You make this allegation so much that I have to assume you truly believe it happens. In my career I will say that I was offered something like that exactly one time - back when I was the ASB chair a certain forms provider wanted the ASB to adopt something that would have been very favorable to a new thing he wanted to do. He offered that if I wanted to discuss it he could arrange for a private jet to fly me to ASB meetings so we could have one-on-one time to chat. I politely declined.
My support for the hybrid appraisal process is based on one thing, and one thing only - the data from the testing. Appraisals based on a PDR rather than a personal inspection are far more likely to report an appraiser condition rating that aligns with the actual definitions, and such appraisals are far less likely to overlook necessary repairs and/or inspections. As far as I know, no one questioning those findings has actually done any analysis of their own.
Lastly, if one asserts that data collectors are providing appraisal assistance and need to be cited as such, do we also need to cite the tax assessor or whatever source we used for the site size? I assume that most are not personally measuring the site size. The truth is that appraisers use third party data, specifically third party data about the subject, in every appraisal. They are just accustomed to gathering certain data elements themselves, because for many years there was no other way to do it.
I believe this is true. - For certain data. However, one big data item is the measurement of square footage. How good are third party inspectors on accuracy here? Do they satisfy the ANSI standard? I couldn't say, for either these unlicensed 3rd-Party inspectors, or the average appraiser. In fact, based on my limited personal experience, even with MAIs - most appraisers are lousy inspectors. But I am not.
For me the rule is that the standard "appraisal" done per USPAP by licensed appraisers is a compromise between accuracy and the practical real world business constraints: The so-called USPAP standard and bank and GSE guidelines are themselves loose and rather flexible. The Appraisal Institute says "appraisals" are "opinions." The protocols are simply meant as "guardrails" against sloppiness, inaccuracy and fraud.
Grok-3 says residential appraisals are on average 5-10% accurate, and commercial appraisals are only 10-15% accurate.
Yes, that is what "appraisal" means: Limited accuracy in the face of real world constraints (e.g. incompetence, limited time, resources).
=====
Then consider the timeline for appraisals, the turn-over rate for sale prices becoming comparables is maybe 12/year - and the accepted upward bias of "appraisals" compounds itself 12/year as well.
--- That is unacceptable in my opinion. --- BUT, to do any better, you need to value outside the appraisal profession. The appraisal industry and so many dependencies and so much inertia, plagued by really incompetent leadership from the very top down, and above all incompetent reviewers, that improvement is virtually impossible. Something better is needed completely outside the field of appraisal, such as "value engineering."
It is possible. But you might as well drop your appraiser license and disassociate yourself completely from appraisal.
Who needs more accurate valuations than appraisers deliver? Certainly not the GSEs - they are far beyond improvement. So, it's a good question. Hit the pavement and contact banks and investors. ... There may be some out there.
This year, I will disassociate myself from being an appraiser .... and just work as a valuation consultant with a Broker License. Less overhead and I write and abide by my own higher standards.
In Civil Engineering, they talk of a 1/10,000 chance of structure failure per year of a structure over 30–100 years. In appraisal, it is a 5-15% chance of failure over 3–6 weeks. Now, what do you think about that?
