Review Appraiser "Hides" behind client relationship

[hastalavista]

Well, there we have it.

If we don't like the rules, they should be ignored.
If someone follows the rules and we think he/she shouldn't, they're the ones who are chicken$hit.

Todd,

Your description of the overall event was well written. It supports your frustration.
Your conclusion at the end, from my perspective, really degrades the rest of the post.

You can tell me to go stick it, and I'm fine with that.
You should read your post in a couple of days; I'd be surprised if you feel the same way.
[edited to add]
Same way about your conclusion; not about the quality of the review.

 

[Annemieke Roell]

And Todd, once again .... the lender your report was submitted to, which is the reviewer's client, may prohibit the reviewer to talk to you or even reveal his/her identity.

Has nothing to do with the reviewer hiding ......

 

[Pamela Crowley (Florida)]

Alrighty then...

Again, without looking at both William's appraisal and the review, nobody here can come to any truly realistic conclusions.

BUT, it sure sounds to me that William probably did a good, well explained and supported appraisal and report. It sounds like the reviewer was just being nasty and did not suport her conclusions nor use appropriate comps. William is correct, at least in my experiences, that horse people have certain wants/needs and properties set up for that have a limited, but willing to pay for the differences, supply of buyers.

So, my guess is that we have a review appraiser that decided to slam another appraiser no matter what the true facts were, and did it poorly. Any one of us would be pretty angry about that.

Call to talk to the reviewer about it? Not a good idea, not at all.
Suggestion: Take a few days to calm down, then write a rebuttal based on just the facts with NO personal comments.

 

[Carnivore]

William,

OK, I am not defending this reviewer. I just need to point out that in a unique proeprty such as the one you described its not unusual to have wider than normal differences in opinion. Understand that the reviewer is also responsible for his opinion just as much as you are!! Maybe he adopted the lower range of value. Did you go to the higher range or mid-range.

One thing you did not mention is the marketing exposure time required for this type of property. To me as a reviewer I would really want to see how you addressed that issue. Truth is anybody can sell a property in one day, it takes more skill and time to extract more value. It takes a real pro to extract the absolute maximum in a reasonable period of time.

So maybe his view/perception of the narrow market segment pushed him to the low side all things considered.

The cost of boarding a single horse is pretty low when you consider cost to maintain a facility like you have described. I know a rising young cowgirl who is almost professional. They have a barn and small arena and other improvements related to the care of farm animals. It comes no where near what you have described, and they can afford to have better. What they have is adequate and meets her needs. Would they buy your subject property? Maybe! They are more likely to build thee own facility if they wanted something more modern and up to date.

Cool down! The world will not end on this report.

 

[Fred]

Pam,
Your statement that realistic conclusion are not available didn’t stop you from plowing forward.

Well, it won't stop me either. This thread is part of a larger pattern that raises intriguing questions. The forum features many threads speaking of 1) review work that finds widespread bad appraisals and 2) appraisal work that is unfairly savaged by a renegade reviewer, usually one who doesn't "Know" the market and lacks geographic competency. That leads to me my “realistic” conclusion that there is something important to be learned in studying the causes and effects involved in a group that tends to think most work stinks, but not their own.

calm down, then write a rebuttal

BTW, the “rebuttal” is what some folks like to call “a Std 3 review,” right?

 

[Pamela Crowley (Florida)]

Steven, notice my wording:

"< sounds to me that >"
"< sounds like >"
"< my guess is >"

I missed using "it appears"



Again, none of us here can really know anything about it without actually seeing the original appraisal and the review and appraisal, including the data used to do them.

 

[Francois K. Gregoire]

a group that tends to think most work stinks, but not their own.

Based upon my conversations with folks in related and other professions, this phenomenon is not unique to our group; appraisers.

Talk with real estate agents, title companies, mortgage loan solicitors, politicians, hair stylists, carpenters, painters or picture framers. It's common to hear everyone else is a hack. Hmmmmm:happy:

 

[xm72mhd]

WELL, THIS CERTAINLY SCREAMS FOR THE CORRECT OPINION! So Here it is:new_2gunsfiring_v1: .

I happen to agree with William's outrage and that the reviewer has chosen to hide behind whatever the reviewer finds available. Unfortunately USPAP provides a wide path for this kind of stuff, and it stinks. I have raised an objection, as you may be aware, about the confidentiality thing and I am told 1) clients expect it and 2) have legitimate concerns about confidentiality. Bull and more bull when it comes to something like William's situation. It is nothing more than a hiding place as William has correctly characterized it, and it is only one of the many things appraisers do to destroy the profession.

But, William it is the rule. It's dumb rule, but you're not worth a flip if you don't follow it. I think you're option is to turn her in, while you try to get a waiver from the client to talk to her. Actually, from what you describe the time it would take to talk to her is probably wasted, but maybe you might learn something. Somehow, I detect you'd like to chew her out, but she's probably too defensive and dumb to get any help from it. So what's the point?

One more good reason to move all reviews into a specialty along with training trainees.

Incidentally, I agree that any confidentiality tomfoolery has been blown completely away in William's case by the actions of the client in sending him the review, but what is interesting is how appraisers resuscitate it. It seems to have nine lives. It won't die.

Now you have the true opinion. The one that matters the most.

Confidentiality should be contractual. Dump the automatic stuff!

 

[xm72mhd]

Based upon my conversations with folks in related and other professions, this phenomenon is not unique to our group; appraisers.

Talk with real estate agents, title companies, mortgage loan solicitors, politicians, hair stylists, carpenters, painters or picture framers. It's common to hear everyone else is a hack. Hmmmmm:happy:

Not to put words in Steven's mouth or thoughts in his head that are not his own, but I get the distinct impression he may think that of me, and perhaps the rest of us too.

 

[Hal Mann]

WELL, THIS CERTAINLY SCREAMS FOR THE CORRECT OPINION! So Here it is:new_2gunsfiring_v1: .

I happen to agree with William's outrage and that the reviewer has chosen to hide behind whatever the reviewer finds available. Unfortunately USPAP provides a wide path for this kind of stuff, and it stinks. I have raised an objection, as you may be aware, about the confidentiality thing and I am told 1) clients expect it and 2) have legitimate concerns about confidentiality. Bull and more bull when it comes to something like William's situation. It is nothing more than a hiding place as William has correctly characterized it, and it is only one of the many things appraisers do to destroy the profession.

But, William it is the rule. It's dumb rule, but you're not worth a flip if you don't follow it. I think you're option is to turn her in, while you try to get a waiver from the client to talk to her. Actually, from what you describe the time it would take to talk to her is probably wasted, but maybe you might learn something. Somehow, I detect you'd like to chew her out, but she's probably too defensive and dumb to get any help from it. So what's the point?

Incidentally, I agree that any confidentiality tomfoolery has been blown completely away in William's case by the actions of the client in sending him the review, but what is interesting is how appraisers resuscitate it. It seems to have nine lives. It won't die.

Confidentiality should be contractual. Dump the automatic stuff!

Edd, how do you know that the confidentiality in this case is not contractual? Does that client want the reviewer to discuss the appraisal with William or no? Not having any idea what instructions the client has given the reviewer, to say that the reviewer is hiding is sheer speculation. I'm sure you would not include such unsupported claims in an appraisal report.

Here at the bank staff review appraisers will discuss appraisals with the appraiser while the review is in process (if necessary). Once the review is complete, the bank prefers that there be no further discussion outside the bank. Distribution of reviews to potential borrowers or consulting appraisers is not permitted. Should an appraiser who somehow got ahold of a review, and who is offended in some way by it call, we would be required to "hide", too. William's outrage is misplaced. Perhaps not his outrage over the review, but his outrage over the reviewer declining to discuss it.

Things appraisers do to destroy the profession? There are a lot of those, but this isn't one of them.