Inspection

[DWiley]

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

Yes, that is a huge risk. But I don't see what that has to do with government IDs.

 

[Evincere]

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

Are Appraisers placing an EMV on the subject property or the comps?

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

Are Appraisers placing an EMV on the subject property or the comps?

On the subject "based" on the comps! So your point is.......?

 

[chad hampton]

Here's where some of you are getting lost - When you have a comp, you have interior photos AND a confirmed sales price. When you have a subject, you may be given interior photos and some random person providing what the condition is, but what you don't have is the price/value. That is your job to come up with it. And you can only do it based on that opinions that are developed during a site visit. That is why they are different. Many times I've seen a comp where something looks "off" with either the sales price when compared to the photos. I don't use those comps.

It shouldn't be so difficult to understand why a subject and a comp is different.

 

[Evincere]

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.

For years Appraiser inspected the Subject property. And I really don’t think there were or are any “emotions” involved.

Implying otherwise - is disingenuous.

 

[DWiley]

Here's where some of you are getting lost - When you have a comp, you have interior photos AND a confirmed sales price. When you have a subject, you may be given interior photos and some random person providing what the condition is, but what you don't have is the price/value. That is your job to come up with it. And you can only do it based on that opinions that are developed during a site visit. That is why they are different. Many times I've seen a comp where something looks "off" with either the sales price when compared to the photos. I don't use those comps.

It shouldn't be so difficult to understand why a subject and a comp is different.

As they say in the South, I don't think I would have told all that

 

[George Hatch]

Here's where some of you are getting lost - When you have a comp, you have interior photos AND a confirmed sales price. When you have a subject, you may be given interior photos and some random person providing what the condition is, but what you don't have is the price/value. That is your job to come up with it. And you can only do it based on that opinions that are developed during a site visit. That is why they are different. Many times I've seen a comp where something looks "off" with either the sales price when compared to the photos. I don't use those comps.

It shouldn't be so difficult to understand why a subject and a comp is different.

This debate isn't about people somehow not understanding what each other are saying.

The point being made is that if you're capable of deciding that the info from a comparable listing isn't sufficiently reliable to use in an appraisal then the same process should be just as applicable when judging the credibility of one of these 3rd party inspection reports. In fact, if an appraiser has reason to believe the info in an inspection report is inaccurate then going ahead and using it anyways becomes a problem because that appraiser is no longer acting "to the best of my knowledge and belief".

As far as what the risks are to a lender using a desktop vs a 2055 vs a 1004, nobody here has ever argued that less is equal to more. Nobody. What risks are acceptable for a lender to take in underwriting their loan decisions is certainly an issue; but it's not an appraisal issue as such. It's not a decision that appraisers will be making for the lenders.

If you don't want to perform these assignments then just say no; it looks like lots of appraisers will be doing the same. Including me. But unlike you, I don't intend to depict my decision as having anything to do with some fear that I'm going to get sued or that my performance on those appraisals will have any affect in increasing the lender's risks in making those loan decisions. My reason for not doing these will probably revolve around either the fees and/or the turn time conditions being incompatible with my business plan. Basically, for the same reasons I don't participate in the GSE pipeline at all.

 

[chad hampton]

And think it's reasonable to believe that a staff appraiser for a large AMC is going to stand up to their bosses and say they don't believe the interior inspection to be reliable/credible and they recommend a full URAR be performed?

Don't forget, it's mostly employees that are being told to do these. I don't know how long it's been since you worked at a company, but that isn't how things work.

In theory, I agree with you. Sort of like how in theory in makes sense that if appraisers said no to low fees, then low paying AMCs would disappear. However, we live in the real world, not the theoretical world.

 

[Flakey]

So, basically if a certain level of uncertainty is acceptable for comparables due to the inability to directly verify the data, it should be acceptable for the subject. Sort of like the distinction between curable and incurable. You can certainly do something about one of those things and it is a higher standard with lower risk. Also, the risk of uncertainty for the comparables is spread over the entire range of sales analysed and sometimes does result in a possible comparable to be rejected simply because it does not meet expectations based on what you see elsewhere. A luxury you don't have with the subject. You base your entire report on one, unverified, data set that you can't dispute.

 

[George Hatch]

And think it's reasonable to believe that a staff appraiser for a large AMC is going to stand up to their bosses and say they don't believe the interior inspection to be reliable/credible and they recommend a full URAR be performed?

Let's flesh this line of reasoning out. Let's say that an appraiser is working on staff for a lender or an AMC that's engaged by a lender and that lender decides they want to use desktop appraisals for certain loans. Let's further say that this appraiser has decided that the appropriate response to such a request is never "yes", and that no desktop is credible for any use. The extreme position that probably even you wouldn't take.

Are you saying that this appraiser will not tell his/her/its bosses "no" and will proceed to perform that assignment against their own personal ethics?