The analogy is faulty because in this scenario the person preparing the matched pairs is not an untrained, aggrieved, and biased borrower who has interest in the assignment results.
Markets are often nuanced, complex, contradictory, and unpredictable. Your hypothetical is not, and is only presented for your self satisfaction.
Here’s a counter hypothetical to illustrate my point: After a reconsideration of value a lender, an appraiser, and a review appraiser all agree that an appraisal report is credible, but a borrower still questions the appraisal’s credibility. Unsatisfied and frustrated, the borrower involves an appraisal forum in the dispute. None of the participants in the discussion are informed enough to form a credible opinion, so the borrower is still unsatisfied.
Should the borrower involve state regulators in their dispute, which, regardless of the legitimacy of the complaint would admittedly be a real pain for the appraisers?
or
Should the borrower heed their own wise words: I am not owed any support for adjustments if the lender deems it so.
Obviously the hypothetical counter example is not realistic, that is the definition of
hypothetical (wow you must have been every professor's joy in classes). Thank you for pointing that out; in other news, water is wet.
The scenario is not presented for my self satisfaction, that would be quite sad if I derived any out of this lol. It's a rhetorical question intended to illustrate a point as anyone with two brain cells knows the answer. The point is if the shoe were on the other foot (i.e., all market indications show stable while the appraiser claims increasing), nobody (appraiser or not) would find the appraisal to be credible. If the appraiser is going to deviate from the market indications, they had better be able to prove it to arrive at a higher value. They are putting a stake in the ground saying a +20% adjustment gets you to the FMV, going against the trend in observable data.
Should the claim for a 0% market conditions adjustment be any different? If they admittedly say prices are increasing, but still put a stake in the ground at 0% against the observable data, why is that not treated the same as the hypothetical example? 0% or 20%, it's still a stake.
In general, I seem to have struck a nerve with you by asking a question that others on this forum seem to view as legitimate. I'm not sure why you continue to characterize me as an uniformed, angry idiot who is here to whine before I attempt to exact my revenge on an innocent appraiser who won't be able to feed their kids. I don't blame you, you may have experience with those kinds of folks and illegitimate questions in the past and maybe are projecting that onto me. I have acknowledged my bias in the second sentence of this entire thread and have stated repeatedly that I benefitted financially from the lower appraisal. I'm obviously not going to change your characterization of me at this point, but feel free to carry on.
All of your responses in this thread seem to focus on the
who and never the
what. I wasn't aware that not having an appraisal license meant that you aren't qualified to ask questions, but that's exactly the attitude the appraisers I have dealt with have shown. So in that sense, I appreciate you continuing to dismiss anything I have to say. That unfortunately very much represents my real life experience with residential appraisers thus far and your behavior is fairly indicative of what I can expect to face in the future should this proceed to a complaint. In the meantime, perhaps I should go study the esoteric subject of paired sales, so that someday I may be able to be trained to conduct such a rigorous analysis.
I would give OP more benefit of the doubt if they weren't trying to convince us that their sole motivation was consumer protection. Basically I think they came here because they have a hard time hearing "no" and to justify their
vendetta. They want us to believe they're some kind of Robin Hood, but I'm more convinced they're Sollozzo.
@George Hatch you may be right that from a USPAP or state regulatory perspective this deserves further hearing and the appraiser needs to clean up their act. However, setting the reasonableness of this argument aside... In addition to the ethical dilemma, there is a moral one. As OP pointed out, even an illegitimate complaint would be a real pain for the appraisers in question. I for one maintain the threshold for involving outside regulators requires more than disputing a single adjustment. Regulators should not be Tier 2 review boards. By all means if the appraisal is intentionally misleading, send it to the state. If you disagree with an adjustment, or feel the appraiser didn't appropriately analyze the market, it stops at an ROV.
The irony is that there are limited government types who believe that the free market (appraiser, UW, reviewer, ROV process) can't possibly sort whether a single adjustment (or lack thereof) is credible; meanwhile the goo-goo government guy is arguing that regulators are power hungry bureaucrats who cannot be trusted to level a fair judgment.
I had to google who Sollozzo is, but here we are again focusing on my motivations rather than the content. I don't need you to believe anything about my intentions on this matter, and really it shouldn't affect how the facts of the situation are viewed.
I will give you credit for addressing some of the
what here in response to George. But again your focus is on
who is asking the questions, not whether the question has merit, which quite clearly shows your bias.
. Too many just want to fill in the 1004Mc grid and stop. As you point out, if the grid has insufficient data for trend analysis, the job (and the form) is not yet complete. The grid should be supplemented with additional data, as you point out. So, if done correctly, the 1004MC is neither wrong nor useless. It is only wrong and/ or useless when not fully completed.
