- May 12, 2007
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
As of the effective date, should an appraisal be credible or reliable or both? Notice "effective date" is in the question.
The reviewer must comply with the USPAP and opine on the credibility of each report given the scope of work required for each assignment gets my vote.Which is more "reliable?" 1) A "desktop" appraisal with no property inspection; 2) A "full" appraisal with both interior and exterior inspection of the readily observable areas of the property only, 3) A "full" appraisal with both interior and exterior inspection of the property plus review of an independent third party inspection of the roof and mechanical systems and an independent Phase I or II environmental site assessment?
I think it should be obvious that the potential for a more "reliable" appraisal is greater with a more detailed inspection plus review of reports from experts regarding aspects of the property which we are not qualified to opine.
If a reviewer receives two appraisal reports from the same client on the same property for review, one report having a scope of work consistent with option 1 above and the other report having a scope of work consistent with option 3 above, should the reviewer reject the appraisal report developed with option 1's scope of work as being "less reliable" than the other. Or should the reviewer comply with USPAP and opine on the credibility of each report given the scope of work required for each assignment?
There is a reason that USPAP does not require "reliable" assignment results, but does require credible assignment results within the context of the scope of work performed.
In the circular logic of USPAP, it is supposed to be reliable for its intended use. Which means intended user has some responsiblity for deciding to rely on a report with X conditions of assignment.
The content of the appraisal should credibly support the appraiser's opinions, conclusions and statements.