Technology in appraisals AO 41

[George Hatch]

The question speaks to the expectations of the user. When the form itself is asking a specific question the expectation will generally be equally specific. If the form didn't ask that question in those terms then the appraiser might not have any reason to dig any further for the answer.

To turn the question around, the reference in our certification is "to the best of my knowledge and belief..." Not to certainty but also not to a known 50% failure rate. If we know from experience the public records info on zoning is factually incorrect in a significant percentage of cases then saying we assume its true to the best of our knowledge becomes an untruth. Especially when the question CAN be answered more accurately with a modicum of diligence.

Same thing with these 3rd party inspections. If an appraiser has reason to believe the accuracy of the facts being reported is inadequate then they shouldn't be using that info. Assumptions are about what we believe to be true, not a cloak of plausible deniability for using info we don't think is true or don't think is true enough to be using.

Just because there's info out there doesn't mean we believe everything just because it's out there. For example, I wouldn't use an assumption based solely on heresay from a neighbor. The tip is enough to prompt for more inquiry but not enough to proceed blindly believing everything we hear.

 

[NC Appraising]

The question speaks to the expectations of the user. When the form itself is asking a specific question the expectation will generally be equally specific. If the form didn't ask that question in those terms then the appraiser might not have any reason to dig any further for the answer.

To turn the question around, the reference in our certification is "to the best of my knowledge and belief..." Not to certainty but also not to a known 50% failure rate. If we know from experience the public records info on zoning is factually incorrect in a significant percentage of cases then saying we assume its true to the best of our knowledge becomes an untruth. Especially when the question CAN be answered more accurately with a modicum of diligence.

Same thing with these 3rd party inspections. If an appraiser has reason to believe the accuracy of the facts being reported is inadequate then they shouldn't be using that info. Assumptions are about what we believe to be true, not a cloak of plausible deniability for using info we don't think is true or don't think is true enough to be using.

Just because there's info out there doesn't mean we believe everything just because it's out there. For example, I wouldn't use an assumption based solely on heresay from a neighbor. The tip is enough to prompt for more inquiry but not enough to proceed blindly believing everything we hear.

I respectfully disagree.

It has to be all or nothing.

I understand where you are coming from.

But when you have the gses basically saying that you will not be held liable for hybrids....the same should apply other third party data providers that the appraisers use (realist).

what about these terrible adjustment software companies.....what cubi casa gets a free pass but the adjustment software companies do not?

If it is not all, that leaves the gses and the state boards up to interpretation or in their opinion. They will get to pick and chose what is right or correct....

If it is your way, the push button appraisal data providers and these new push buttom adjust providers better put in some sort of limiting statement that appraisers need to verify the data...if not the gses and the state boards could give you a spanking.

It is going to be fascinating to see how this plays out.

 

[glenn walker]

So what's new in review we checked and verified zoning or other things
But I believe that maybe this just reminded appraisers that more oversight is coming. If the appraiser does their due diligence it shouldn't be a issue.

 

[Surf Cat]

I would say 99% of the time here, zoning hasn't been updated in Realist. But since most of my peers use realist, I can use what's in realist and reviewers don't care.

My bold above. What you stated may or may not be true. But what you insinuated is that you use what's in reallist all the time, without verifying and doing your due diligence. This is where you got yourself into trouble in the thread.

When reviewer calls me out on flood maps, they send me their 3rd party source and I use that. It's above my pay grade.

You keep digging yourself further down into the hole with the above statement my man. It basically states you're being lazy and not doing the due diligence yourself.

Look, I get it, it seems as if the lenders don't give a s*it.... so why should you? Waivers, hybrids using PDC's whom are not appraisers, the fees. Basically, if you're going to take on the assignment, you might as well have some integrity and do it correctly. I mean.... that's what the Appraiser's Forum has always been about....sans the political nonsense that is.

Just to be clear, Nando always verifies zoning for subject. Realist is not accurate here which is out dated from assessors records.
When OP mentioned Realist, do my peers actually get their zoning info from Realist?

Your back pedaling here. If you would have just used the first paragraph in the first place, you wouldn't have been given all the Guff.

Happy New Year Fernando. Don't just post for the sake of posting..... think about it a little bit. Make it your New Year's resolution.

 

[NC Appraising]

Let's play the "who gets spanked" game.

(Having some late night fun here..somewhat playing devils advocate. Trying to point out some crazy situations that may or maynot ever happen. This is coming from an appraiser that got sent a letter from the gse for stating an actual year built on the form....so anything is possible.


1. Borrower sends report to the board. Cubi casa screwed up the GLA.

State board: third party, appraiser is not responsible.

2. Borrower sends report to the board. Cubi casa screwed up the GLA.

State board: the appraiser should have noted the lack of vents in the photographs, knee walls, the area was not finished per ANSI, whatever. Cubi casa differed from the MLS and tax card.

3. Lender sends report to the board. Zoning is sf-1. Appraiser stated residential. Used realist third party. Realist stated r-1. Subject is legal non-conforming. Appraiser stated legal.

4. Gse sends report to the state board. Appraiser utilized cost depreciation for all adjustments. This is a one click adjustment software. The appraiser made a $100k pool adjustment. The price point of the neighborhood is $200k. The pool is a overimprovement. Based on matched pairs, the pool adjustment is $20-$40k.

5. Borrower sent report to the board. Appraiser utilized their software to verify the flood information. The software stated in the site section that the site is located outside of the flood zone. Per the county gis and FEMA, the rear section of the site is in the flood zone. Due to this, the borrower is not allowed to install a inground pool.

6. Borrower sends report to the state. Appraiser used the MLS for the connection to public sources city water/sewer. The subject is connected to septic and is on a well.

7. The lender sent the report to the board. The lender found multiple mistakes in the report. The appraiser utilized a software that fills out all of the report, adjustments, market trends, regression and statements in the report.

What third party data provider gets a free pass?

 

[glenn walker]

What I liked about Mr LA was he at least admitted that he cut every possible corner to maximize speed and profitability. I can live with that but not guys pretending to be real professionals. Over the years some of the biggest skippys on AF had lectured others about quality work and their higher ethics and morals.

 

[George Hatch]

Let's play the "who gets spanked" game.

(Having some late night fun here..somewhat playing devils advocate. Trying to point out some crazy situations that may or maynot ever happen. This is coming from an appraiser that got sent a letter from the gse for stating an actual year built on the form....so anything is possible.


1. Borrower sends report to the board. Cubi casa screwed up the GLA.

State board: third party, appraiser is not responsible.

2. Borrower sends report to the board. Cubi casa screwed up the GLA.

State board: the appraiser should have noted the lack of vents in the photographs, knee walls, the area was not finished per ANSI, whatever. Cubi casa differed from the MLS and tax card.

3. Lender sends report to the board. Zoning is sf-1. Appraiser stated residential. Used realist third party. Realist stated r-1. Subject is legal non-conforming. Appraiser stated legal.

4. Gse sends report to the state board. Appraiser utilized cost depreciation for all adjustments. This is a one click adjustment software. The appraiser made a $100k pool adjustment. The price point of the neighborhood is $200k. The pool is a overimprovement. Based on matched pairs, the pool adjustment is $20-$40k.

5. Borrower sent report to the board. Appraiser utilized their software to verify the flood information. The software stated in the site section that the site is located outside of the flood zone. Per the county gis and FEMA, the rear section of the site is in the flood zone. Due to this, the borrower is not allowed to install a inground pool.

6. Borrower sends report to the state. Appraiser used the MLS for the connection to public sources city water/sewer. The subject is connected to septic and is on a well.

7. The lender sent the report to the board. The lender found multiple mistakes in the report. The appraiser utilized a software that fills out all of the report, adjustments, market trends, regression and statements in the report.

What third party data provider gets a free pass?

You forgot to add in Spock transporting in from the Enterprise and contaminating the living room with gamma rays from a rogue dilithium crystal that CubiCasa didn't detect due to being obscured from view with a Romulan cloak of invisibility..

Even if all that happened, only the Arkansas board would revoke a license, because those board members know a bad appraisal when they see one and they don't need a reason to revoke a license.

 

[glenn walker]

There's no end to all the what if hypotheticals and it's usually something you had never expected.

Best to just pay your E & O and not become one of those appraisers that gets obsessed with fear.

 

[NC Appraising]

You forgot to add in Spock transporting in from the Enterprise and contaminating the living room with gamma rays from a rogue dilithium crystal that CubiCasa didn't detect due to being obscured from view with a Romulan cloak of invisibility..

Even if all that happened, only the Arkansas board would revoke a license, because those board members know a bad appraisal when they see one and they don't need a reason to revoke a license.

I did not forget. Spok appraised my home last week and used cubi casa. He got those gamma rays all over my home. Sent him to the board.

 

[Surf Cat]

Borrower sends report to the board. Cubi casa screwed up the GLA.

Wait a second.....

CubiCasa does not publicly report a specific percentage of error or miss rate for gross living area (GLA) calculations.

However, industry studies referenced in the context indicate that traditional appraisals can show an average 4% difference in GLA between two appraisers, with nearly 5% of properties having GLA values more than 15% apart.
oops: Stinkin appraisers!)


CubiCasa’s Digital GLA product is designed to reduce such variability by adhering to the ANSI Z765-2021 standard, which is required by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Ha Ha Ha! CubiCasa for the win! See yah loser appraisers!