Appraisal Bias

[George Hatch]

They arelady do offer a range, the adjusted range of the slaesc comps.

But clearly, any appraiser now, cand do clarify that as a range and then provide the point value.

These appraisers are arguing against providing a point value !!

What they're arguing is that the lenders should ask for the range instead of the point. That's not actually an argument against providing the point.

 

[George Hatch]

You keep making side arguments instead of addressing what these apparisers want
A) they do not believe in a point value and feel the appraser should only provide a range

AFAICT they're not saying anything about violating the user requirements, or to provide a range instead of a point when the latter is required. That appears to be a strawman of your own construction.

B) some of them say any point value in the range is not better or worse than the other wrt support

Which is actually a matter of fact. It is a fact that the market is imperfect and that otherwise similar properties actually do sell at slightly different prices. Do you deny that fact?

Everything else being equal, if it's even possible for the same property to result in different prices then that proves the concept. And it disproves the denial of that concept.

 

[CGinMN]

I disagree that the adjusted range of the sale comps is an opinion of value. You still need a reconciliation, which might account for some unquantified differences and exclude giving weight to certain comps altogether.

 

[George Hatch]

^^^^ Wut he said.

BTW, just because there is a range of opinions on the matter (see what I did there?) doesn't mean anyone is criticizing you for what you're doing in your reports. You're the only one making accusations here.

 

[J Grant]

What they're arguing is that the lenders should ask for the range instead of the point. That's not actually an argument against providing the point.

arguing to use a range instead of the point IS an argument against providing the point!!

Perhaps take a break from picking on me and read what they actually have been saying.

 

[J Grant]

AFAICT they're not saying anything about violating the user requirements, or to provide a range instead of a point when the latter is required. That appears to be a strawman of your own construction.



Which is actually a matter of fact. It is a fact that the market is imperfect and that otherwise similar properties actually do sell at slightly different prices. Do you deny that fact?

Everything else being equal, if it's even possible for the same property to result in different prices then that proves the concept. And it disproves the denial of that concept.

I don't; deny the fact, that a property can sell for slightly different prices, but what does it have to do with anything ??

these appraisers are arguing against an appraiser providing a point value. Why do you refuse to address it ?

You keep picking on me instead and imagine I believe things that are not true of me, such as there can only be one value or one price for a property.

 

[CGinMN]

An appraiser providing a range is like saying to the client, "$300,000 and $310,000 is equally credible, so rather than just assuming I will put down the highest number, or the middle, but definitely not the lowest, how about you pick the number that fits your risk profile and leave me out of it? Thanks."

This is different than an AVM providing a range. Why? Because AVMs pick point values too! And yet, there are still major differences in the usefulness of an AVM and appraisal.

 

[glenn walker]

arguing to use a range instead of the point IS an argument against providing the point!!

Perhaps take a break from picking on me and read what they actually have been saying.

JG it seems in the last week or so you have told almost everyone on here they should not even be an-appraiser . Why hold out and let George off the Hook , maybe he should be included in your weekly list of the unfit and non-redeemable LO

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

that a property can sell for slightly different prices, but what does it have to do with anything ??

everything?

these appraisers are arguing against an appraiser providing a point value.

No they are not. George said it right. The fact is a range of value is as precise as the reality is, and a point value is simply a point that we cannot prove to be exact. Nothing more. I have far more confidence that the "true" (but unknowable) value is better captured by a range than by a single point. And once you have reduced a range to the minimum by adjustments then it becomes your JUDGMENT that determines that final point value. But the "true value" is far more likely to be captured by the RANGE than it will be by a POINT VALUE. Your estimate is the point value in the end, but again it is not determined by your adjustments (unless magically all your adjustments end up being exactly the same) but that final coup de grace is your expression of the final number you believe to be the best. (But as you acknowledged earlier, someone else might conclude a different one based upon their own experience and judgment.)

 

[Zoe]

AFAICT they're not saying anything about violating the user requirements, or to provide a range instead of a point when the latter is required. That appears to be a strawman of your own construction.



Which is actually a matter of fact. It is a fact that the market is imperfect and that otherwise similar properties actually do sell at slightly different prices. Do you deny that fact?

Everything else being equal, if it's even possible for the same property to result in different prices then that proves the concept. And it disproves the denial of that concept.

Okay, and have users ever been known to commit mortgage fraud?

Back to earth Mr. George.