Could we do without?

[Terrel L. Shields]

any bias reviewer might have is put aside to address the facts

you have to recognize your bias first....and most biases (and there are many) are not obvious.

The hindsight bias is one of the worst and should be obvious. It isn't. We know what the market did after 2007-08...so that colors the reviews done 5 years later..."Ya shoulda seen that com'n..."

 

[J Grant]

you have to recognize your bias first....and most biases (and there are many) are not obvious.

The hindsight bias is one of the worst and should be obvious. It isn't. We know what the market did after 2007-08...so that colors the reviews done 5 years later..."Ya shoulda seen that com'n..."

Not really. I get your point, and hindsight bias may be there, which is not always a bad thing etither. However, it still does not change the facts about the origination appraisal, and what market data was present back in 2007-2008.

I have reviewed apprasials done from that time period, and the problem files had glaring deficiceines that have nothing to do with bias and in most cases little to do with hindsight. For example, one that sticks with me is an appraisal done on a house that was next store to a six story office building. The appraiser did not mention that, at all in the report ( and the office building was tehre at time of report). He shot rear and side photos around the building, did not dsiclose it was thre or affect on value etc.

 

[moretti]

Not really. I get your point, and hindsight bias may be there, which is not always a bad thing etither. However, it still does not change the facts about the origination appraisal, and what market data was present back in 2007-2008.

I have reviewed apprasials done from that time period, and the problem files had glaring deficiceines that have nothing to do with bias and in most cases little to do with hindsight. For example, one that sticks with me is an appraisal done on a house that was next store to a six story office building. The appraiser did not mention that, at all in the report ( and the office building was tehre at time of report). He shot rear and side photos around the building, did not dsiclose it was thre or affect on value etc.

curious what the zoning was on that property....what did the H&BU analysis indicate?

 

[ramrcdk]

appraisers against appraisers. the system is flawed. Why would I give a good review against my competition? This review system is so stupid I can only opt out of participation.

Bless it...you should turn- right- around and go back to class!!! ...seems you missed A LOT or you wouldn't have put yourself in the noose by making such a @$#%!ss "biased" comment. However, your statement does make for a good subject : many of us think we CAN review others work but even many more of us have not a clue what the accurate Review Process IS or is NOT about. On a sub-subject, many clients just want our stamp of approval for the reviewed report and a copy of our E&O. Sorta like a free second appraisal. Actually, Clients most often have already received sufficient money from the borrower to cover both services. = we accept lower fees for our reports & services than we should.

 

[Delta85]

There should be a special license strictly for appraisal review that appraisers could specialize in who enjoy review and want to dedicate all their efforts to it.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

http://www.appraisalinstitute.org/assets/1/7/AI-rrs-path-chart.pdf

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

I have always tried to remain objective and consider reasonableness

but it requires a third party to make that assessment...like I said, Who reviews the reviewers? Education is not enough. "Thinking" you are unbiased isn't something that you can do internally.

I agree that reviewers should be reviewers only and not appraisers, but the best solution is simply to hire a second appraiser. The compensation system where the idea is that the review should cost less than the original appraisal is a nonsensical system based on hope. Desktop reviews, in particular, are not worth the paper they are written on.

 

[Delta85]

I agree that reviewers should be reviewers only and not appraisers, but the best solution is simply to hire a second appraiser. The compensation system where the idea is that the review should cost less than the original appraisal is a nonsensical system based on hope. Desktop reviews, in particular, are not worth the paper they are written on.

I agree with that. The best review is to obtain a second appraisal from another local appraiser. Let a second set of eyes construct the entire thing over again and see what the comparison looks like.

 

[hastalavista]

There is a place for reviews.
The "get two appraisals in all situations" is overly burdensome.

Certainly, sometimes a review is not the best substitute for the 2nd appraisal, and shouldn't be substituted as a valuation analysis (it can always be used as a quality-of-the-report analysis).
As a appraisal reviewer, I would never take a review assignment where I didn't have the options to (a) conclude that a review value is not possible, and (b) to conclude that a new appraisal is necessary.

 

[Mr Rex]

appraisers against appraisers. the system is flawed. Why would I give a good review against my competition? This review system is so stupid I can only opt out of participation.

You review the work, not your competition. Until you understand that concept, decline all review work.