Inspection

[Evincere]

just curious about - how many certified Genarals (the majority of whose work is usually commercial) are doing or being solicited to do hybrid products

 

[ucbruin]

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?

Yes....
People will do things against their personal beliefs on many occasions....

 

[Evincere]

Yes....
People will do things against their personal beliefs on many occasions....

The flesh of the matter is that although “Employees” may not like many facets of a job description” they will nevertheless comply if it means keeping their job

 

[George Hatch]

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.

So now we want to frame this in terms of what you can and can't dispute? I don't believe you've thought that one through.

It is the assignment conditions that serve as the effective limitation to the appraiser approaching the property owner of every one of the comparables being used and asking to look the interior of the comparable over to develop their own direct observation of its quality/condition. *It's possible* for appraisers to add that level of diligence to their assignment just as *it's possible* for an appraiser to get trained and perform the technical home inspection of the subject at the same level the home inspectors do.

But IRL we don't normally bother with such efforts because our users don't find the added work to be sufficiently meaningful to their decision making to require it, or to pay extra for it. So IRL we *almost never* go as far into our due diligence on either the subject or the comparables as we could, and we *almost always* make more assumptions than are absolutely unavoidable. It's not a question if we ever make assumptions that we could avoid if we really wanted to,. No, the only question is how many of those "avoidable" assumptions that we routinely make and under what circumstances.

 

[ucbruin]

Duplicate

 

[George Hatch]

The flesh of the matter is that although “Employees” may not like many facets of a job description” they will nevertheless comply if it means keeping their job

Obviously, I anticipated the response when I posed the question because I intend to take this line of reasoning further. Several steps further. And I'm going to let you guys lead us down that path with your responses until we get to its inevitable conclusion. And the only way you guys can stop me is to stop responding to these questions.

So now what's the difference between a staff appraiser who will rubber stamp a value because their boss said so (lest they get fired) vs a fee appraiser rubber stamping a value because their client said so (lest they get blacklisted)? Between a staff appraiser who will do a desktop even though they believe it's immoral to appraise a property without personally inspecting the interior/exterior vs a fee appraiser working for the $35 fee split from the big bad AMC?

Of what effect on these decisions are the terms of engagement vs employment ?

 

[ucbruin]

Obviously, I anticipated the response when I posed the question because I intend to take this line of reasoning further. Several steps further. And I'm going to let you guys lead us down that path with your responses until we get to its inevitable conclusion. And the only way you guys can stop me is to stop responding to these questions.

So now what's the difference between a staff appraiser who will rubber stamp a value because their boss said so (on paid of getting fired) vs a fee appraiser rubber stamping a value because their client said so (on pain of getting blacklisted)? Between a staff appraiser who will do a desktop even though they believe it's immoral to appraise a property without personally inspecting the interior/exterior vs a fee appraiser working for the $35 fee split from the big bad AMC?

Is this the reason why you stopped/quit being a cop?

 

[J Grant]

I

So now we want to frame this in terms of what you can and can't dispute? I don't believe you've thought that one through.

It is the assignment conditions that serve as the effective limitation to the appraiser approaching the property owner of every one of the comparables being used and asking to look the interior of the comparable over to develop their own direct observation of its quality/condition. *It's possible* for appraisers to add that level of diligence to their assignment just as *it's possible* for an appraiser to get trained and perform the technical home inspection of the subject at the same level the home inspectors do.

But IRL we don't normally bother with such efforts because our users don't find the added work to be sufficiently meaningful to their decision making to require it, or to pay extra for it. So IRL we *almost never* go as far into our due diligence on either the subject or the comparables as we could, and we *almost always* make more assumptions than are absolutely unavoidable. It's not a question if we ever make assumptions that we could avoid if we really wanted to,. No, the only question is how many of those "avoidable" assumptions that we routinely make and under what circumstances.

It's silly to believe appraisers would have access to comp interiors even if they tried. Why would a homeowner who closed months ago, whose house is not being appraised let some stranger appraiser in? And even if some of them did, it would delay a report for weeks trying to get in each comp.

Whereas the owner of a subject IS letting the inspector in. Which means there is no reason that inspector should not be the appraiser themselves, except for Fannie/Freddie's misguided idea that making something worse is the same as modernizing.

 

[George Hatch]

Is this the reason why you stopped/quit being a cop?

Non sequitur, anyone?

I liked the job but I didn't think I had what it took to do it for 30 years. BTW, I don't think most appraisers realize how many parallels there are between what we do vs what the cops do.

 

[DWiley]

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.

So, you are focused on "risk" ?? As George noted, that is a client/underwriter issue, not an appraisal issue Do you make all your conventional clients follow FHA protocols for the same reason?

And, who says you cannot dispute it, if there is reason to? That certainly does NOT reflect the parameters I have seen. The issue I have is some want to simply dispute the whole process - because they want to protect their fee They just don't want to be that honest about it.