Measuring partial stone (or brick) veneer/ partial stucco (or siding) homes

[J Grant]

My only point was/is, that if we accept as credible the GLA for the comparables, why would it not be acceptable to do so for the subject? At least unless we have reason to believe the information to be incorrect - as would be the case in your example of changing GLA for comps...

I knew you would post this eventually, one of the Koolaid talking points. When did you attend this seminar/get a memo by management to start parroting this?

PS we don't accept as 100% credible comp info, lots of doubt around MLS and discrepancies, we do the best we can with avail sources and research. Again, credible results measured in context of assignment. The argument to lower appraisal reliability of subject info to match lower of the comps is inane but not the first inane idea to get backing if it yields more profit or shortens turn time or whatever it is supposed to accomplish.

 

[Michigan CG]

I'm not even sure measuring should be part of the SOW, at least insofar as it has no significant effect on risk or perceived risk for the users of our services (at least resi/agency work). How often is the 'measured' GLA significantly different than the 'tax' GLA?

Often, very often.

 

[alebrewer]

We are appraising the SUBJECT, not the comps.

Come on, J... yes - we are appraising the subject. And we are using what to compare to the subject in order to appraise the subject? Buehler? Buehler?.... that's right - the comparables. Again - if the credibility of the comparable sales' data is questionable, how can we expect to produce credible results for the subject? All to say that if we accept the comparable sales' GLA as credible (even though it came from county records), why wouldn't we accept the subject GLA as credible (even though it comes from county records)?

 

[alebrewer]

Often, very often.

In some markets... maybe even most. Not particularly in mine.

 

[alebrewer]

When did you attend this seminar/get a memo by management to start parroting this?

Huh? (a) I didn't know there was a seminar put on by management, but I'm happy to attend; (b) I don't parrot anyone. I'd feel REALY sorry for someone else being associated with what goes on inside my head.

 

[alebrewer]

The argument to lower appraisal reliability of subject info to match lower of the comps is inane

Are you sure you know what the word 'inane' means? Either information is credible, or it's not. And if it's not, an appraiser should either withdraw from the assignment or take the necessary steps to gather said 'credible' information (which, I assume, would mean measuring the comps)...

 

[J Grant]

Appraisers do decline 2055 and desktops. ( I have )

A client when appraiser does a 2055 or desktop understands the subject info is not as reliable as if appraiser inspected/interior inspected. That is baked into the assignment/disclosures. I think you are misusing the term credible out of context . IT is credible to the extent we can verify or determine. Which is acceptable given the limitations of access into comp properties. .

It strains logic that anyone (outside of greed driven ) to believe reliability of info of a not personally inspected by appraiser is the same as when they inspected. As far as the comps, the appraiser does spend time verifying and reconciling comp info so appraisals do have a higher degree of reliability of the comp info than an AVM or other computer product does.

It's all good, I can sit home in pj's while a RE agent inspects and what do I care - predictable that unless it is iceberg Titanic level bad results from the tests, anything else will be deemed acceptable - even if less good than when appraiser inspected, test results will be deemed ok "in the context of client risk " . Bottom line is this has to be green lighted because it would be embarrassing to those who backed/developed it to retract it after all the promo, $, and resources spent .

 

[Overimprovement]

Couldn't agree more. My only point was/is, that if we accept as credible the GLA for the comparables, why would it not be acceptable to do so for the subject? At least unless we have reason to believe the information to be incorrect - as would be the case in your example of changing GLA for comps...

I just do not trust county employees or real estate agents to accurately measure a home. Its quite easy to measure a home as long as one is doing an interior anyway. May be the ONLY time the home has been accurately measured. Maybe its just a personal pet peeve of mine...

 

[alebrewer]

I just do not trust county employees or real estate agents to accurately measure a home. Its quite easy to measure a home as long as one is doing an interior anyway. May be the ONLY time the home has been accurately measured. Maybe its just a personal pet peeve of mine...

I think it may be a personal pet peeve of a lot of folks. Not sure why - maybe it is just another indication of how the industry is changing, and folks just don't like change... I'll assure you, though, that measurement of the GLA is a part of the SOW that has been brought under scrutiny - at least insofar as it impacts perceived risk. My personal belief is that, if we can accept comparable GLA as credible, we can also accept subject GLA as credible (from tax records, that is). I understand I'm in the minority, but I'm pretty used to that...

 

[Overimprovement]

I'll assure you, though, that measurement of the GLA is a part of the SOW that has been brought under scrutiny - at least insofar as it impacts perceived risk.

If this is so, its just another step down the road of the licensed appraiser signing off on others' work. Here's the GLA. Here's the interior 'inspection'. Here's the comps we want you to use. Here is the (ahem, hint, hint) sales price. Just sign here. Your $35 will arrive in 4-6 weeks.

Not for me, sorry. I want to personally gather and verify as much of the info as I can if I am signing my name. We'll just have to cordially disagree on this issue.