Could we do without?

[JamesRockford]

For example, one that sticks with me is an appraisal done on a house that was next 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 disclose it was there or affect on value etc.

Appraisal report should go DIRECTLY to the State Board.

That appraiser will be very lucky to walk out of that hearing with his license intact.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

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 dont review your competition ... you review an appraisal work on a property. I have to applaud you for "opting out of participation" ... not understanding the scope of a review would tend to disqualify you any way.

Who better to review an appraisal than an appraiser? The system isnt broken when applied appropriately ... some working in the system may be flawed or even unethical .. but an ethically prepared review can be of great benefit to the client.

Not trying to rude or discourteous to you ... but recognizing the process and value of a review is paramount to the process.

 

[Metamorphic]

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.

Because a good review leads to a good quality rating, leads to the good appraiser getting more work, leads to the reviewer making more money in less time with less risk, because reviewing sucky appraiser is hugely time consuming and the end result is never as defensible a product as if the appraiser did the job themselves in the first place.

 

[Tim Hicks (Texas)]

I don't think review appraisers should only review. I think they should have to do appraisals and keep up with the market conditions, changes in the appraisal climate and everything else you only learn from doing appraisals. Besides that, I have never been able to do enough review work to make a living on that only. Reviewing only supplements my appraisal work. I certainly will not do AMC reviews for $250 and lower.

 

[hastalavista]

I spend more time in review work wondering if something is noteworthy and should be mentioned at all vs. trying to catch something I can call out. And, in my case, the "tie" goes to the runner (the original appraisal report gets the benefit of the doubt).
I'm grateful when I can rate an appraisal under review "acceptable" and it makes my job easier if the appraisal report is good quality.

The idea of using an appraisal review to pound the competition, while I'm sure such cases exist, is foreign to me and to the other appraisers I know in my markets who do review work.

Like Tim, I'd rather have someone who actively completes origination appraisals review my work vs. someone who only does reviews.

 

[apprwannabe]

I am in a position to see appraisals and their corresponding reviews and help make a decision about them. I tell tell you that conservatively, 70% of the reviews trash the appraisal, many cases its obvious there is bias, on others you have to look a little deeper. Me and my bosses wonder if appraisals are flawed and unreliable 70% why we order them at all? It just can't be.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

There is a place for reviews.

The holier than thou comments to the effect that you review the report and not the reporter is BS. Once you identify the appraiser, you are pre-conditioned to consider it in light of your own biases. That insufferable MAI you don't like, you will seize upon their mistakes far differently than you would a past associate you liked and you may THINK you are unbiased, but again you are not competent to make that assessment. You may well be biased without recognizing your own biases.

 

[hastalavista]

I am in a position to see appraisals and their corresponding reviews and help make a decision about them. I tell tell you that conservatively, 70% of the reviews trash the appraisal, many cases its obvious there is bias, on others you have to look a little deeper. Me and my bosses wonder if appraisals are flawed and unreliable 70% why we order them at all? It just can't be.

How do you select who reviews the appraisals you see?

 

[hastalavista]

The holier than thou comments to the effect that you review the report and not the reporter is BS.

Sez you.
I could care less what the guy/gal is (license level, designation, etc.).
I've seen great work from trainees.
I've turned in reports to the state that were completed by MAIs.

If I recognize a name and think I cannot be impartial, I turn down the review assignment.
(Sez me :new_smile-l.

There are lousy reviewers just like there are lousy appraisers.
Some suggest since there are lousy reviewers, the review process should be thrown out.
The same logic would apply to the appraisal process (get rid of it as well).

It isn't the process (review) that is the problem; it is the appraiser who is engaged to complete the process. Therein lies the problem (origination and review).

The assertion that a reviewer cannot be impartial to the degree necessary such that a fair, even-handed, and objective review that produces credible results is obtainable is absurd.

 

[Metamorphic]

How do you select who reviews the appraisals you see?

Precisely. Many appraisals are only reviewed, because somebody or some-thing pre-screened them and determined that there was sufficient stink to make it worth paying for a review. If the reviews you're seeing are coming a place that starts with appraisals that were pre-screened 70% is a good number. 70% is a number that the person who designed the system would be happy with because it suggests they're getting most of the bad ones and not too many of the good ones by accident.