Of course not. And there never will be. And no specific "legally recognized" body of knowledge for medical or hair-cutting knowledge either. That is why they call it "peer review." Methods recognized by peers. If the trier of fact cannot figure out who to listen to, that is not the fault of the rules; that is the fallibility of people. Some people do not even accept what the meaning of is, is.
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.
Newbies: Cap Rates and Yield Rates
- Thread starter Paul Ness MAI
- Start date
- Status
Austin
Elite Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2002
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- Virginia
Steven:
I would also refer you to SR 1-1b & c in light of what I just stated above. The AI are essentially teaching people to do matched pairing which they admit is a simple but less than perfect method for simple minded people, and then state that there is a better method called regression. Then in the 12th edition they say the sequence of adjustments comes from the market but give no method to extract the adjustments from the market. So much for the sales comparison approach. Talk about “not commit a substantial omission or commission that significantly affects an appraisal,” and you can throw in SR –1-1c, which addresses a series of errors to add fuel to the fire.
The entire standard 1 is labeled binding requirements from which no departure is allowed but the entire standard is totally arbitrary. Which is binding, matched pairs or regression analysis? Which meaning of the definiton of market value is binding, the incorrect verbal version being used by a majority of the peers or the correct statistical definition that is being used my my peers? I rest my case.
Talk about arbitrary and capricious! I have heard of moral relativity but that statement takes the cake. That means if I get 12 people that agree with my methods and interpretations I can put the entire remaining 80,000 appraisers out of business because we think they are wrong headed. Have you read any appraisal literature lately? I will go you one better than that. I have before me the 1985, edition of the AI’s workbook. Look at the comments under problem 21 on page 60. It says “matched pairs is a good practice because it is simple but regression analysis gives a better answer with the added benefit of revealing standard deviation and helps in determining the reliability of results.” That was written 17 years ago. Now tell me which peer group you will vote with, the match pair people or the regression people. The AI comes down on both sides of the issue. An even better example is the meaning of the definition of market value. As I have pointed out three times lately, see the most recent edition of the AI’s “Appraisal Journal” article on a statistical definition of market value. It says that you cannot define market value by any other means. Again, which peer group will you side with? Probably 79,999 appraisal peers don’t know what the question being asked in the definition of market value means, so how can they answer it with methods that don’t even address the question? The fallibility of people is why we have courts of appeal and freedom of speech and the press, to point out the idiots in our society and to prevent them from perpetrating a travesty of justice.
I would also refer you to SR 1-1b & c in light of what I just stated above. The AI are essentially teaching people to do matched pairing which they admit is a simple but less than perfect method for simple minded people, and then state that there is a better method called regression. Then in the 12th edition they say the sequence of adjustments comes from the market but give no method to extract the adjustments from the market. So much for the sales comparison approach. Talk about “not commit a substantial omission or commission that significantly affects an appraisal,” and you can throw in SR –1-1c, which addresses a series of errors to add fuel to the fire.
The entire standard 1 is labeled binding requirements from which no departure is allowed but the entire standard is totally arbitrary. Which is binding, matched pairs or regression analysis? Which meaning of the definiton of market value is binding, the incorrect verbal version being used by a majority of the peers or the correct statistical definition that is being used my my peers? I rest my case.
No, If you can get 12 out of 80,000 you can win once, on one day. That will be one down and 79,999 to go, assuming you are not reversed on appeal.
Oh what else is new. The AI is nothing but a bunch of appraisers. And so are we.
How many PhD, MAI, CRE authors have to critique the cost approach before a single one of these discouraging words is ever heard in the AI text? Dr. Dotzour, SRA published an empirical study (that means from real appraisal reports) on the cost approach and found it was not a reliable appraisal method. Not that this is final and definitive, but at least one of these noted authors rates a mention before too many more decades go by.
IMO - After your article in Harrison's pointing out the errors in the AI Workbook, you are more of an authority on correctly employed recognized methods in sales comparison than the AI text. Think about it. In the information era, where one man and his computer can topple empires, you caught the emperor with his pants off. Even as far back as the 10th edition there was 37 pages on regression – IN THE APPENDIX!!!
The significance of this may be lost on some folks, but not on your "peers." So stop fretting about USPAP. You do not need to worry about "them." "They" need to worry about you.
-----------
BTW, I would debate that the new SR 1-1 is really "binding." Each key rule has a departure mechanism built right into it in the form of "given the scope of work necessary." Read the Instuctor's Manual. Now there's explicit relativism. I was only giving you pragmatism.
Terrel L. Shields
Elite Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2002
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- Arkansas
Bill said
Scary isn't it? But I recall an article perhaps in A. J. which said a court ruled against using a statistical method when the opposition argued that it wasn't a traditional Sales / Cost / or Income approach...i.e.- court did not recognize the method as being a (in this case) variation of the sales approach. The use of statistics, on the other hand, has long been highly valuable in "market studies" and those studies can lead to logical inferences about value. Regression, etc. are so dangerous, yet so applicable...
This is somewhat akin to what I have noticed twice this year when a reviewer argued that the use of more than 3 comps was "fishing" for a higher value...i.e.- use more than 3 comps and you must be a number hitter trying to convince yourself it really is worth it. I had been using 4 comps when available so that I could have 2 higher and 2 lower than the subject. This was on farms mind you. I found the inference puzzling. It suggests we need, perhaps, to write appraisals as comic books.
Scary isn't it? But I recall an article perhaps in A. J. which said a court ruled against using a statistical method when the opposition argued that it wasn't a traditional Sales / Cost / or Income approach...i.e.- court did not recognize the method as being a (in this case) variation of the sales approach. The use of statistics, on the other hand, has long been highly valuable in "market studies" and those studies can lead to logical inferences about value. Regression, etc. are so dangerous, yet so applicable...
This is somewhat akin to what I have noticed twice this year when a reviewer argued that the use of more than 3 comps was "fishing" for a higher value...i.e.- use more than 3 comps and you must be a number hitter trying to convince yourself it really is worth it. I had been using 4 comps when available so that I could have 2 higher and 2 lower than the subject. This was on farms mind you. I found the inference puzzling. It suggests we need, perhaps, to write appraisals as comic books.
Austin
Elite Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2002
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- Virginia
Terrell: There is a new rule of evidence that has been discussed on this forum that basically says that any testimony as to market value has to be based on scientific data. I was hired a couple of years ago to appraise a warehouse that had collapsed. The owner claimed that the wind blew it down. I represented the lawyer for the insurance company and at the inspection I point out that the wind was not the problem, it was soil conditions and the building was sinking. So the lawyer hired a soil engineer who confirmed my suspicions and the case which was scheduled for Federal Court was dismissed in a summary judgment based on the scientific evidence. About a week later the lawyer sent me a copy of a letter from the Judge that stated from now on and henceforth, no evidence would be admitted in his court without scientific data support. I took this to mean: No more of that based on my 30-years of experience crap. If you don’t have the numbers you don’t have a case. My appraisal has a lot of graphics and numbers on warehouses.
I think your reviewer buddy has his head screwed on backwards because using three comps carefully selected can result in about any value opinion you desire. He never heard of the law of numbers. Most likely a graduate of the college of arts and humanities where everything is relative based on how one feels about it.
I think your reviewer buddy has his head screwed on backwards because using three comps carefully selected can result in about any value opinion you desire. He never heard of the law of numbers. Most likely a graduate of the college of arts and humanities where everything is relative based on how one feels about it.
Hey, you guys were right. Got hit with it today on cross. Where's your three comps? Right in there with rest of them.
BTW, Austin that "new" rule of evidence is from Daubert v. Merril Dow and its 10 years old. You should love this rule if you know how to read (and I think you do). Even though it is from the Supreme Court it is starting to be being applied at all levels of adjudication.
BTW, Austin that "new" rule of evidence is from Daubert v. Merril Dow and its 10 years old. You should love this rule if you know how to read (and I think you do). Even though it is from the Supreme Court it is starting to be being applied at all levels of adjudication.
- Status