Appraisers Don't Understand

[alebrewer]

That's why appraisers who prioritize their service levels are rewarded and those that are difficult to work with (even if their reports are amazing quality) are punished

I personally do not think those attributes need be mutually exclusive. I believe you can provide good SLA's AND provide well supported appraisals. I also believe you can be difficult to work with and produce trash.

 

[George Hatch]

It would depend on how you define 'risk'. If you define risk as the potential loss in value from a flawed appraisal - both pose equal risk IMO.

What you're really asking is: Which appraiser is immoral and which appraiser is ignorant. And, from a judgmental perspective, most would see the first appraiser as immoral and the second as ignorant. And again, most would be willing to give the ignorant appraiser a second chance and not the first.

But to your first question: assuming the user knew the first appraiser was immoral and the 2nd ignorant - the logical person would not be confident using either report.

I posed the question as an either-or.

Have you seen a lot of SFR appraisals where the appraiser literally didn't know how to come to a reasonable conclusion? I haven't. I've seen a lot of appraisals where the individual didn't work to their competency but that's something different.

 

[TerryRohrer]

So in a closed system, where essentially no appraisals are reviewed for more than clerical errors (there are almost no competent appraisers within the VA, and even fewer were ever trained or licensed), how are problems of competence and/or veracity being discovered in order to choose between the two possibilities being discussed?

 

[George Hatch]

The appraiser I shared office space with retired 9 years ago, but prior to he was doing reviews for VA for several years. Maybe the situation now is different but back then he was seeing some "sloppy and lazy" but nothing along the lines of "dishonest".

IIRC

 

[alebrewer]

I posed the question as an either-or.

Have you seen a lot of SFR appraisals where the appraiser literally didn't know how to come to a reasonable conclusion? I haven't. I've seen a lot of appraisals where the individual didn't work to their competency but that's something different.

I'm not quite sure what answer you're trying to elicit from me? Do I think ignorant appraisers are better people than dishonest appraisers? Of course. I'd say that about any profession, though. I'd say that about people in general. Not sure how that relates to the discussion of quality? Quality is amoral - it attaches no morality to whether the poorly supported appraisal is the result of ignorance or dishonesty.

 

[Joe Flacco]

Everybody commenting in here thinks they do quality work.

 

[alebrewer]

I think that's a quality that is integral to being an appraiser - the belief that our opinions and conclusions are worthy of belief.

 

[George Hatch]

Everybody commenting in here thinks they do quality work.

I have never met an appraiser who didn't think their work was just as good as anyone else's. That includes all the donkeys.

As for how much quality is sufficient to purpose, that judgement is made by the users. What they think is/isn't sufficient for their usage. WE get wound up about adjustment factors and summarizing the analysis and so on. But WRT the lenders only some of them care that much about the details; others don't.

 

[TerryRohrer]

Given the certifications included in every 1004, and most other forms and report types, it is splitting hairs to distinguish between incompetent and dishonest. In the end, the incompetent appraiser is dishonest, as well, upon signing an inadequate report.

 

[Non Sequitur]

So in a closed system, where essentially no appraisals are reviewed for more than clerical errors (there are almost no competent appraisers within the VA, and even fewer were ever trained or licensed), how are problems of competence and/or veracity being discovered in order to choose between the two possibilities being discussed?

Valid question and concern. Ultimately the burden and consequences should fall on the user of the reports, not the system we have now where users of our services have effectively offloaded that on state boards.