The word "Average" in the improvements section - possible bias?

[Zoe]

I always tell people what I am doing for my client. I am very direct in that regard.

I am here to appraise the subject property real property rights.

I have no other reason to be here.

 

[Zoe]

Are you okay? Yes you explained earlier why you were coming.

Okay, let's keep rolling. I will have a few more questions for you. Let me work for my client.

i am good explaining to owner occupied single family or whoever why I am there and what I am doing.

I don't mind answering who my client is or why I am there.

They appreciate that. They are good at sharing info on the subject real property rights when you are nice.

I already know the owner and/or buyer will get a copy of my appraisal.

Seller won't most likely if it is for lender. I already know that.

 

[Mejappz]

That is the part they can't comprehend...meaningful analysis. They think that if condition and quality ratings are "accurate" then they will model like, and as reliably as, quantitative variables. No doubt, they will always get an answer, but it will never be credible. That is why they have to keep all their AVMS and modeling top secret...it can't stand scrutiny from competent analysts (see Freddie's "Research Note" for a key example). The garbage about rating components and condition is no doubt the foundation for a formulaic calculation of quality and condition so they can talk about how much more "accurate" their secrets are than competent appraisers (which they apparently despise most).

Absolutely! It’s wild how some people can’t grasp that just having condition and quality ratings doesn’t mean their models will work like those based on actual numbers. Sure, they might come up with answers, but without a solid foundation, those answers won’t hold up under scrutiny. Keeping their AVMS and modeling under wraps just raises more questions—it makes it seem like they’re not confident in what they’re doing, especially when competent analysts can’t even take a look at it. The whole idea of relying on formulaic calculations based on subjective ratings really does a disservice to the skilled appraisers out there. It’s a shaky approach that seems more about looking good than providing genuine, reliable analysis.

 

[DWiley]

While I understand that absolute ratings may meet the GSEs' internal goals, they don’t lend themselves to meaningful analysis. Focus!

It is actually far easier to produce objective and meaningful analysis from absolute ratings than it is from relative ratings.

 

[Mejappz]

It is actually far easier to produce objective and meaningful analysis from absolute ratings than it is from relative ratings.

Citation

 

[Tom D]

the new 1004 is an expanadable form to add information at the spot you are on, less addendum comments.
new form, or not, if you can't figure out the condition, fannie can figure it out now. they will put you on bad list. bye bye to all the stupids..

our group may survive the death spiral already here. less appraisers, less competition, better fees. just getting a new form will be a price increase.

 

[DWiley]

Citation

Anyone who has actually done such analysis can attest to what I asserted. If absolute ratings are used, then the data in that analysis can be used in other analyses as well (aka subsequent assignments). On the other hand, if one uses some sort of relative rating, then any subsequent use of the data will require recalibration of the rating.

Example - I am appraising a renovated home, and that is my basis for the rating. That means the other renovated homes get whatever middle of the road rating I put on them.
If I then try to re-use some of that data for a non-renovated home the previous data is useless unless I recalibrate the ratings. That is true regardless of the type of condition scale one applies.

 

[Mejappz]

It is actually far easier to produce objective and meaningful analysis from absolute ratings than it is from relative ratings.

If your variables have a wide range of values or varying scales, using relative ratings can help normalize the data. This is particularly true for condition and quality ratings. On the other hand, absolute ratings are not very useful unless you evaluate properties in a uniform neighborhood. Some sort of percentage transferred into the English language is preferable.

 

[Mejappz]

Moreover-


1. houses are remodeled at varying scales.
2. Furthermore, houses undergo remodeling to different extents.
3. the scale of house remodeling projects can vary significantly.


There is nothing new about the UAD ratings. Assessors used it in the mid-80s and eventually dropped it because the fit was not high enough, but hey, what do I know?

 

[jay trotta]

Anyone who has actually done such analysis can attest to what I asserted. If absolute ratings are used, then the data in that analysis can be used in other analyses as well (aka subsequent assignments). On the other hand, if one uses some sort of relative rating, then any subsequent use of the data will require recalibration of the rating.

Example -
I am appraising a renovated home, and that is my basis for the rating. That means the other renovated homes get whatever middle of the road rating I put on them.
If I then try to re-use some of that data for a non-renovated home the previous data is useless unless I recalibrate the ratings. That is true regardless of the type of condition scale one applies.

Post #112:
The problem with "average" as used in appraisal reports is that appraisers do not use it in the same way. Some use an absolute rating and some rate based on what is "typical for the area." That is why we see brand new homes with the carpet, walls, etc, rated as "Average" because the appraiser claims it is "average" for the area.

IMO-the kiss method has always run true, Superior - Average - Inferior - talks as much about the comps, if not more than the current rating system. It would not be all that hard to understand those meanings as simplified. The grade school method generates more Q&A because of the way it was set up. I will never forget one reviewer's question about a "toilet" on a phone conversation; her- I can't believe I'm calling you about a "toilet", what can you tell me about it?? My first response was....it flushes away that which is not needed. What was the purpose of the call?? I think a 2-year-old understands what a toilet does - How does one recalibrate a toilet rating??
The modernization of Appraising needs to be simplified apparently.