
JustPlainTired said:
To an extent, yes. We are trying to decide between the two big guns in appraisal software right now (The stalwart and the startup) and so far it has been painful from both sides. As far as report production, our firm is outside the curve. We take advantage of any feature that relies upon programming and optimization. For example, for each appraisal that we produce, we run over 20 worksheets in the background for calculations & data analysis and then link them into the report. We stopped using our software's auto-adjustment feature due to limitations. There is also a lot of limitations that we have seen from the 3.6 providers we have looked at (a third provider fell away quickly). Right now, everything is rudimentary: only manual input or limited automated features, lack of customization, spotty AI, etc. As far as efficiency, the current 3.6 software is a HUGE step backward.

The problem we have come across in 3.6's design (beyond software limitations and complete lack of readability) is the reporting data that is now included in the grid and what is being left out. As mentioned in the prior post, we rely upon numerous sources and calculations for our adjustments and the effective age is a documented and supportable market-based coefficient that we have great confidence in using. It is a precise number that provides flexibility--not a range. Below-grade bedroom/bathroom count is missing. The same can be said for the amenities described in the previous post. No value is to be assigned for a closed porch or a 3-season rm? Unless another category was designated in 3.6 to adjust for these characteristics, how are we to account for the contributory value of these features?

Appraisers have been hammered for the last 5 years regarding their adjustments. We were told they needed to be precise, factual, resourced, documented & reproduceable. And now in the 3.6 summary, a comparable weight is no longer measured as a percentage, it is either "More", "Less", or "Not Weighted". As far as the report we are doing, we expect the page count to be at least 50% larger with far less of the information that was previously included in the General Text Addendum.

And here we are...
Click to expand...
I've got a bunch of integrated worksheets to do my calculations as well. Of course, the 3.6 version of my software doesn't support linked fields with them yet. I tried the workaround that somebody else posted on here which entails doing the actual calculations on a 2.6 version with all the bells and whistles such as data import and linked worksheets still functional and once I'm satisfied with everything simply copying and pasting the adjustments over to the 3.6 version. Amazingly arcane procedure this late in the game for a major software provider, however you can still get one out the door in a reasonable amount of time that way.
 
Mike Ault said:
I've got a bunch of integrated worksheets to do my calculations as well. Of course, the 3.6 version of my software doesn't support linked fields with them yet. I tried the workaround that somebody else posted on here which entails doing the actual calculations on a 2.6 version with all the bells and whistles such as data import and linked worksheets still functional and once I'm satisfied with everything simply copying and pasting the adjustments over to the 3.6 version. Amazingly arcane procedure this late in the game for a major software provider, however you can still get one out the door in a reasonable amount of time that way.
Click to expand...
That's exactly where we are at. We did the report in 2.6 and copy/pasted. Frankly, we wouldn't know how to produce a report without the built-in worksheet and the CSV import. I spoke w/Aivre and they have no intention of adding worksheets. Same for SFREP and Bradford. A la mode has worksheets slated to be included in 3.6 down the road but we're getting very nervous.
 
JustPlainTired said:
That's exactly where we are at. We did the report in 2.6 and copy/pasted. Frankly, we wouldn't know how to produce a report without the built-in worksheet and the CSV import. I spoke w/Aivre and they have no intention of adding worksheets. Same for SFREP and Bradford. A la mode has worksheets slated to be included in 3.6 down the road but we're getting very nervous.
Click to expand...
Yes, those of us who spent the time to maximize our efficiency with integrated worksheets don't even feel like booting up the computer knowing they're not available right now when we need them the most.
 
Airstream said:
I am not a real fan of regression analysis for a host of reasons:
1) If you are in a rural area there just aren't enough data points.
Click to expand...
Just finished one in an area that is still going from rural to suburban, but it is mostly suburban. 1.2 miles north of me on the same street and same neighborhood. I had 3 sales out of 221 total sales that were even remotely similar to subject. Regress that.
 
Dublin ohio said:
Just finished one in an area that is still going from rural to suburban, but it is mostly suburban. 1.2 miles north of me on the same street and same neighborhood. I had 3 sales out of 221 total sales that were even remotely similar to subject. Regress that.
Click to expand...
Are you talking to Bert?
 
JustPlainTired said:
1) We use specific filters in rural areas to get to a homogenous data set (i.e. limiting GLA, site size, bedroom/bathroom count, garage size, no outbuildings, etc.) Same neighborhood. Same market. We also do regional analysis based upon the population base.
2) In statistical disciplines 30 is the standard number for a data set. We usually run between 30-50 comps with all the corresponding data points and then scrub the data. We have clean data with limited variances.
3) We use the 50/50 method and like any other appraiser when developing effective age, we rely upon publicly available information. Comps with no interior photos are thrown out. We review the photos, take in account the actual age, scan the MLS for info on construction materials, interior & exterior condition, recent improvements, actual age, etc. We start with our base number and then adjust accordingly and specifically to some of the scenarios you suggested.

My question to you is when you are reviewing comparables for effective age what sources do you use? How do you know how many outlets are in each room? Do you know all of the window sizes for each sales comparable? Where do you get the information for basement height for each comparable? How do you know when the wiring was done? All that info may be available in your MLS but not ours (9 different MLSs across 4 platforms). It appears that your method is far superior, please enlighten.
Click to expand...

AND THAT IS MY POINT!!! Unless you know the factors that I just described, you have no idea how to determine effective age with any degree of accuracy!!! Otherwise it is glorified guess work. I don’t make effective age adjustments. The older the house gets the more difficult it becomes. I am glad they got rid of the effective age on the new form. The only place you find it is on the cost approach. And I think there is a reason they got rid of it. Too subjective. The thing you fail to understand is that not everything can be quantified.

Is your statistical analysis going to make million dollar site adjustments? Too many different data sets. And you would never get 10 to 20 data sets on a rural property. Here’s my point, I just did an appraisal in a small town of about 3200 people. I had a total of 35 total sales in the area with wildly different variables. I had really only 5 sales to choose from. Yep, you could take those 35 sales and run some type of regression analysis, but it wouldn’t be any more accurate than an experienced appraiser doing market sensitivity analysis in the grid.

About 10 years ago I was doing a rural property in a highly complex part of Door County, WI. I had only four good sales. And when I put one of those sales into the grid it made zero sense. When I made the adjustments to the sales that comp came in 50,000 less than all the other sales. I was puzzled. The pictures looked like it was in good condition, but was I missing something. I called up the listing agent and asked him what is the deal with this property and told him my problem. He said the reason the home didn’t sell for more was because the windows were about shot. This home was not that old in years but it had bad windows. Couldn’t see that in the MLS. They looked fine. But that meant I had to give a condition adjustment. So based upon your approach to giving effective age and relying on MLS photos you would have completely missed that variable when you input that property into your data set.

Last year I did an appraisal on a sale and the pictures made it look like it was in good condition. But when I got there and actually looked at the house it was no way near good condition. In fact it was not even a decent C4! I had pre-comped it to take photos of the sales in the area. I had to change 2 of my 4 comps. And besides that the GLA in the MLS was 500’ off.

I have found that when agents use professional photographers those photos hide an awful lot of issues.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top