Inspection

[Flakey]

Do appraisers not do that with comps on virtually all residential assignments?

In a word, No

 

[DWiley]

In a word, No

Really? So, you only use comps that you have personally inspected/viewed? Call me dubious.

 

[Flakey]

It never was the expectation. Bad analogy and I'm not getting tangled up in a tit for tat over semantics.

 

[DWiley]

It never was the expectation. Bad analogy and I'm not getting tangled up in a tit for tat over semantics.

It is not semantics at all. For years appraisers have based condition ratings for comps on data provided by third parties. E posted that he would not be comfortable doing that for the subject. I am just asking why (other than - we have always done it that way) that is the case. In the typical appraisal report these days there are three to six comps, and condition and quality ratings are provided for all those comps, and that is almost always based on third party data. So, what you call semantics, is just reality. It also illustrates that many of the "arguments" made on this topic are emotional responses that are based on fee protection rather than actual logical debate.

Is there risk in using third party data? Absolutely, I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. What is being tested is the degree and impact of such risk.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

question: "Do appraisers not do that with comps on virtually all residential assignments?"
answer: "In a word, No"

don't really see any "semantics" to get tangled up with here. Fairly succinct.

 

[gregb]

Given using third party data for condition and quality of comps represents a risk, why double-down and increase the risk factor by spreading it to the subject with third party inspections?

 

[DWiley]

Given using third party data for condition and quality of comps represents a risk, why double-down and increase the risk factor by spreading it to the subject with third party inspections?

As George has pointed out many times, it is for the USER, not the appraiser, to determine the appropriate risk level. That is why, for example, FHA requires a different level of inspection. And, it is why RELO work is so much different. Appraisers have been quite happy to go along with that in instances where higher fees could be justified; it is only the threat of lower fees that seems to be generating this new-found interest in risk. And, if one objectively looks at a large number of appraisal reports, one might well see that some of the first-party inspections really aren't that great either.

 

[gregb]

And, if one objectively looks at a large number of appraisal reports, one might well see that some of the first-party inspections really aren't that great either.

No surprise, given the AMC priority to promote fee and speed over quality.

 

[DWiley]

No surprise, given the AMC priority to promote fee and speed over quality.

Yes, all that is wrong with the appraisal profession is the fault of the AMC model. I forgot that mantra. I mean, its not like appraisers blew through inspections before the expansion of AMCs, right?

 

[gregb]

Not to forget the risk beyond identity theft with allowing others to use one's digital signature.