The New Appraisal Industry

[George Hatch]

The obvious difference is that in a 2055, there is no interior appraisal inspection performed.

In these things, there is. So to claim they are both equal with regards to appraiser liability doesn't make much sense.

I didn't say they were the same thing. I am saying that both assignment types involve appraisers making assumptions instead of performing the 1004-style interior/exterior inspection. Just like when appraisers are doing proposed construction or retrospective opinions in cases where those improvements don't even exist.

So "making more assumptions" about the accuracy of the data being used isn't something new or unusual in professional appraisal practice.

 

[Surf Cat]

We can go back and forth on this all day long. Bottom line, if you're going to do these assignments, just like a drive-by, the best course of action would be to take a conservative approach.

EA's are definitely in order regarding responsibility of the inspection of what was and what was not conducted by oneself.... if subsequent information provided should differ than that is reported, the appraiser has the right to change the report and the value accordingly.

Avoiding overvaluation based on unverified interior, structural or externalities is paramount... the appraiser remains ultimately responsible for the report’s conclusions, even when relying on third-party inspections. This is what Grant is trying to convey...

A conservative approach mitigates risk and liability....

There's no way I'm going to go back and forth with ROV's on hybrids if I ever decide to do these... not for those miserable fees. Send me out for the whole enchilada if you want a more accurate opinion.

 

[George Hatch]

How far away are we from just signing the report that has a value that's provided to us? Hey, someone else came up with the value, so that's not on me.

Who did what?

If I review your report and develop an opinion that your value conclusion is reasonable, my opinion is on me; not on you. If I assume that the factual info you present in your report (in lieu of readily available info to the contrary) is true and correct, then any undiscovered lies you might have told are on you, not me. Same as your usage of MLS info.


It seems like some of you are assuming there is no expectation for the appraiser to check any other data source that the PDR even when they still have access to all the usual data sources they would use in any other appraisal assignment. I think that assumption is illogical at best.

 

[djd09]

it only takes bad one deal...one cracked foundation...mold...and such...to end up in a world of ****...so the question is...do you feel lucky punk...well do you

 

[J Grant]

I didn't say they were the same thing. I am saying that both assignment types involve appraisers making assumptions instead of performing the 1004-style interior/exterior inspection. Just like when appraisers are doing proposed construction or retrospective opinions in cases where those improvements don't even exist.

So "making more assumptions" about the accuracy of the data being used isn't something new or unusual in professional appraisal practice.

You make everyone crazy by the word salad you keep spinning - we KNOW that both assignment types involve appraisers making assumptions instead of performing the 1004 interior/exterior inspection! . Please stop posting it 1000 times to make us respond 1000 times! Why are you doing it- to make appraisers look like children, as if we do not understand this ?

WRT the corallory examles -t in proposed construction or retrospective, the assumptions are based on an HC or EA, which is NOT the case in these hybrids.

The expectation of results is more lenient when no inspection was performed in a desktop appraisal.
This hybrid is a new frontier - a stand in for an inspection was performed as a PDC with pretty heavy expectations of accuracy with regard to its reliability on the appraiser. And it is not just the "accuracy" that is the problem - even if the data collector does a good sketch and makes good news, the appraiser never set foot on the property. Was there traffic noise? Was the neighbor's lot a mess? What was the street around the subject like? That is beyond the SOW of the data collector, yet can be a value influence ( as just one example )

 

[George Hatch]

We can go back and forth on this all day long. Bottom line, if you're going to do these assignments, just like a drive-by, the best course of action would be to take a conservative approach.

EA's are definitely in order regarding responsibility of the inspection of what was and what was not conducted by oneself.... if subsequent information provided should differ than that is reported, the appraiser has the right to change the report and the value accordingly.

Avoiding overvaluation based on unverified interior, structural or externalities is paramount... the appraiser remains ultimately responsible for the report’s conclusions, even when relying on third-party inspections. This is what Grant is trying to convey...

A conservative approach mitigates risk and liability....

There's no way I'm going to go back and forth with ROV's on hybrids if I ever decide to do these... not for those miserable fees. Send me out for the whole enchilada if you want a more accurate opinion.

If a given assumption is typical for a certain assignment type then it is no longer "extraordinary". The assumptions we're talking about are explicitly stated in the GSE forms for these.

It is also unethical to take a "conservative approach" in developing or reporting any appraisal as a means of limiting our own personal exposure. We're not supposed to be taking sides with the borrower, the lender or ourselves. The prohibitions against bias or advocacy do not exclude the appraiser's self interests.

 

[George Hatch]

You make everyone crazy by the word salad you keep spinning - we KNOW that both assignment types involve appraisers making assumptions instead of performing the 1004 interior/exterior inspection! . Please stop posting it 1000 times to make us respond 1000 times! Why are you doing it- to make appraisers look like children, as if we do not understand this ?

WRT the corallory examles -t in proposed construction or retrospective, the assumptions are based on an HC or EA, which is NOT the case in these hybrids.

The expectation of results is more lenient when no inspection was performed in a desktop appraisal.
This hybrid is a new frontier - a stand in for an inspection was performed as a PDC with pretty heavy expectations of accuracy with regard to its reliability on the appraiser. And it is not just the "accuracy" that is the problem - even if the data collector does a good sketch and makes good news, the appraiser never set foot on the property. Was there traffic noise? Was the neighbor's lot a mess? What was the street around the subject like? That is beyond the SOW of the data collector, yet can be a value influence ( as just one example )

If you don't my criticism of stupid stuff then stop saying stupid stuff.

The only difference between a standard assumption and an extraordinary assumption is that the former applies to all such assignments where the latter only applies to this assignment. The assumptions and limitations of the "no measurements/no interior" SOW in the 2055 are standard for that type of assignment even though different than from the 1004 assignments. So "different for an entire class of assignments" doesn't meet the meaning of "extraordinary". And even if it did, it still isn't an unreasonable assumption to make so long as the users are using them and their appraisers are performing them.
-----------------
The point I was making when referencing those other no-inspect assignments is that appraisers operate without a conventional 1004 type inspection on a regular basis without descending into all the emotional trauma. So that's obviously not it. If you're mad about the fees (which you should be) then complain about the fees. Don't cloak your objections with all that fretting about getting sued or RE market trends running amok. You were never worried about that angle with the 2055s so you have no reason to worry about it with these things.

 

[J Grant]

Who did what?

If I review your report and develop an opinion that your value conclusion is reasonable, my opinion is on me; not on you. If I assume that the factual info you present in your report (in lieu of readily available info to the contrary) is true and correct, then any undiscovered lies you might have told are on you, not me. Same as your usage of MLS info.


It seems like some of you are assuming there is no expectation for the appraiser to check any other data source that the PDR even when they still have access to all the usual data sources they would use in any other appraisal assignment. I think that assumption is illogical at best.

NOBODY is assuming there is no expectation for the appraiser to check any other data source. Just because we do not endlessly repeat it in a post. We are saying there are limits to it, and it does not substitute for the inspection. If I made a mistake and I inspected, at least it was my mistake and I can correct it.

 

[djd09]

LandSafe Appraisal Borrower Class Action Settled for $250 Million​

Published by​

Believe it or not, cases are still being litigated in relation to events during the mortgage meltdown years.

After nearly seven years of litigation, a settlement has been reached in the borrower class action filed in 2013 regarding appraisals managed by defendant LandSafe Appraisal Services between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2008. The other defendants in the suit include Countrywide Home Loans and Bank of America and various affiliates. The central premise of the lawsuit was that the defendants had charged borrowers fees for home appraisals that systemically failed to comply with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP).

LandSafe Appraisal Borrower Class Action Settled for $250 Million – Christensen Law

www.valuationlegal.com

but but but the sow was met...

 

[J Grant]

If you don't my criticism of stupid stuff then stop saying stupid stuff.

The only difference between a standard assumption and an extraordinary assumption is that the former applies to all such assignments where the latter only applies to this assignment.

The point I was making is that appraisers operate without a conventional 1004 type inspection on a regular basis without descending into emotional trauma. So that's obviously not it. If you're mad about the fees (which you should be) then complain about the fees. Don't cloak your objections with all that fretting about getting sued or RE market trends running amok.

I am not the one saying stupid stuff ! You just say it better!