Reviewer's name withheld

[xm72mhd]

Fees or type of reports do not lessen the credibility of any assignment. It is still the appraisers assignment to do a credible job.

I have come to the same conclusion, but I'm not convinced it is correct and completely encompasses all that it portends. To me there is more to be discussed about this nexus even though it may not lead us eventually to a different conclusion. It may, however lead to different construct, in this day of appraising morphing into drive-bys and then into BPO's and AVM's.

I'm still struggling with what Rich Heyn said about the relativity of credibility. I think what he said is true and may have always been true, but it doesn't fit yet.

 

[George Hatch]

Edd,

I don't think anyone here has been sticking up for those reviewers who are failing in their responsibilities. It may be true that a large percentage of reviewers are in significant violation, but if so that is a personal failure and is subject to the same processes that appraisals are when they have deficiencies.

There is "what should be", which by definition "isn't". For instance, as a reviewer I think the appraisers who were writing crappy reports for all these years should have been given the boot; but that didn't happen. Now you think that reviewers who are overreacting should be given the boot. I agree that they "should be" disciplined but the reality is that they probably won't, and for the same reasons we still have problem appraisers.

I would submit to you that when speaking of deficient reviews it is probably far more common for reviewers to under-react to problem appraisals than to over-react. Most staff reviewers are, like most staff appraisers, under tremendous pressure to produce and to take short cuts. That can't have a good outcome. The reviewer can either take the short cut of rubber stamping the report or they can take the short cut of arbitrarily calling out a number without adequately supporting it in their report. Each is equally noxious but one presents less risk to their client than the other while the other presents more cash flow.

I would recommend that all appraisers bear in mind that the market conditions in many areas of the nation are changing and that has an impact on corporate culture even in areas where there are no such declines. If someone is writing appraisal reports without considering they may be reviewed by some harried reviewer or underwriter they're undoubtably going to have more problems. In an increasing market the habits of defensive report writing aren't rewarded in the market, but they are rewarded in a declining market.

 

[Fred]

I would submit to you that when speaking of deficient reviews it is probably far more common for reviewers to under-react to problem appraisals than to over-react.

Doesn't that just put another blow torch to Edd's straw man argument that "reviewers" are another species. The fact is that appraisers and reviewers are the same people. If you inference is correct George, it just tells me they accept crap when they review, beause it looks just the same crap they peddle when they appraise. Get used to it, it is the inevitable path of least resistance in an ethical paradigm buiilt on "typical practice." The acceptable level of work, is just the average number of errors omission and comission minus one standard deviation.

 

[George Hatch]

I agree that it's the same people doing the same things. I don't agree that it is an indication that professional standards have changed. Those people were in significant breach then and they're in significant breach now. As I see it, the difference is in market conditions and what the users have elected - and been allowed - to use; that's something that can and will change.

 

[Kevin Mc]

Agreed....

Thank you, Janet. It really is about time to lose all those conditional disclaimers.

To be honest the more disclaimer,boilerplate crap I see in an appraisal when I'm reviewing, the more suspicious I get. Keep it simple and to the point. A well constrcuted paragraph or two is all one needs to explain the valuation that was performed. Of course most of the reviews I do these days are being reviewed for a reason other than typical portfolio review.

 

[Hal Mann]

Disclaimers

To clarify my point about conditional disclaimers, I want to add that I am not opposed to disclaimers. Today's litigious world makes a variety of disclaimers absolutely essential. The conditional ones are the ones that bug me. These are the ones that will state that "If the subject property is a two-family residence the appraiser is not responsible for blah blah blah. And if the subject is a non-conforming legal use, then blah blah blah, etc., ad naseum. Why should it be left to the reader to sort through all this to decide which disclaimers are applicable? This is just laziness masquerading as efficiency.