RIP AQB and ASC, to be replaced with "Federal Valuation Agency"

[CGinMN]

You mean in addition to the (stated) limitations to subjectivity on comp selection that have always existed? I don't know how much more the feds could clamp down beyond what already applies.

Do you consider "I have selected the properties that are most comparable" to be a primarily subjective judgement? Or can it instead be reasonably characterized as a objective judgement that can be quantified (and tested) in terms of proximity, age, Q or C ratings? I believe in the latter, and I believe that appraisers have very little discretion when it comes to which properties can and cannot be reasonably characterized as "most similar".

Matter of fact, I look for the big lie (WRT "most similar") when I review. If the subject is accurately described and reasonably rated for its attributes and if the comps presented as such really are among the most similar and if their attributes are reported with a reasonable degree of accuracy then it's usually pretty hard for the appraisal to end up with an unreasonable value conclusion. I virtually never hassle the adjustments unless they're being applied inconsistently.

I think the truthiness of the assertion can be rated on the binary basis (T) or (F)

"7. I selected and used comparable sales that are locationally, physically, and functionally the most similar to the subject property."​

What do you think?

I think you answered my question with a question, but it’s ok I’ll bite on yours.

I believe two different appraisers can have non-identical comp selections, sign their certification, and deliver a USPAP compliant report.

 

[CGinMN]

That certification leaves out an important variable - time. Should we go back to 1990 to find comparables that are physically, functionally, and locationally the most similar?

 

[George Hatch]

Remember, it's houses we're talking about; not some wierdo mixed use or specialty property.

I will say that the term I use in my reports is "are among the most similar" as opposed to "are the most similar". So there is that. But still, would you vote "primarily subjective in nature" or "primarily objective in nature"?

 

[George Hatch]

That certification leaves out an important variable - time. Should we go back to 1990 to find comparables that are physically, functionally, and locationally the most similar?

True. The cert lays out the bare minimums and doesn't eliminate the possibility that an appraiser may have no choice but to add a 3yr old sale in the SC. So maybe the feds will add that limitation.

 

[CGinMN]

primarily subjective in nature - 20%
primarily objective in nature - 80%

 

[CGinMN]

The word “among” is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

 

[Mejappz]

So you want an objective now, do you? How this. A distance measure is used to quantify the similarity of each candidate property to the subject property. So the stupid user comes back and ask why did you not use this sale well that sale is ranked 50th on my report with a comparability score of 50%. End of story.

 

[CGinMN]

Sometimes I will exclude data points that only confirm other identical data points. If I don’t include them in the sales comparison analysis, but summarize them in the narrative, have they been “selected?”

 

[George Hatch]

primarily subjective in nature - 20%
primarily objective in nature - 80%

Me too. Nevertheless, I don't think that contradicts a comment about reducing the amount of discretion/subjectivity in comp selection. I have done 100% (I'm sure you have, too) when the data was that good. I try to limit my use of subjective to the purpose of closing the gap when objective is coming up short, which is most of the time in my work.

 

[CGinMN]

True. The cert lays out the bare minimums and doesn't eliminate the possibility that an appraiser may have no choice but to add a 3yr old sale in the SC. So maybe the feds will add that limitation.

I think the cert is actually is saying time can’t part of the equation. Once it’s introduced as a variable, you change the criteria of what is functionally, locationally, and physically most similar. So I think it is a bad certification.