Review scope of work

[CANative]

Janet,

Where's the beef and why is it difficult to understand that Denis' client wants to know three things (quality, value then, value now) instead of the usual two things (quality, value then)?

 

[Ms. Janet]

My only beef is that the value now is dressed like a review of the value then.

 

[Austin]

Every time I read something like this I am reminded why I don't do mortgage loan appraisals. Unless I was trying to evaluate the competence of an appraiser for some reason, why would anyone go to the trouble to do such a comprehensive review. Why not just get another appraisal. Sheesh! You people are sadistic.
After reading this thread it appears to me that a review is nothing but an ego exercise of the reviewer. Hey everybody. Just look how smart I am.

 

[hastalavista]

After reading this thread it appears to me that a review is nothing but an ego exercise of the reviewer. Hey everybody. Just look how smart I am.

Austin-

Austin-
I must be slower than most because I don't quite understand what you mean?

 

[TC]

Every time I read something like this I am reminded why I don't do mortgage loan appraisals. Unless I was trying to evaluate the competence of an appraiser for some reason, why would anyone go to the trouble to do such a comprehensive review. Why not just get another appraisal. Sheesh! You people are sadistic.
After reading this thread it appears to me that a review is nothing but an ego exercise of the reviewer. Hey everybody. Just look how smart I am.

Wish I'd said that.

TC

 

[Fred]

I think Denis is doing a good job of showing what I mean by saying the “intended use’ is really the “client’s decision” – and how you have to get inside the head of the decision-maker to understand what that person needs in term of work. Notice how everything he does is wrapped around understanding the client’s concerns and answering a question the client has.

Now, back to Pam’s original question.

How about some discussion about good Review Scope of Work verbiage please.

The answer is that no one can give “good” sample scope statements in the abstract. The goodness of “verbiage” can only be measured in the context of an assignment. Is stating that you drove by the comps a good statement in what was supposed to be a desk review? Is saying that you didn’t drive by the comps a good statement in a review that was supposed to include driving by the comps? “Good” scope verbiage explains how the work fit with what the client needed.

IMO, the some of the samples posted by Denis and Mike are too wordy. Personally, I don’t like reading omnibus boilerplate that discusses factors not present in the asignment

“the Reviewer identified any extraordinary assumptions necessary”

Isn’t it better to report them only if they pop up? Wny have text addressing somethng if it didn't happen.

In developing this Appraisal Review, pursuant to the Clients’ request, and in accordance with USPAP Ethics and Scope of Work Rules, and Standard Rule 3, the Reviewer:
The Reviewers’ independent Opinion of Value was developed within USPAP Guidelines for Review:

Again, isn’t the cert comment that you complied with USPAP enough? It’s like anyone who reads this is being put through a USPAP CE class.

I may have missed it, but in any of the posted samples, does the verbiage state that the reviewer read the original report?

Just an opinion, but I try writing these like you a contestant on Name That Tune. I can disclose that scope in X words.

 

[xm72mhd]

Let me think. I'm tired.

OK. I'm back, acceptably alert and ready to be iconoclastic.

Here't goes.

I am somewhat confused by the question, first of because of the reference to level of geographical competency. I guess I that been thinking of it as you either have it or you don't have it. But qualifying it has merit. Second of all, you ask in two places about what level I think is appropriate.

Not to be dilatory (I know you asked yesterday), but, being a veteran of several discussions on here, where we have failed to define what it is we are talking about and ended where we began, I suggest we define geographic competence so it includes the little back waters as well as metro areas. Then I propose we come up with what the level thing means.

I'm going ahead with working on my explanation, and I'll make certain assumptions about what geographic competence includes and what the level thing includes.

 

[hastalavista]

I
I may have missed it, but in any of the posted samples, does the verbiage state that the reviewer read the original report?

Such may be the danger of a long SOW (First bullet point in the SOW at the end of my fist post):

Scope of Work Statement:

• I have received this review assignment from my clients. I have reviewed the original report and market data (current and contemporaneous with the original report).

(my bold for this post)

 

[CANative]

I use the FannieForm for reporting an appraisal review assignment because that's what my clients want. The pre-printed scope of work, statement of assumptions and limiting conditions and instructions for completing the report on that form are sufficient for most assignments of this type.

When additional work is required that is beyond the basic scope of these assignments, then I augment the report with the necessary narrative comments. It wouldn't be very meaningful to post such comments and additional SoW verbiage here because it is unique to each assignment.


For example...

Additional scope of work:

Per client instructions, the review appraiser's site visit was more detailed than what is typically required. The reviewer toured the entire property in the presence of the property owner and observed all structures from the street, front, rear and sides as well as the interiors of all but one of the buildings. The accessory dwelling with attached shop was locked and the tenants were not present so no interior inspection was made. The review appaiser was able to look through several windows and did not observe any apparent adverse conditions.

Conditions noted by reviewer but not indicated in the report under review:

The lower and some mid portions of the larger, main residence is partially below grade or against the grade of the hill to north. There is a concrete retaining wall which forms the rear portion of the dwelling. Some exterior siding was missing from the northwest portion of the structure. The reviewer also noted some interior drywall damage in this area. Apparently, during the prolonged and heavy rains during the winter of 2006, ground water in the hillside rose above the level of the retaining wall and casued some minor damage to the interior drywall. The property owner states that the retaining wall height has been increased. The review appraiser was not able to confirm this and has no expertise in this matter.

The reviewer also noted large amounts of bat guano in the workshop area attached to one of the accessory dwelling units. This indicates a possible infestation. This may present a health issue for the occupants of that unit.

Subject is not located in a known Special FEMA Flood Hazard Area, but the main residence is proximate to a seasonal creek or channel for rain runoff from the hillside. There appears to be a french drain system at the rear portion of the structure where it meets the slope.

Notes on errors, conflicting data or omissions:

Inadequate narrative description of the subject's unique and atypical improvements. Scope of work inadequate given the complexity of the property. Inadquate explanation for omitting an approach to value (income approach) given that the stated purpose of the appraisal is for use in a federally related transaction (See USPAP, Statement 10) Inadequate summary of the sales comparison approach. Inaccurate statements on page 2 indicating that the sales comparables are located in the subject's immediate neighborhood. Comments in the reconciliation section state that the cost approach is not appropriate for condos (the statement is not relevant to the assignment.)

Review comparable sales comments (continued from body of review report)

Review comparable sale 3 is the ony sale of a property with a yurt design. This is a very dated sale and has little relevance other than the architectural design and appeal. Located near downtown Hopland on Mountain House Road. This property is part of a small cluster development of about 6 yurts similar in design and size. Very small quarter acre lot. This sale has been included as supporting data that the yurt design does not appear to be adverse to marketability or value in rural Mendocino County. No adjustments have been made due to the age of the sale and signficant differences in other characteristics. The review appraser researched and analyzed sales for the 6 month period prior to and after this sale and it appears that the sales price of comp 3 is more or less similar to that of other properties in it's neighborhood with more conventional designs. See the exhibit addendum attached to this report which show the comp 3 sale bracketed by sales in Hopland during that time period.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

"Personally, I don’t like reading omnibus boilerplate that discusses factors not present in the asignment
Quote:
“the Reviewer identified any extraordinary assumptions necessary”
Isn’t it better to report them only if they pop up? Wny have text addressing somethng if it didn't happen."

The Scope posted above included rendering a Disparate Value opinion supported by detailed description - in the body of the report itself - as to the extent of subject exterior inspection and EA regarding interior condition ....detailed explanations appear in relevant sections of the review report. SOW merely serves as a Summary of the Review Process.

"Again, isn’t the cert comment that you complied with USPAP enough? It’s like anyone who reads this is being put through a USPAP CE class.

Specific language included was directly excerpted from USPAP (on advice from E&O carrier to ensure one does not omit Essentials).


I may have missed it, but in any of the posted samples, does the verbiage state that the reviewer read the original report?

Yes >
The Review Appraiser was required to, and did,
develop an Opinion as to the completeness of the material under review,

Just an opinion, but I try writing these like you a contestant on Name That Tune. I can disclose that scope in X words.

One page is sufficient. Thanks for your comments.