Field Review Quote

[Dublin ohio]

Did you use the same 6 bad comps from out of the neighborhood that the OA used, or did you use better, more similar comps from within the neighborhood?

They were not "bad" comps. They were just outside of the delineated neighborhood in the oa. Like I said earlier. The neighborhood boundary made no sense. I almost think it was a typo. I included their excluded are in my neighborhood.

 

[J Grant]

y

Maybe you should look at the 2000 before you get froggy again. It asks a yes or no question about each section of the 1004and also asks for commentary whether or not you answer yes or no. It also asks if the value is ACCURATE.


Only because the oa had an arbitrary neighborhood boundary that made no sense. No reason to exclude the area where their comps were located.

Not the least bit concerned. They may question some of my "opinions". But hard to argue outright factual mistakes. Like wrong zoning or flood zone. I suppose you would have said a 20 cents per sf adjustment for lot size is AOK

You are being evasive and not answering my question.

I asked a simple question—were there better, more similar neighbor sales available for comps or not? You refused to answer, instead saying there was no reason to exclude the area where their comps were located.

A wrong flood zone, sure point it out, I would have - but pointing out a few faction errors does not excuse if the reviewer ignored the fact that better, more similar comps exited and they were too lazy or to find them and grid them - or whatever the reason for it was. If the lot size adjustment was bad, yes, you did a good job with it, but you still failed to identify if there were better comps available, and this is a crucial key to a review.

 

[Dublin ohio]

He is focused on a petty thing, and THAT is what is making the case for appraisals eliminated.

Froggy again. I am focused on the whole report. Like I said. Take a look at what the 2000 asks for.

 

[ucbruin]

Plus what appraised value did Dub come up with....

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

You make the case for getting rid of human produced appraisals...

Quite the opposite. I make the case for appraisers to act like they had some damned sense. If you determine that the 3 most relevant features are the lot value, the square footage and the effective age (age-condition) are driving the value, then the adjustments, correctly estimated are very likely to provide a much tighter grouping. Hence, a narrower range of value than a willy nilly "let's adjust for everything" approach where the results are a statistical wash and an even wider range of possible value.

Making a adjustment less than 1% of the ultimate value strikes me as problematic and probably beyond the accuracy of your adjustment.

a 20 cents per sf adjustment for lot size is AOK

shoot me. As a rural appraiser, I see so many screwed up land adjustments that make zero sense but the report looks "good" because they adjusted the land values to make it look good.

Land is valued as if vacant and available for its highest and best use. (That was even in USPAP in the early days if I recall correctly.) And land is a problem within itself...which is why all my reports have 3 land comps and 3 improved comps. No form reports either.

 

[J Grant]

They were not "bad" comps. They were just outside of the delineated neighborhood in the oa. Like I said earlier. The neighborhood boundary made no sense. I almost think it was a typo. I included their excluded are in my neighborhood.

You are still evading the question-. you went out of your way in the first post to say this OA used 6 out of 7 comps outside teh neighborhood. So again, the question is, are there closer ot the subject and in the same subdivision or neighborhood sales that should have been used,, or not?

Saying the neighborhood boundary made no sense is not an answer. IF the OA boundary made no sense it does not matter, the reviews is supposed to be competent enough to figure out a similar subdivision or neighborhood boundary that does make sense -

For anyone who thinks I ama being a big meanie, the right comp choices is central to a review, not some dumb 1k FPL adjustment and if a review gets reviewed by someone competent at any point it is the first thing they will look for..

 

[J Grant]

Would you not at least say that the sales are outside the neighborhood?

This is what I do not understand about CRs. I see it on virtually every rural appraisal a CR does on a form. They go adjustment crazy. Buyers are looking at the big picture, not the minutiae of differences. If you have 3 comps, then making more than 2 adjustments is suspect at best. If you have 6 comps, 5 adjustments max you out statistically. You are now creating noise. If nothing else, find better comps.

Last month, our state director said in 2023 the board had 39 complaints, 25 were submitted unsigned by FNMA. And the main culprit? Not wrong facts. Not bad pictures. Not failing to drive by and take original photos. It was adjustments that they deemed outside the ordinary and unexplained. And most of the sanctions were for people resubmitting reports with corrections and not having a copy of both reports nor reporting that they had provided the prior service.

Size matters but a 3 bed 2 bath house of 1,500 SF will not look different from a 1400 or 1600 SF 3 bed 2 bath home. Period. Adjusting for decks. Fireplaces, heat pump over CHA. We cannot always even tell if a $50,000 solar panel array is contributing value, why do we think granite countertops and a hot tub will?

Frist of all, not every appraiser makes a petty 1k adjustment for FPL - in fact not many do, ti is kind of old school - but wrt common sense, it makes no sense to focus on it - and a client with a brain knows that - if a reviewer wants to talk about a 1kFPL adjustment, fine, but then do the other important things properly in a review.

 

[J Grant]

#6 on the review form

Are the comparable sales selected locationally, physically, and functionally the most similar to the subject property? YES or NO
If yes, provide a brief summary. IF NO, provide a detailed explanation of why they are not the best comparables.

Any time I found that the most similar comps were not used and there were more similar comps available AI would put the more similar comps on the grid and it almost always led to a different opinion of value than the OA had. Once it led to the same value and I still left the better comps, there - the client could decide or not if they want to use an appraiser who might get lucky and hit a good value using bad comps - their choice but I fulfilled my part as a reviewer.

i fail to see how a reviewer can agree with an opinion of value arrived at by using the less similar sales as comps.

 

[J Grant]

Question 7:
Are the data and analysis, including the individual adjustments in the sales comparison approach, complete and accurate?
YES or NO.. If YES, provide a brief summary. IF NO, explain.

as a reviewer, I am not going to dive deep above into why a 1k FPl adjustment might not be accurate. I personally would not make that adjustment, but a review is not asking us what we personally do. If I mentioned it, I might say, " The OA made a 1k FPL adjustment which might be difficult to extract out such as mall amount, however it is too minor to mateailly impact results.

 

[Dublin ohio]

I asked a simple question—were there better, more similar neighbor sales available for comps or not? You refused to answer, instead saying there was no reason to exclude the area where their comps were located.

There was only one comp in the oa from their delineated neighborhood. The comps they used weren't "bad". The whole report was a cluster. Would you call a 20 year old home that you say has an effective age of 20 years a C3? Sounds like the textbook (UAD) definition of a C4. You think I am focusing on minor tems. I look at the report as a whole. I just post a number of what you call minor items to give an idea of how much of a cluster the report was. I ended up using 2 of their sales and 2 of my own. Including a dated sale in subject's subdivision. The subject was almost 3500 sf. The very upper range of GLA for the neighborhood. So sales were limited no matter what.