Field Review Quote

[Joe Flacco]

Did you get a good fee at least? Field review fee has to be 2x what you charge for appraisal. Desk review can be same fee as appraisal.

 

[Dublin ohio]

Did you get a good fee at least? Field review fee has to be 2x what you charge for appraisal. Desk review can be same fee as appraisal.

Fee was good. But not quite double of 1004 fee. Surprised me that I got the assignment because of my fee. Out of the ordinary in general when dealing with AMC. Part of the reason I took it was for a mental exercise. Not very busy right now. Gave me something to work on outside of the mundane 1004s.

 

[Joe Flacco]

Fee was good. But not quite double of 1004 fee. Surprised me that I got the assignment because of my fee. Out of the ordinary in general when dealing with AMC. Part of the reason I took it was for a mental exercise. Not very busy right now. Gave me something to work on outside of the mundane 1004s.

I like seeing other reports just for kicks but I don't really like doing reviews.

 

[Functional Obs]

Considering quoting on a field review. Something to occupy my mind during slow times. It is a cluster. Wrong zoning, wrong flood zone, 5 of the 7 sales used outside of delineated neighborhood with no explanation. Used GX001 because it is a Cape COD but doesn't identify the area that was subject to the exception. (wrong use of GX001 anyhow). $505K value with the obligatory $1000 deck and fireplace adjustments, $3000 for full bath and the list goes on. Lot of BS commentary. This is all I needed to see to know what followed

View attachment 85628

This reminds me of Fletch:

While sitting on a couple's porch talking to both of them, he says, "You and your wife are both currently alive, I take it..."

 

[Tom D]

Minor mud ?

minor mud meant the little things that weren't right, like minor adjustments and the lack of how you got there and non comments. that's minor mud. the report does ask the big question to answer, were them the best comps. you ever see a disorganized report where you can't find what you are looking for, but the value was reasonable. so from there how much minor mud do you want to dive into. some of the perfectionists here would be mud wrestling with the report.

 

[J Grant]

minor mud meant the little things that weren't right, like minor adjustments and the lack of how you got there and non comments. that's minor mud. the report does ask the big question to answer, were them the best comps. you ever see a disorganized report where you can't find what you are looking for, but the value was reasonable. so from there how much minor mud do you want to dive into. some of the perfectionists here would be mud wrestling with the report.

I personally do not bother with minor mud in a review, and certainly not at the expense of addressing the major issues such as comp selection and adjustments or possibly misleading statements -minor errors or a 1k fireplace adjustment do not materially affect anything and either do not need addressing or simply point them out and move on.

 

[J Grant]

I guess my way of approaching a review is different than some. Some appear to be focused on the value and nothing else. i start with the beginning of the oa and work my way through. If data in the neighborhood section is factually wrong. I call it out. Which I did. Same with the rest of the report. I look at the report as a whole.How many factual mistakes and lack of applicable commentary does it take to just say to yourself "how could anybody consider this report credible or even reliable". Regardless of the value. JG you constantly rant about waivers and their avms. Left untouched. The oa becomes part of CU and their avms. Would you like your work compared to what I posted?

I suppose you mean compared to the OA grid you posted - I believe my work would come off better than that though I do not claim to be perfect.

Idk what my comments about waivers has to do with the topic - indeed, every sale price becomes part of the future comps that might be used an AVM or CU- you concluded the OA value was "accurate" /agreed with it so that value , unless discredited later by another review stands - and the SC price is part of the sold property database whether for an appraisal, AVM, CU etc

 

[Dublin ohio]

I suppose you mean compared to the OA grid you posted - I believe my work would come off better than that though I do not claim to be perfect.

Idk what my comments about waivers has to do with the topic - indeed, every sale price becomes part of the future comps that might be used an AVM or CU- you concluded the OA value was "accurate" /agreed with it so that value , unless discredited later by another review stands - and the SC price is part of the sold property database whether for an appraisal, AVM, CU etc

To be clear. I did not agree that the value was "accurate". Accuracy is more than a number. As far as the info that goes into CU, avms etc. The subject info, comparable info and adjustments are put into CU. GIGO is a thing.

 

[Joe Flacco]

You can disagree with a lot of the analysis and still agree with the value or come to the conclusion that the value is reasonable. What to do with that is up to the client.

 

[J Grant]

To be clear. I did not agree that the value was "accurate". Accuracy is more than a number. As far as the info that goes into CU, avms etc. The subject info, comparable info and adjustments are put into CU. GIGO is a thing.

I pulled up the field review 2000 form - if that is what you used, it asked if the reviewer thinks the value is accurate, yes or no

a value opinion from an appraiser is always more than just the number - that is the point of doing the review, to see if not just the "number "was reasonable or the like, it is was the number as a value opinion credibly supported/accurate - Accurate is kind of a draconian word and I wish it was not the word used but that is what is on the form, several times wrt adjustments etc.