Significant Appraisal Assistance (1004p)

[J Grant]

Examples of contributions made by appraisers that constitute significant real property appraisal assistance include the identification of comparable properties and data, inspection of the subject property and comparables, estimating accrued depreciation, or forecasting income and expenses.

Found the above from a 2007 USPAP FAQ- if an inspection of subject by an appraiser is contribution of significant real property appraisal assistance, then why is that not true if a non appraiser inspects?

since inspection of a subject is identified as a contribution of sig assit,, then it has to be named as such- which is why the stakeholders have re labeled an inspection "data collection",
(Because data collection is not considered significant real property appraisal assistance: )

If when an appraiser insects it is is contributing significant real property assistance, then why is it not true if non appraiser inspects? It would be true, which is why they re label it.

I will write to the ASB, whether they will take corrective actions is another matter.

 

[J Grant]

Examples of contributions made by appraisers that constitute significant real property appraisal assistance include the identification of comparable properties and data, inspection of the subject property and comparables, estimating accrued depreciation, or forecasting income and expenses.

Found the above from a 2007 USPAP FAQ- if an inspection of subject by an appraiser is contribution of significant real property appraisal assistance, then why is that not true if a non appraiser inspects? It can;t be both- thus the stakeholders have re labeled an inspection "data collection", because data collection is not considered significant real property appraisal assistance

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

But that doesn't alter the fact that field-developed information on the front page of the URAR is primarily a function of data collection.

Mechanically. I want to see the appraisers doing unique lakeside property drive the neighborhood out on Google Earth and count FSBO signs, note which house has a dock, no dock or covered dock. When something isn't quite right...and you know it, do you argue for a higher fee to do it? If you do it gets cancelled and sent elsewhere, right? So ignore what you know the inspector missed like the surfacing septic, the new crematorium being built next door, or the noise from the train tracks echoing against the building next door. I drive the streets around just to see what is there. In rural assignments, a much bigger area is investigated. What is the price asked for the land tract next door for sale? It isn't in my MLS nor on Zillow.

OA 31 may be flawed or self-conflicted but it is what it is, and if "bad" TAF has had multiple USPAP cycles to fix it. And to "fix" it now smacks of kowtowing to the lenders and Fannie Mae...and again Fannie apparently has considerable influence over the content and actual interpretation of USPAP, unlike appraisers who seemingly have no influence at all.

 

[J Grant]

Everyone here who actually thinks the SOW should be the same for every assignment and should not be subject to adjustment based on user expectations being different for some situations than for others would fail the course. Regardless of how many times they took it.

This is not about the SOW should be the same for every assignment. I for one never said that. Asking that disclosures about inspections be truthful is not the same thing as saying the SOW needs be the same in every assignment!

I am saying when an inspection is done of a subject for appraisal and report will rely on it, that it be recognized as an inspection (not the lie it was data collection) and because it was an inspection, USPAP should change to disclosure the party who inspected contributed real property appraisal assistance. ( I made a new thread on it with references to USPAP and further focus on data and inspections for clarity )

 

[ucbruin]

This is not about the SOW should be the same for every assignment. I for one never said that. Asking that disclosures about inspections be truthful is not the same thing as saying the SOW needs be the same in every assignment!

I am saying when an inspection is done of a subject for appraisal and report will rely on it, that it be recognized as an inspection (not the lie it was data collection) and because it was an inspection, USPAP should change to disclosure the party who inspected contributed real property appraisal assistance. ( I made a new thread on it with references to USPAP and further focus on data and inspections for clarity )

How about labeling it "data confirmation"?

Most subject data is available online...

 

[J Grant]

bnmappraisal said: ↑
we appraisers...have to remember there are a lot of appraisal problems that need to be solved and to do so doesn't always require an inspection

Fine , we recognize it. But this is not about re working the appraisal filed that every assignment require an inspection ! It is about truthful disclosures when an inspection is done.

 

[J Grant]

How about labeling it "data confirmation"?

Most subject data is available online...

An inspection is not mere "data confirmation ! " ...and consider what you just wrote-Most subject data is online. They are trying to equate gathering data online ( data collection) to a property inspection.

One of the fundamentals reasons why it is called DATA, is because it can be retrieved online. That is the accepted use and definition of data- facts or information that are published , or in documents , or computer searchable.

Why do appraisers inspect a subject, since online data is available on it?

1) the online data may be incorrect, or has changed 2) the appraiser notices and observes things on site that no amount of online data can convey.

 

[J Grant]

George Hatch said: ↑
But that doesn't alter the fact that field-developed information on the front page of the URAR is primarily a function of data collection.

The field based information is REPORTED as data on the first page. But the process to get it, onsite from appraiser came from observations and opinions and evaluating facts during the inspection.. Once the appraiser enters it and appraiser is accepted and then stored in data bases, that information becomes a data source for others, such as fannie uses appraisals in its CU.

But the way that "data" was procured was from an inspection, and an inspection is not one and the same as "data collection"- it was never called "data collection" prior to this for good reason, the only reason it is being called that now is avoid having to name the person inspecting as having contributed real property appraisal assistance.

Data is defined as facts or figures, or information that's stored in or used by a computer. (from a definition of it)

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Judgment starts with the inspection, not a filled out page one.

 

[Eli]

bnmappraisal said: ↑
we appraisers...have to remember there are a lot of appraisal problems that need to be solved and to do so doesn't always require an inspection

Fine , we recognize it. But this is not about re working the appraisal filed that every assignment require an inspection ! It is about truthful disclosures when an inspection is done.

True but more than that.