David C. Johnson
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2002
Brad,
Fair enough.
Regards,
David C. Johnson
Fair enough.
Regards,
David C. Johnson
The Premier Online Community for Real Estate Appraisers!
-
Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online
community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.
More NCAB
- Thread starter Austin
- Start date
- Status
Stephen J. Vertin MAI
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2002
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- Illinois
David and Austin:
There are some issues I feel compelled to straighten out. This will be my last post on the subject. If anyone would like to talk to me about it my direct line is 708-524-8994. I am swamped with work and will not have time to post over the next few days to a week.
David, thank you for bringing out the issue of non-responsiveness. However, I take this with a grain of salt. Anyone who has had high school debate knows if your arguable position is weak you attack the messenger not the message. Wether Brad was doing this or not is really non-issue. We can all read into the facts and take them for what they are worth.
First let me state Illinois did not find any transactions. I found the 125 transactions and provided them at my first informal hearing (go back and read the original post). Let me further state these were deed transfers only. It was unknown how many of these transactions were refi's, arm's-length, land-for-deed, etc. If you deducted 25 to 35 (just an estimate) for these factors you have about 90 to 100 arm's-length bonafide sales. This indicates we had over 25 percent of the actual sales and possibly more. The reason I did not analyze this data is my attorney felt we needed to focus on the 250 counts rather than going off on tangents (unrelated charges). Furthermore, we felt the subject properties under question were so unique that the chances of finding better comparables within the group was next to none. Especially, given the scope of assignment. This must have been the case since the State, as you recall, never presented any sales.
Second, the appraisals were done in 1994. At this time I believe, most of USPAP was adapted via AI's standards. Remember, AI, who wrote these exact standards dismissed the case. Brad's 1997 advisory opinion is non-issue. Furthermore, it was a weak, second fall back position to start. He has presented nothing from any text or other authority, other then his opinion, that USPAP violations occurred. I agree with Brad, professionals can come to different opinions given the same information. This is a given in any line of work. However, you would think bludgeon someone with a $10,000 fine would require more than a non-written opinion as to methodology. Apparently not.
Furthermore, Brad claims he has not heard of other cases in Illinois where the Board has done similar things. I have. I know of two other cases where I believe abuses occurred, if what was presented to me was true..
Steve Vertin
There are some issues I feel compelled to straighten out. This will be my last post on the subject. If anyone would like to talk to me about it my direct line is 708-524-8994. I am swamped with work and will not have time to post over the next few days to a week.
David, thank you for bringing out the issue of non-responsiveness. However, I take this with a grain of salt. Anyone who has had high school debate knows if your arguable position is weak you attack the messenger not the message. Wether Brad was doing this or not is really non-issue. We can all read into the facts and take them for what they are worth.
First let me state Illinois did not find any transactions. I found the 125 transactions and provided them at my first informal hearing (go back and read the original post). Let me further state these were deed transfers only. It was unknown how many of these transactions were refi's, arm's-length, land-for-deed, etc. If you deducted 25 to 35 (just an estimate) for these factors you have about 90 to 100 arm's-length bonafide sales. This indicates we had over 25 percent of the actual sales and possibly more. The reason I did not analyze this data is my attorney felt we needed to focus on the 250 counts rather than going off on tangents (unrelated charges). Furthermore, we felt the subject properties under question were so unique that the chances of finding better comparables within the group was next to none. Especially, given the scope of assignment. This must have been the case since the State, as you recall, never presented any sales.
Second, the appraisals were done in 1994. At this time I believe, most of USPAP was adapted via AI's standards. Remember, AI, who wrote these exact standards dismissed the case. Brad's 1997 advisory opinion is non-issue. Furthermore, it was a weak, second fall back position to start. He has presented nothing from any text or other authority, other then his opinion, that USPAP violations occurred. I agree with Brad, professionals can come to different opinions given the same information. This is a given in any line of work. However, you would think bludgeon someone with a $10,000 fine would require more than a non-written opinion as to methodology. Apparently not.
Furthermore, Brad claims he has not heard of other cases in Illinois where the Board has done similar things. I have. I know of two other cases where I believe abuses occurred, if what was presented to me was true..
Steve Vertin
David C. Johnson
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2002
I heard back from a Marshall & Swift representative today:
Subj: RE: Fannie Mae Rejects Marshall & Swift Table?
Date: 5/8/02 3:38:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: RAARON@marshallswift.com (Robert Aaron)
To: Appraisco@aol.com ('Appraisco@aol.com')
Our depreciation tables in the commercial book (has both commercial and
residential building depreciation tables) and the residential book are
effective age/typical life tables.
I have not heard of Fannie Mae commenting on our tables not being compliant.
Robert Aaron, Technical Support Representative
Marshall & Swift
800-526-2756
www.marshallswift.com
Subj: RE: Fannie Mae Rejects Marshall & Swift Table?
Date: 5/8/02 3:38:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: RAARON@marshallswift.com (Robert Aaron)
To: Appraisco@aol.com ('Appraisco@aol.com')
Our depreciation tables in the commercial book (has both commercial and
residential building depreciation tables) and the residential book are
effective age/typical life tables.
I have not heard of Fannie Mae commenting on our tables not being compliant.
Robert Aaron, Technical Support Representative
Marshall & Swift
800-526-2756
www.marshallswift.com
Steven,
1. I have not attacked you and do not believe at all that my points were so weak that I had to attack you. I simply QUESTIONED the procedures you followed and stated my belief that there was a question over whether or not there was a potential USPAP violation. If I recalled your post correctly, you said that the OBRE went after you based upon your value conclusions- not over other areas of USPAP compliance. And on this, it appeared that we have agreed to disagree.
2. I did not quote a 1997 advisory opinion. I quoted from a 1997 version of USPAP. What I cited was Standard Rule 1-1(b). As far as I am aware, this part of STD-1 has been there from the start of USPAP- well before 1994.
3. My concern over methodology had nothing to do with who found those extra comps. It had to do with WHEN. Remember again, that this discussion is, and apparently was, NOT a part of the state's case. Therefore, it is an academic discussion. I have never said that this additional data was necessarily better or even as good as the data you used. As far as I know, you may have had the very very best data out there. My point was questioning whether or not you should have known about it BEFORE the reports went out. If you found this data subsequently, and determined it was as good as the data used, fine.
4. A couple more cases, eh? OK. I've heard of a few more in which the appraiser claimed the same thing. But, their claims have never been substantiated. The couple you heard about may be good examples or may not be. Pretty much every appraiser out there would take exceptiojn to the board's findings if there was anything they could hold on to. I would, too.
What we may find is that your claims and those of others who are accusing the board of acting improperly (apart from your case) COULD prove to be true. BUT, so far, there is only this loose anecdotal, maybe accurate, maybe not, indication of errors in a few cases out of the hundreds they must look at every year.
With that, I have other things to do as well.
Brad
1. I have not attacked you and do not believe at all that my points were so weak that I had to attack you. I simply QUESTIONED the procedures you followed and stated my belief that there was a question over whether or not there was a potential USPAP violation. If I recalled your post correctly, you said that the OBRE went after you based upon your value conclusions- not over other areas of USPAP compliance. And on this, it appeared that we have agreed to disagree.
2. I did not quote a 1997 advisory opinion. I quoted from a 1997 version of USPAP. What I cited was Standard Rule 1-1(b). As far as I am aware, this part of STD-1 has been there from the start of USPAP- well before 1994.
3. My concern over methodology had nothing to do with who found those extra comps. It had to do with WHEN. Remember again, that this discussion is, and apparently was, NOT a part of the state's case. Therefore, it is an academic discussion. I have never said that this additional data was necessarily better or even as good as the data you used. As far as I know, you may have had the very very best data out there. My point was questioning whether or not you should have known about it BEFORE the reports went out. If you found this data subsequently, and determined it was as good as the data used, fine.
4. A couple more cases, eh? OK. I've heard of a few more in which the appraiser claimed the same thing. But, their claims have never been substantiated. The couple you heard about may be good examples or may not be. Pretty much every appraiser out there would take exceptiojn to the board's findings if there was anything they could hold on to. I would, too.
What we may find is that your claims and those of others who are accusing the board of acting improperly (apart from your case) COULD prove to be true. BUT, so far, there is only this loose anecdotal, maybe accurate, maybe not, indication of errors in a few cases out of the hundreds they must look at every year.
With that, I have other things to do as well.
Brad
David,
A friend of mine told me he recalled hearing that from a Q&A session our Chicago chapter had with a Fannie rep. GAWD! Wish my brain could remember where these things are written. So, sorry if it means that I gave you incorrect info. Not sure it IS incorrect, but I still cannot prove so. I WILL keep searching as time allows.
I'm not surprised at the M&S response. After all, they sell this data.
What I do know is that I have always had a question over the relationship of the charts to the classical EA/TEL function. In my opinion, if a property has an effective age of 15 with a total economic life of 50, then it is 30% depreciated. The M&S book I looked at today showed a depreciation percentage (admittedly for an apartment building) to be 17%.
M&S always has made the valid point that properties do not depreciate in a straight line fashion. Bricks and rafters will depreciate slower than carpet or paint. So what? If the effective age/economic life relationship is expressed in this fashion, then perhaps one of the factors is wrong.
This still throws me. If we believe what we are taught, then EA+REL=TEL. This is a simple mathematical formula- basic algebra. Still cannot figure out how and why if 15 out of 50 years is used up, then 30% is gone- a loss from the upper limit of value. So how could there only be 17% depreciation?
Wanna ask them? I'm ducking enough bullets already!
Brad
A friend of mine told me he recalled hearing that from a Q&A session our Chicago chapter had with a Fannie rep. GAWD! Wish my brain could remember where these things are written. So, sorry if it means that I gave you incorrect info. Not sure it IS incorrect, but I still cannot prove so. I WILL keep searching as time allows.
I'm not surprised at the M&S response. After all, they sell this data.
What I do know is that I have always had a question over the relationship of the charts to the classical EA/TEL function. In my opinion, if a property has an effective age of 15 with a total economic life of 50, then it is 30% depreciated. The M&S book I looked at today showed a depreciation percentage (admittedly for an apartment building) to be 17%.
M&S always has made the valid point that properties do not depreciate in a straight line fashion. Bricks and rafters will depreciate slower than carpet or paint. So what? If the effective age/economic life relationship is expressed in this fashion, then perhaps one of the factors is wrong.
This still throws me. If we believe what we are taught, then EA+REL=TEL. This is a simple mathematical formula- basic algebra. Still cannot figure out how and why if 15 out of 50 years is used up, then 30% is gone- a loss from the upper limit of value. So how could there only be 17% depreciation?
Wanna ask them? I'm ducking enough bullets already!
Brad
Stephen J. Vertin MAI
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2002
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- Illinois
Brad:
You had two arguments the first crumbled because you were indicating USPAP required appraisers collect all sales, than your second was worse than your first. You quoted SR1-1(b) out of context and tried to apply it to this situation.. No one in the furthest reaches of their imagination could stretch SR-1-1(b) to mean appraisers must collect every sale which occurred in the market to produce a credible report. Give me a break.
I know they are not teaching you this as an instructor of USPAP. AI, the authors, certainly do not read it that way. I would specifically refer you to Lesson 5 page 57/111 in which there is discussion of errors of excess and defect in the development of an appraisal. Errors of deficience are prohibited. But we have no error of deficiency. We have reasonable amounts of verified data adequately analyzed to provide meaningful results to the client. You need to stop it Brad you are confusing newer appraisers on this forum.
Furthermore, you need to read the original post. There was never an issue of value. And finally, I was clarifying who collected the data for Austin and David I was not addressing you. As far as Illinois goes my sources are credible and after what happen to me I have no reason to discount them. I stand by my comment.
Steve Vertin
You had two arguments the first crumbled because you were indicating USPAP required appraisers collect all sales, than your second was worse than your first. You quoted SR1-1(b) out of context and tried to apply it to this situation.. No one in the furthest reaches of their imagination could stretch SR-1-1(b) to mean appraisers must collect every sale which occurred in the market to produce a credible report. Give me a break.
I know they are not teaching you this as an instructor of USPAP. AI, the authors, certainly do not read it that way. I would specifically refer you to Lesson 5 page 57/111 in which there is discussion of errors of excess and defect in the development of an appraisal. Errors of deficience are prohibited. But we have no error of deficiency. We have reasonable amounts of verified data adequately analyzed to provide meaningful results to the client. You need to stop it Brad you are confusing newer appraisers on this forum.
Furthermore, you need to read the original post. There was never an issue of value. And finally, I was clarifying who collected the data for Austin and David I was not addressing you. As far as Illinois goes my sources are credible and after what happen to me I have no reason to discount them. I stand by my comment.
Steve Vertin
Steven,
I find it interesting that you must go back to a point on which I had already admitted I was not accurate- in that an appraiser had to research every sale.
My post on 1-1(b) stands. I'll stand by it. An appraiser must gather data in a manner that is "sufficient;y diligent". It is neither out of context nor wrong. In fact, I believe I quoted entire sentences from the comment, if not the entire comment itself.
But now are you ready to answer some questions?
1. Did you sue your subcontractor?
2. If yes, did you win?
3. If so, how much?
4. Of the 25 sales she found in her investigations, how many were actually used in the development of the opinions of value- all 25 or less?
5. If less, exactly how many?
6. Is she still licensed by the state?
You see, Steven, we seem to have heard your side of this, but perhaps not the whole story.
Care to eleborate?
Brad
I find it interesting that you must go back to a point on which I had already admitted I was not accurate- in that an appraiser had to research every sale.
My post on 1-1(b) stands. I'll stand by it. An appraiser must gather data in a manner that is "sufficient;y diligent". It is neither out of context nor wrong. In fact, I believe I quoted entire sentences from the comment, if not the entire comment itself.
But now are you ready to answer some questions?
1. Did you sue your subcontractor?
2. If yes, did you win?
3. If so, how much?
4. Of the 25 sales she found in her investigations, how many were actually used in the development of the opinions of value- all 25 or less?
5. If less, exactly how many?
6. Is she still licensed by the state?
You see, Steven, we seem to have heard your side of this, but perhaps not the whole story.
Care to eleborate?
Brad
Stephen J. Vertin MAI
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2002
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- Illinois
Brad:
As I said two post ago. I have tons of work to get out. I can write a few sentence on this only. If you have any other questions I will be glad to answer, call me at 708-524-8994.
I will bet you $1,000.00 that sufficiently diligent under 1-1(b) does not mean an appraiser must obtain every sale in the market. I know that and you know that. We will write the question to ASC and let the chips fall. What ever they answer will be the final authority. Put your money where your mouth is. I am growing tired of your mis-information not only on this issue but several others.
Steve Vertin
As I said two post ago. I have tons of work to get out. I can write a few sentence on this only. If you have any other questions I will be glad to answer, call me at 708-524-8994.
I will bet you $1,000.00 that sufficiently diligent under 1-1(b) does not mean an appraiser must obtain every sale in the market. I know that and you know that. We will write the question to ASC and let the chips fall. What ever they answer will be the final authority. Put your money where your mouth is. I am growing tired of your mis-information not only on this issue but several others.
Steve Vertin
Steven
I admitted long ago that you and others were correct about not having to reaserch EVERY single sale in the market. Interesting that you keep coming back to that.
Also interesting that you did not answer a SINGLE question I just asked.
Very interesting.
You, and others, might also be interested in my new post on States and STD-3.
Brad
I admitted long ago that you and others were correct about not having to reaserch EVERY single sale in the market. Interesting that you keep coming back to that.
Also interesting that you did not answer a SINGLE question I just asked.
Very interesting.
You, and others, might also be interested in my new post on States and STD-3.
Brad
Stephen J. Vertin MAI
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2002
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- Illinois
Brad:
The questions you asked, and claimed I did not answer, were answered on this forum over three years ago as many of the old timers on this forum will tell you. Look through the achieves. Brad I have nothing to hide and have told no lies. I have offered to send anyone who wants it, a copy of the transcripts (at least three times now). In fact, I thought you got the information about the law suite from the achieves within this forum to begin with. Obviously not. You must be in touch with someone at OBRE. Let them know I am not going to keep quite about this bullsh**. I do not fear them and have no intentions of letting this go. What they are doing is wrong.
What I find interesting is rather than address USPAP issues in my case the State claims USPAP was violated bases on a law suite? As anyone can see their case is getting weaker by the minute. But rather than deal with non-appraisal theory or USPAP compliance issues, I would rather stick to what Illinois is claiming wrong within the reports. Why? Because Raila, the field appraiser, never showed up at any of the hearings. Both the State of Illinois and I won our cases against her by default. No one has ever heard nor is it likely we will ever hear Raila's side. Furthermore, what the State is claiming as USPAP violations and appraisal theory errors is out of pocket and dead wrong. Finally, they are violating appraisers constitutional rights of due process by presenting no witnesses or evidence supporting any of their claims.
Now that you have openly admitted that USPAP does not, in any section or area, state or indicate appraisers have to have every sale in the market place to produce a creditable report we can move on to the next issue.
The State of Illinois like a number of State's have determined they are not the value police. So rather then attack reports based value they do it based on comparable selection. They started with this, not so well thought out, line of reasoning and now it is hard for them to back peddle no matter how absurd it is. Why? Human nature and the number of convictions already gone through the system based on this premise. No one like to hear they hurt someone based on a fallacy having no theoretical frame work.
There premise is the only way a creditable appraisal can be produced is if the very best comparables are selected. The problem with this is there is no criteria for comparable selection. Why? Because, it is subjective, and has little or no effect on the value out come, if adjustments are market supported. Go back to my mathimatical equation presented in this section. If I am adjusting the comparable correctly and adjust for all differences between the comparable and the subject, what does it matter what I am using for comparables in the first place? In theory, the value conclusion is the same. Why? Value is a constant. It is purely adding and subtracting.
We used 25 sales to value each individual property. All adjustments were supported by paired sales analysis. Tell me Brad, how is that theoretically incorrect? Four months prior to completing these reports, I had just finished Ted Whitmer's corse on Comprehensive Real Estate and sat and passed the AI Comprehensive Exam towards my MAI. I had never been stronger in theory. There were no theoretical holes in these reports. The only group using improper methodology and theory is OBRE.
Finally, if there has been any changes in STD3 by the State, which I can not find, for the positive, it is not because they are good guys who want to do the right thing. It is because their original stand was opposed by all organizations in the State and they can not change rules without support from said organizations.
Steve Vertin
The questions you asked, and claimed I did not answer, were answered on this forum over three years ago as many of the old timers on this forum will tell you. Look through the achieves. Brad I have nothing to hide and have told no lies. I have offered to send anyone who wants it, a copy of the transcripts (at least three times now). In fact, I thought you got the information about the law suite from the achieves within this forum to begin with. Obviously not. You must be in touch with someone at OBRE. Let them know I am not going to keep quite about this bullsh**. I do not fear them and have no intentions of letting this go. What they are doing is wrong.
What I find interesting is rather than address USPAP issues in my case the State claims USPAP was violated bases on a law suite? As anyone can see their case is getting weaker by the minute. But rather than deal with non-appraisal theory or USPAP compliance issues, I would rather stick to what Illinois is claiming wrong within the reports. Why? Because Raila, the field appraiser, never showed up at any of the hearings. Both the State of Illinois and I won our cases against her by default. No one has ever heard nor is it likely we will ever hear Raila's side. Furthermore, what the State is claiming as USPAP violations and appraisal theory errors is out of pocket and dead wrong. Finally, they are violating appraisers constitutional rights of due process by presenting no witnesses or evidence supporting any of their claims.
Now that you have openly admitted that USPAP does not, in any section or area, state or indicate appraisers have to have every sale in the market place to produce a creditable report we can move on to the next issue.
The State of Illinois like a number of State's have determined they are not the value police. So rather then attack reports based value they do it based on comparable selection. They started with this, not so well thought out, line of reasoning and now it is hard for them to back peddle no matter how absurd it is. Why? Human nature and the number of convictions already gone through the system based on this premise. No one like to hear they hurt someone based on a fallacy having no theoretical frame work.
There premise is the only way a creditable appraisal can be produced is if the very best comparables are selected. The problem with this is there is no criteria for comparable selection. Why? Because, it is subjective, and has little or no effect on the value out come, if adjustments are market supported. Go back to my mathimatical equation presented in this section. If I am adjusting the comparable correctly and adjust for all differences between the comparable and the subject, what does it matter what I am using for comparables in the first place? In theory, the value conclusion is the same. Why? Value is a constant. It is purely adding and subtracting.
We used 25 sales to value each individual property. All adjustments were supported by paired sales analysis. Tell me Brad, how is that theoretically incorrect? Four months prior to completing these reports, I had just finished Ted Whitmer's corse on Comprehensive Real Estate and sat and passed the AI Comprehensive Exam towards my MAI. I had never been stronger in theory. There were no theoretical holes in these reports. The only group using improper methodology and theory is OBRE.
Finally, if there has been any changes in STD3 by the State, which I can not find, for the positive, it is not because they are good guys who want to do the right thing. It is because their original stand was opposed by all organizations in the State and they can not change rules without support from said organizations.
Steve Vertin
- Status