Hybrid

[J Grant]

But if you think about it., there's nothing distinctive about how an appraiser measures or photographs or inspects a property that would be of effect on an appraisal.

It's how the appraiser SEES the property as they inspect that is distinctive, rather than the rote act of measuring or photographing. The appraiser sees a property through an integrated lens of value interacting with condition, size, defects, upgrades etc as they measure, photo and inspect.

When an appraiser observes an older roof, they make a mental ( or written) judgment, how it affects value and appeal, not just the rote condition itself. Will the age/condition of the roof look the same, or better, or worse, in a photo? Will the other inspector notice it , if they do, as a major repair item ( when it might not be ) or a minor issue ( which it might not be ) etc. Right or wrong, we own our judgement when we make the inspection. There is also the drive around neighborhood which is missing and any interaction /feedback/questions to property owner or agent or builder (or even hearing sounds such as traffic nearby )at site that will be missing. This is apart from any business interest argument

 

[George Hatch]

So what's the difference between the appraiser noticing the condition of the roof in person and seeing the description and pics of it in an inspection report that's been completed by someone who does nothing but inspections all day long?

Seriously - what is the net difference? In both cases the appraiser still has to develop their own opinions about how that physical attribute will affect value and marketability, right? THAT is an analysis, opinion and conclusion that is specific to what the appraiser does and which is not performed and cannot be performed by the non-appraiser who is inspecting the property.

Remember how when a reviewer agrees with an opinion that is developed by the original appraiser that agreement is an opinion being made by the reviewer and for which they are responsible, even if its the same as the opinion developed by the original appraiser? Same reasoning holds here.

Just because an appraiser agrees with , say a broker, doesn't mean that the broker developed the appraiser's opinion for them.

 

[ucbruin]

I'm at the point in my chronological, effective and economic life, should the fee to inspect be agreeable to my wants and needs, I'll do the inspection....
After 30+ years I'm pretty sure that I (and most of the AF members) am capable of measuring homes and taking photos....

Others may have a different opinion...

 

[J Grant]

Most of us know a hybrid, or no inspection at all for that matter is allowed in USPAP - so why derail a thread for the few who contest that.

 

[J Grant]

I'm at the point in my chronological, effective and economic life, should the fee to inspect be agreeable to my wants and needs, I'll do the inspection....
After 30+ years I'm pretty sure that I (and most of the AF members) am capable of measuring homes and taking photos....

Others may have a different opinion...

The point is they dont WANT cert appraisers inspecting ! These hybrids are typically NOT gong to have an appraiser inspect, they want RE agents or home inspectors or a trainee in some cases....its about super low fee and speed and if a cert appraiser inspects they have to be named and they do not WANT the inspector named in the report, and they do not want a disclosure that an appraiser contributed significant assistance by inspecting,..

 

[George Hatch]

and if a cert appraiser inspects they have to be named and they do not WANT the inspector named in the report, and they do not want a disclosure that an appraiser contributed significant assistance by inspecting,.

So is that actually part of the program - that appraisers will not have any means of disclosing that the inspection was performed by a third party and they did not personally inspect? That strikes me as unlikely, particularly in light of SR2-3 requirements.

 

[J Grant]

So what's the difference between the appraiser noticing the condition of the roof in person and seeing the description and pics of it in an inspection report that's been completed by someone who does nothing but inspections all day long?

Seriously - what is the net difference? In both cases the appraiser still has to develop their own opinions about how that physical attribute will affect value and marketability, right? THAT is an analysis, opinion and conclusion that is specific to what the appraiser does and which is not performed and cannot be performed by the non-appraiser who is inspecting the property.

Remember how when a reviewer agrees with an opinion that is developed by the original appraiser that agreement is an opinion being made by the reviewer and for which they are responsible, even if its the same as the opinion developed by the original appraiser? Same reasoning holds here.

Just because an appraiser agrees with , say a broker, doesn't mean that the broker developed the appraiser's opinion for them.

Your own byline says appraising is not hard, it's just the collection of 1,000 little details !

An older roof, and all the other observations that become cumulative in an inspection form a major part of those "thousand little details"...and can get lost in translation with a third party. Maybe not on every assignment, but on some assignments., and even an appraiser may not be able to tell the difference.

The more rushed and low paid the inspectors ( and appraisers) get in hybrid work,the more problems can occur. How careful will an inspector be when low paid and rushing around to get a bunch done by deadline ? The inspector has nothing vested in any one assignment.

You are like a politician, arguing for,/ against something at the same time! In another post you said you don't think it 's good to use hybrids for origination work, yet you make an argument for it.


Seriously - what is the net difference? In both cases the appraiser still has to develop their own opinions about how that physical attribute will affect value and marketability, right? THAT is an analysis, opinion and conclusion that is specific to what the appraiser does and which is not performed and cannot be performed by the non-appraiser who is inspecting the property.

Because when appraiser inspects They KNOW what they saw, in relying on another party they can not see it the same way....photos, even my own, can make a property look better or worse and the totality of a property in person, in relation to its area tells a story...we dont' yet know how this will affect appraiser's opinions. I think it will differ even with one appraiser from assignment to assignment, and certainly from appraiser to appraiser depending on their own experience/ competence, as well as with hybrids they are n an area they know, or appraising far away now that they don't have to visit the property. A roof that is market acceptable for being older in one area can differ from another...it's bound to affect opinions in some aspects. Of course if nobody cares than that won't matter either.

 

[Meandering]

This thread makes me laugh - We have got one poster who has fraud on the brain and others that think a hybrid is OK and others are not sure BUT we do know for a fact that major money center banks are using them and and they have hundreds of attorneys that do nothing but lending and real estate and we have State Boards that can simply send out notices to their appraisers as to legality of hybrids.

As did Countrywide
And LPS.

But how many went to jail who were employees?

You can always be part of the problem. the problem evolves with the more the merrier mind set.

knock yourselves out with $75 reports that are dictated to you. I'm not anyone's E&O provider.

And honestly, I hope the appraisers who do these can't save enough money for their defense against owners, lenders, agents, GSEs, FBI, FDIC,state boards, because it is only appraiser that must decline the work, when the scope of the work is not credible for the intended use, and the intended use regulation requires relevant evidence that such products are considered credible by intended users, and their bank examiners. You lack that relevant evidence.

But have a party with them.

As George is always saying, there are far too many appraisers, so this is a great way to eliminate the justifying lemmings.

The only damage we suffer is the reputation you leave us, which we'll just discount away as every profession has lemmings and those with the foresight, right up the behind of the lemming in front of them.


But don't say you weren't warned.


.

 

[J Grant]

So is that actually part of the program - that appraisers will not have any means of disclosing that the inspection was performed by a third party and they did not personally inspect? That strikes me as unlikely, particularly in light of SR2-3 requirements.

There will be a checkbox appraiser did not inspect, but the inspector party will not be individually named in the appraisal (from what I am aware of ), nor will there be verbiage that the inspector contributed significant appraisal assistance 1) because they are not an appraiser and 2) because the inspector will not relate opinions about what they saw, just transmit what they saw.

 

[George Hatch]

TBH, one thing that annoys me is when an appraiser (nobody here, BTW) whose day job is running a fee shop that employs trainees gets belligerent and activist about the business environment being hard on fee appraisers. Stop digging, ******. Whatever other problems some of you may have with my viewpoints, I have never screwed my peers over like that.