Could we do without?

[Delta85]

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.

I think it's human nature that if you get an appraisal to review and you recognize the name your review MIGHT be biased in how you view that person. If they are a respected veteran appraiser you might be more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on some things and if they are known to be a screw up or skippy you might go after them with more intensity on frivolous things.

I'm not saying it's locked in but it is human nature.

 

[residentialguy]

I don't have bias against the appraiser I'm reviewing, unless it's Denis. Then I get out my carving knives :new_asthanos:

 

[hastalavista]

I think it's human nature that if you get an appraisal to review and you recognize the name your review MIGHT be biased in how you view that person. If they are a respected veteran appraiser you might be more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on some things and if they are known to be a screw up or skippy you might go after them with more intensity on frivolous things.

I'm not saying it's locked in but it is human nature.

Your view is shared by many, if not most.

But I can tell you, having reviewed close to 1,000 (maybe more) appraisals in the last 14-years, there is no benefit to being "nit-picky" (at least not with my clients).
Something is either
A. Critical
B. Not Critical but the client should know
C. Noteworthy, but not critical (these things may affect the quality rating to a certain degree, but they don't make or break the review, and the report is acceptable as-is); or, it may be something that at first glance looks strange, but with research, makes perfect sense. More than a few times I've added a comment in a review that the original appraisal's approach to solve a specific issue may appear atypical, but was actually appropriate and enhanced the quality of the report.

There is a benefit to getting the important things correct, and not dwelling on the insignificant or non-critical.
Most of the appraisals I see don't come close to how I would report my analysis. So what? They meet the minimum standards (those that I consider credible) or they've missed a critical element and don't meet the minimum standards (those that I consider deficient).
The standard to use in reviewing is not what I might do, but what is necessary for credible results and what is required by the USPAP and the client.
Any other differences are not important. I wouldn't waste my review time harping on them. As I said, the most difficult decision I have to make is if I should consider something important when it could go either way; and the standard I try to use is, if it changes like I think it might, does that really make a big difference? If so, then I'll call it out and the client might want the original appraiser to address it. If not, then I don't call it out (I might include that I did consider the issue, but didn't conclude it was critical, and accept the report as-is).

Again, there are appraisers who do review work who use it to assassinate other appraisers (not just their competition). Those appraisers shouldn't be doing review work.

There are plenty of review appraisers who don't have an axe to grind and all they want is a good report to review so their job is easier.

I just received a review assignment while I'm typing this. Value is $4,000,000 in an area where that is certainly possible if not likely. I'm hoping I can rate the quality good and find it reasonable and acceptable as-is. I don't plan on spending any time trying to nit-pick or play gotcha. I and the original appraiser (and certainly my client) has a lot of better things to do with our time.

I don't have bias against the appraiser I'm reviewing, unless it's Denis. Then I get out my carving knives

:laugh:
You don't do reviews for RedSky, do you? :new_smile-l:

 

[Lost Cause]

Gross Exaggeration

You may well be biased without recognizing your own biases.

If biases were that difficult to overcome, why bother getting out of bed each day?

No, one would have a really difficult time writing a reasonable, sensible review based on unreasonable bias.

 

[apprwannabe]

How do you select who reviews the appraisals you see?

I don't, but they are picked from the appraisers we work with. So an appraiser we work with will do both appraisals and review for us. Some appraisals are flagged for review at random, others if we don't like something in the appraisal or with the property, say, an external obsolescence or the like.

 

[chad hampton]

Reviews shouldn't exisit. Order another appraisal if you don't believe the first one. It's human nature in this profession to want to eat our own, like cannibals.

I've only done maybe 5 reviews in my career (12 years), and decided long ago that unless I find something obvious, making up comps, etc., the appraisal was fine. I never wanted a part in the pitting of appraiser v. appraiser.

 

[George Hatch]

I'm stoked to offer good reviews on good work - when that occurs. I really don't enjoy pointing out items for correction or clarification and I especially don't enjoy reviewing fraudulent work from people who hold themselves out to be among my peers.

It's way easier and more profitable to review good work than to engage in the disassembly job on really bad work.

As for my own work, if I've made an error that bears correction it's in my best interests for a reviewer to catch that before the lender uses the report.

 

[George Hatch]

One thing about the role of reviewing that some of you may not realize - if a reviewer sees something that should be addressed and fails to mention it or deal with it that omission is on them. So some of what you're interpreting as adversarial is actually self preservation, not to mention the additional layer of scrutiny for the lender.

As Dennis said, just because you note a problem doesn't mean you need to get excited about it. If there's an error of little or no consequence I always communicate that context. But when appraisers submit work that doesn't meet the specifications of the engagement and the lenders use that it puts them in trouble with their regulators.

You guys wouldn't believe how often I come across deficiencies (mostly complete omissions) in meeting the specifications addressed in the terms of the original engagement.

 

[Michigan CG]

Reviews shouldn't exisit. Order another appraisal if you don't believe the first one. It's human nature in this profession to want to eat our own, like cannibals..

I completely disagree while agreeing on some aspects.

It is true that in the last few years the AMC model has asked for reviews with the intent of the review to crucify the original appraiser as THEIR client had an agenda in the outcome of the review.

I will give you two examples of why reviews have their place and are good tools when used PROPERLY.

Back when I worked for an MAI appraiser who was well respected we did a lot of eminent domain/condemnation work. Some assignments were 100 parcels. A group of appraisers was solicited to do the work more than a few times we would get the appraisal assignment or the review assignment while another MAI would get the other task (writing or reviewing).

We are talking about fees with five digits and I learned a vast amount from the review appraiser and my boss (the MAI) would many times say, "Hmmm, he has a good point" or sometimes he would say, I disagree for this reason but we did not explain it enough.

When we reviewed his work it was the same relationship and the other MAI would say "good point" or "I don't agree because of X, Y and Z".

There was mutual respect and we were allowed to talk to one another about the assignments and opinions. It was a wonderful learning experience for me and also both MAI's who would reconsider their thoughts.

If the client were to order two appraisals (for a five digit fee) and we were apart then the client would have to order a review of BOTH appraisals for a four digit fee, times two.

My second example is based on the fact that there are a significant number of appraisers that were number hitters for their MB buddies back in the day. It is a fact of the industry. I get about two assignments a year from a PMI insurance company and the company wants an honest opinion and does not pressure for any "opinion". They are very careful about what they send over and every single one I have done is full of fraud and hitting a number. These "appraisers" deserve what they get when they forget to mention that comps #1 was a waterfront property or that Comp #2 was completely remodeled and the subject wasn't.

The last one I did the subject was right next to an active railroad in an older subdivision. The property line was the railroad ROW and the pictures in the report were very creative to not show the railroad where three trains passed daily. There was no mention of the railroad and conveniently the appraiser used no sales remotely close to the subject. The really "good" comp was about 10 miles away, on 10 acres (subject being on less than 1/2 acre) and the idiot appraiser adjusted the land at $1,000 per acre IIRC.

Reviews have their place and are a good tool for many clients.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

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.

Holier than thou ... FOR being competent? Please..... I dont care who completed an appraisal .. the review is of the work not the person .. to do anything else is a violation of USPAP ... Holier than thou ... BUNK