And "user desires" will always favor increased commerce over fiduciary responsibility because they're all playing casino with other people's money. "User desires" to eliminate & constrain independent valuations pose systemic risk to our entire financial system and must be constrained.
I fully agree with you. That is why I dispute the notion that if half-assed, unsupported appraisals are fully acceptable across the spectrum of users, that should be the level of accountability all appraisers should be held to, and should, in fact, aspire to achieve.
I saw the clear potential for AVMs in 1989 when my task for almost a year was modeling market data for property taxes. We had all the data. Even then, the areas with good and plentiful data were remarkably well valued. The fringes, not so much. Frankly, I am surprised the cookie cutter stuff hasn't been wholly AVM since long ago.
I am not advocating all AVM all the time, both because, as you suggest, thieves will steal, but also because, just like they won't pay enough to engage competent appraisers in the subject market for most reviews, they won't pay to accurately model the challenging markets. But there is a vast playing field between all Appraisers and all AVMs. I think there is a sweet spot within that gulf that could accomplish most missions.
But, as long as Appraisers as a group think they are smarter than everyone else, and believe that , as a group, they can't and have no need to up their game, I would bet on the AVM in the final outcome. Of course, 70,000 Appraisers might suddenly band together and gain the attention of policy makers and convince them to act against the desires if those who finance their campaigns.
