Objective vs Subjective Language

[Vermonter]

C3 and Q3 are defined terms where the details are spelled out, right?

Which can be copy/pasted into the appraiser defined definition of "average"

 

[Tom D]

So instead of being direct with 2 keystrokes, you put a paragraph somewhere in your 30 page report, and expect the underwrter or reviewer to find it. The CU bad word program won't find your extra comnent either.

Underwriters and staff reviewers use word search to find things. They ain't looking thru 30 pages to read your brilliant comment. It will be easier to stip you than find you. They don't read the reports.

 

[J Grant]

Which can be copy/pasted into the appraiser defined definition of "average"

I believe D Wiley posted that the clients or UW do not want to see the above done - maybe he can confirm that.

 

[Vermonter]

I believe D Wiley posted that the clients or UW do not want to see the above done - maybe he can confirm that.

Oh I'm sure they don't

 

[sandollar01]

We grade every field in the description with a C-1 through C6 rather than new, good, average, etc.

 

[residentialguy]

If they want an objective report, I guess we have to take out that pesky personal opinion of market value.

 

[residentialguy]

C3 and Q3 are defined terms where the details are spelled out, right?

And yet, others will see it as C4 or Q4. Opinions... opinions everywhere.

Actually, a more applicable and arguably more objective rating on the grid is using "Superior, Similar, Inferior", since we are adjusting to the subject. But the FNMA Data Gods can't steal that.

 

[J Grant]

Eliminating potentially biased words makes sense, and those words are easy to identify and remove.

However, Fannie/Freddie declaring certain words are "subjective/not objective" distorts USPAP - USPAP (paraphrasing) says the appraiser acts objectively. It does not warn/prohibit using words that some entity deems are not "objective." The sales comparison approach is a comparison of properties to each other. Therefore, some properties will sell higher or lower than others or have superior or better or inferior features to each other. We already have the C And Q ratings for the condition or quality - average/good/lower, etc, are used elsewhere, now we have to add a context statement for using those words, which are almost unavoidable.

It creates another roadblock around appraisals - more minutes to slow down delivery, see reports kicked back, and make appraisers so defensive that it is hard to concentrate on what is important.

 

[Tom4value]

Eliminating potentially biased words makes sense, and those words are easy to identify and remove.

However, Fannie/Freddie declaring certain words are "subjective/not objective" distorts USPAP - USPAP (paraphrasing) says the appraiser acts objectively. It does not warn/prohibit using words that some entity deems are not "objective." The sales comparison approach is a comparison of properties to each other. Therefore, some properties will sell higher or lower than others or have superior or better or inferior features to each other. We already have the C And Q ratings for the condition or quality - average/good/lower, etc, are used elsewhere, now we have to add a context statement for using those words, which are almost unavoidable.

It creates another roadblock around appraisals - more minutes to slow down delivery, see reports kicked back, and make appraisers so defensive that it is hard to concentrate on what is important.

Agreed.
What concerns me is that appraisers will become so afraid of using biased words that they will omit important information that we are supposed to be considering. For instance, an appraiser will just state that "there is a gas station adjacent to the subject property".....and move on. No comment on a potential negative affect on market value and/or marketability because "'negative' is biased".

 

[J Grant]

Agreed.
What concerns me is that appraisers will become so afraid of using biased words that they will omit important information that we are supposed to be considering. For instance, an appraiser will just state that "there is a gas station adjacent to the subject property".....and move on. No comment on a potential negative affect on market value and/or marketability because "'negative' is biased".

Agree and add to that it is only about bias - it is now about subjective/objective, almost an impossible standard to meet -such as stating an influence such as a gas station of "negative" is subjective - of course, we need to show it is not subjective, ( similar affected sales show X reaction). However, a party can still challenge it or sue over it.