Do you Have A Threshold % For Answering No To Question 10?

[Metamorphic]

If the value isn't well supported, then what that value is is not relevant. It's not supported, plain and simple.

Q10 asks if the opinion is "accurate" not if its supported. You dont get to comment on his support till you answer "no" to Q10 and go onto Section2. If you look at is strictly, the person could put jibberish in the first 2 pages of the 1040 and the comp grid (you'd get to comment on all that), but if they put down a good number right above their signature they're golden.

My super and I get questions all the time on reports that are much better supported than this one I'm reviewing. Why didnt they ask this guy to make this one right before they sent it out for review? It cant be a money thing. They're only paying my super $25 less than the paid the original guy and that was a good fee.

 

[Metamorphic]

There are ways to calculate the "vaguery" of the data.

The are set ways, but they can't be set percentages of prices, because percentage of price is what will vary with the "vagueness" of the data. For example, the word "standard" in the phrase standard deviation refers to a "set" way of measuring how much something mssed by.

The world of arithmetic offers many of the answers you seek.

And I'm familiar with some of them (Bachelors of Science from University of California). If I wanted to do a range on an appraisal assignment, I'd simply keep a tally sheet along side my comp grid as I filled it out. With each adjustment I'd look at my basis for it and say "I think its X but it could be as low as y or as high as z based on the support I have. Then I'd add up those difference and subtract and add it to the point value to achieve a range. Or maybe I'd add and subtract 1/2 or 3/4's of that number since the errors wont likely all go in the same direction. I think that would nicely characterize the vagueries of the data.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

Q10 asks if the opinion is "accurate" not if its supported. You dont get to comment on his support till you answer "no" to Q10 and go onto Section2.

That's what I mean by poorly designed form. The only way you can conclude that the value is "accurate" if the original appraiser didn't support their value conclusion is to perform your own appraisal.

My super and I get questions all the time on reports that are much better supported than this one I'm reviewing. Why didnt they ask this guy to make this one right before they sent it out for review? It cant be a money thing. They're only paying my super $25 less than the paid the original guy and that was a good fee.

Appraisers should charge accordingly. Why do more work for less money? I a lender (or MB) calls me, I quote one fee for the review (which does not include a value conclusion), and another fee for an appraisal. Granted, I never get the assignments (from lenders), but I'm not charging less money than the original appraiser charged who can't produce a credible report in the first place.

 

[Metamorphic]

The form is kind of cumbersome.

Maybe the correct approach when somebody asks for a review is to offer instead offer to do a drive-by for your regular 1040 fee, and then include in that cost a letter as an "appraisal consulting assignment" where you'll critique the original work and compare it with the results of the drive by you did. The letter should be pretty quick to write since you'd only be obliged to talk about things that are germane. The net result would have equal or greater utility to the client; greater probably since they wouldn't have to wade through a bunch of shell to get to the nut. The fee and workload for the reviewer would be commensurate with the effort with no surprises, and you'd really only be on the hook for your drive-by report.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

The form is kind of cumbersome.

Maybe the correct approach when somebody asks for a review is to offer instead offer to do a drive-by for your regular 1040 fee, and then include in that cost a letter as an "appraisal consulting assignment" where you'll critique the original work and compare it with the results of the drive by you did. The letter should be pretty quick to write since you'd only be obliged to talk about things that are germane. The net result would have equal or greater utility to the client; greater probably since they wouldn't have to wade through a bunch of shell to get to the nut. The fee and workload for the reviewer would be commensurate with the effort with no surprises, and you'd really only be on the hook for your drive-by report.

Not quite...the "appraisal consulting assignment" described here includes an appraisal review, subject to Standard 3. The only difference is that your not just performing a review and an appraisal, but your comparing the results of your appraisal with the other appraiser's conclusion. I personally would try to avoid such a comparison, because of the comparing value conclusions performed under two different scopes of work. The obvious one is that one is a driveby inspection and the other is not.

It's one of the things I never understood in reviewing for lenders. If the lender required an interior inspection in the first place, and that report turns out to be a POS, then why is a field review with no interior access, and a value based upon a driveby inspection (an possibly reliance upon the subject description in the unreliable report) an acceptable subsitute?

 

[Fred]

And I'm familiar with some of them (Bachelors of Science from University of California). If I wanted to do a range on an appraisal assignment, I'd simply keep a tally sheet along side my comp grid as I filled it out. With each adjustment I'd look at my basis for it and say "I think its X but it could be as low as y or as high as z based on the support I have. Then I'd add up those difference and subtract and add it to the point value to achieve a range. Or maybe I'd add and subtract 1/2 or 3/4's of that number since the errors wont likely all go in the same direction. I think that would nicely characterize the vagueries of the data.

Maybe.

The form is kind of cumbersome.

That may be it's least offensive characteristic.

There is a confluence of problems. On hand, there are the considerations of doing work that meets basic standards. On the other hand, residential lender-clients have been well-trained to expect free work. So, they say review and expect for a full comparative analysis. And then you get include a form that was drafted at a magic mushroom convention in your report.

 

[Ray Miller]

I thinking more like 450 beaver pelts to 650 beaver pelts for the review and if a new value is needed and new comparables another 450 beaver pelts to 1000 beaver pelts.

This 125 for pea nuts for the monkies.