Today's Review

[The Warrior Monk]

THE APPRAISER HAS PERFORMED A COMPLETE APPRAISAL PROCESS (INSPECTION OF BOTH IN THE INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AND TO THE EXTERIOR OF ALL THE COMPARABLE SALES) AS DEFINED BY THE UNIFORM STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL APPRAISAL PRACTICE. THIS MEANS THAT NO DEPARTURES FROM STANDARD 1 WERE INVOKED.

Date of Value: August 3, 2006



Talk about distractions...forget all caps and SOW...my brain is stuck in an infinite loop trying to figure out what this paragraph means!:new_all_coholic:

 

[Tony Blackburn]

Appraisers like that are why we do reviews and they are an excellent source of income.

 

[George Hatch]

Realistically, how many appraisers would we expect to be familiar with how to effectively deal with the 2006 revision in their appraisal reports?

An appraisers would have to:

Routinely be watching the websites for The Appraisal Foundation or their state boards, or

Have taken their USPAP update course in the last couple months and paid attention to the material, or

Participate in one of the interet message boards for appraisers, or

Work for/with someone who does.

Outside of that, how would they know?

Nobody is a bigger proponent of the utility of being familiar with USPAP than I, but as a reviewer I refuse to get excited about this kind of thing at this time. Using obsolete terms and housekeeping efforts is kinda dumb on their part but it isn't a fatal error that's going to cut into the results.

At most, I'd note it and move on. There are much bigger fish to fry than a form monkey working off an old form.

 

[CANative]

There's an appraiser out here who's work I review a couple or three times a month. Similar problem. I just state that his boilerplated comments are out of date (along with all of the other problems.)

His poor work gets me about an extra $1,200 or so a month in business.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

That paragraph is basically a nonissue; it's the least of the report's problems. I suspect that the underlying issue with the report is that there is a listing on the property (available as of the date of value and still currently available) that is not noted in the report, and the property is appraised slightly higher than the listing price. There's seems to be external factors that were blatantly ignored (traffic, across the street from a commercial property, etc.).

The statement cited does demonstrate the lack of a most basic understanding of USPAP, regardless of version.

BTW, this type of work is standard fare for graduates of our local skippy school. I would have been surprised at this type of thing when licensing was first implemented. Now it's standard practice.

 

[Rudy Canoza]

Wait till you get to review a complete self-contained summary report...

/Those take forever...

 

[hastalavista]

What kills me is when the same guy who is "current" on USPAP to have statements like Bob's post in the original report are usually the first ones to make accusations that the review/reviewer is not USPAP compliant.

 

[Tony Blackburn]

Realistically, how many appraisers would we expect to be familiar with how to effectively deal with the 2006 revision in their appraisal reports?

An appraisers would have to:

Routinely be watching the websites for The Appraisal Foundation or their state boards, or

Have taken their USPAP update course in the last couple months and paid attention to the material, or

Participate in one of the interet message boards for appraisers, or

Work for/with someone who does.

Outside of that, how would they know?

Nobody is a bigger proponent of the utility of being familiar with USPAP than I, but as a reviewer I refuse to get excited about this kind of thing at this time. Using obsolete terms and housekeeping efforts is kinda dumb on their part but it isn't a fatal error that's going to cut into the results.

At most, I'd note it and move on. There are much bigger fish to fry than a form monkey working off an old form.

I have to differ with you on this, George....

Anyone that hasn't been under a rock for the past year has known about the upcoming changes to SOW in USPAP and they should be changing thier reports accordingly.

If the appraiser is this sloppy about his boilerplate, how can you trust that he measured accurately, concisely described the subject, verified data accurately, etc.

Dimes to donuts that the quality of the appraisal reflects the lack of attention to the boilerplate.

Which, BTW, doesn't mean he didn't get the number right.

Unfortunately, if that is the case and he did get the number right, credible results mean competence.

 

[Rudy Canoza]

If the appraiser is this sloppy about his boilerplate, how can you trust that he measured accurately, concisely described the subject, verified data accurately, etc.

Exactly. Which is why I pile-on if the report has numerous BS errors by the time I get to the site section.

I flag screen material being reported as "yes," gutters and downspouts being reported as "adequate overhang," window type as metal sliders when they are dual-glazed vinyl windows, etc.

The more they are lazy, uncaring, and unprofessional, the more nit-picky anal-retentive I get...to the point of calling their dog ugly and their kids stupid...

Or their kids ugly and dog stupid...whatever...

OTOH, if I see the appraiser exercised due-diligence but made some minor reporting errors that don't affect the opinion of value, I cut them some slack...

/It's just human nature...

 

[hastalavista]

EOTOH, if I see the appraiser exercised due-diligence but made some minor reporting errors that don't affect the opinion of value, I cut them some slack...

/It's just human nature...

And, a good reviewing process.
We all can and do make typo errors, etc. And maybe we did miss a good piece of data that would make the value argument even better. Its almost never one or two errors that make a report "poor"; its the culmination of a series of errors, oversights, sloppiness, etc.
I think I can tell when a good report was written on a bad day. But the bad reports stink regardless what day they were written.