Hybrid Appraisals

[Non Sequitur]

I'm thinking eventually AI will complete the appraisal and an inhouse AMC appraiser will sign off on it.

Yep. About the only advantage competent appraisers have right now is the data is a mess, and we all know that's a big reason why automated valuations miss more than hit right now. But that's changing. Just about everything on the data side (MLS systems, portals, etc.) is going full blown a.i. Data is getting cleaner and will be good enough sooner than later. At that point we'll be needed to confirm the output passes the sniff test and to apply an auto signature.

 

[Surf Cat]

I don't know if hybrids are USPAP compliant or not. All I know, if I ever do these, is I want to be paid....$115 ain't going to cut it.

Another thing for me, is seeing is believing. I feel I can produce a better product if I go view the subject and drive by the comps. But the powers that be don't seem to want your best product or want you out in the field. They just need it to be "good enough".

 

[George Hatch]

I wonder if USPAP will develop an opinion on appraisers and their responsibilities concerning a PDC data collection.

This is uncharted territory of an influx of non-appraisers into the appraisal process. When USPAP was written, they probably never conceived of such a thing. USPAP addressed inspections with regard to trainees and significant appraisal assistance, or cites that an appraisal can be done with no inspection. Assignment conditions dictate an inspection.

A PDC collection is used as a proxy for an inspection and, therefore, is relied on by the appraiser to a greater extent than reliance on MLS or public records when no inspection is called for. Seems like USPAP would need to address it at some point.

USPAP applies to appraiser conduct. What the appraiser actually did.

This is a standard assumption that we disclose and certify to in every appraisal we perform:



The GSE forms elaborate on the wording a little but the concept remains the same. As a minimum requirement the appraiser's responsibility WRT the accuracy of the factual data they use remains the same regardless of its source. If the user is adding more to that requirement that is a user-driven element, not a minimum in USPAP.

Almost all requirements relating to property inspection by the appraiser are user-driven and in excess of what USPAP requires, the exceptions being [performing competently when the appraiser is inspecting] and [disclosure in the SR2-3 certification of whether the appraiser did/did not personally inspect].

 

[Surf Cat]

Rules for me but not for thee.....

 

[George Hatch]

There was an interior appraisal inspection done. The appraiser is responsible. I haven’t read one guidance document from a state yet that has said otherwise.

I don’t know if states give a **** about public trust anymore, but they’re supposed to. And if a member of the public complains about something during their appraisal inspection, the state can’t tell them “too bad, We don’t have control over that. “

Now the usual suspects will try to puke a bunch of words onto their screen to make it sound otherwise, but in the end you’re responsible.

You had to write that bolded sentence in the passive voice. Something happened without reference to who did it. If you had written it in the active voice the focus would have been who did it. That's exactly why you didn't write it that way.


Take note of that last line in the AI regurgitron's summary: Active is preferred for clarity, while passive is useful for highlighting the object. The report writing courses for appraising refer to that as well.

Passive voice:

There was an interior appraisal inspection performed​

Active voice:

The appraiser performed an interior appraisal inspection​

If/when the issue goes to court that's one of the arguments that the lawyers will make: converting the obtuse reasoning and the fuzzy writing - which you are deliberately using to obscure "who did what" - into ClearSpeak which will explicitly address "who did what". Their atty will make that argument and your atty will be unable to refute it.

That's why this deceptive argument will lose in front of a judge. It's why you will never win this argument in front of an objective reader.

 

[chad hampton]

I'm not the one that has to use 50 sentences and a bunch of mental gymnastics to try and maybe, possibly, get my point across.

Nobody knows who did the appraisal inspection. That's the point.

Stay focused.

 

[Surf Cat]

I'm thinking eventually AI will complete the appraisal and an inhouse AMC appraiser will sign off on it.

MIT created duplicate AI workers to tackle thousands of different tasks. The verdict? Most of the time AI is still just ‘minimally sufficient’ reads the headline.

The growing share of American office workers who have experimented with artificial intelligence in their day-to-day work have likely had a few moments of doubt as to their long-term job stability.

But for all the improvements in AI over the past few years, the technology is still only able to hit low bars in specific workplace tasks, according to recent data published by MIT. Even then, it might still be making some big mistakes.

Workers concerned they might soon be replaced by AI will likely be reassured by new research coming out of MIT, which frames the AI-driven jobs takeover narrative not so much as a fast-paced action movie, but more like a slow-burn think piece.

AI is gradually improving at accomplishing a variety of tasks across a number of professions, according to a study of preliminary findings released on Thursday. But in most cases, the performance of currently available models is similar to that of a disenchanted intern—hitting minimum benchmarks but struggling overall to produce quality work without a human hand to refine its output.

We're saved! Oh, wait.....lenders and AMCs are still In cahoots with each other...never mind!

 

[George Hatch]

I'm not the one that has to use 50 sentences and a bunch of mental gymnastics to try and maybe, possibly, get my point across.

Nobody knows who did the appraisal inspection. That's the point.

Stay focused.

Yeah, you just write in GrrlSpeak trying to exploit the vibe. That's why you could never have passed the Instructor's exam.

I don't know how you can say "nobody knows" when the form itself explicitly identifies it as well as explicitly disclosing that the appraiser didn't do it. That's another deceptive argument that the lawyers will disassemble if/when the issue goes to court.

Heck, you might even have a tough time finding a lawyer who will attempt to make that vibe-oriented argument because they will know better just from reading the various discussions which have transpired. Including this one where I just drew the picture for you in crayon. But hey, I encourage you to throw money at the lawyers. That's what they're here for.

 

[J Grant]

I'm not the one that has to use 50 sentences and a bunch of mental gymnastics to try and maybe, possibly, get my point across.

Nobody knows who did the appraisal inspection. That's the point.

Stay focused.

There is no inspection done in the hybrid we are discussing. A DATA COLLECTION was done !

I bet this label was conceived by the stakeholders' legal department to avoid any conflict with USPAP, which can reference an appraisal inspection as part of appraisal practice.

A "data collection" is not part of appraisal practice, which is why anybody can do one.

 

[chad hampton]

Yeah, you just write in GrrlSpeak trying to exploit the vibe. That's why you could never have passed the Instructor's exam.

I don't know how you can say "nobody knows" when the form itself explicitly identifies it as well as explicitly disclosing that the appraiser didn't do it. That's another deceptive argument that the lawyers will disassemble if/when the issue goes to court.

Heck, you might even have a tough time finding a lawyer who will attempt to make that vibe-oriented argument because they will know better just from reading the various discussions which have transpired. Including this one where I just drew the picture for you in crayon. But hey, I encourage you to throw money at the lawyers. That's what they're here for.

Stop being emotional and stick to facts