George Hatch
Elite Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2002
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- California
Steven,
I shouldn't need to point out to you that the different conclusions in the 3 examples are primarily attributable to the different levels of available information about the subject - it has nothing to do with appraiser laziness or wrongdoing and virtually everything to do with the different clients (and their designated users) deciding which level of diligence is sufficient for their needs. Because the client is an active participant in this decision process some level of responsibility for that decision rests with them. Even though their's is not the last word it is a consideration and we are required to include that consideration in our SOW decision.
As for the reviewer looking at all three workproducts, they would judge the credibility of each of the workproducts within the context of its SOW. There's absolutely nothing new about that, and when I say "nothing new" I'm going back before USPAP. There have always been examples of reviewers having additional information available to them that was not available to the original appraisers (#1 and #2 in these examples), such as more recent sales data that occurred after the effective date or a change in condition. It has never been appropriate for a reviewer to hold an appraiser accountable for information that could not have been available to them during the course of their assignment. That goes for directly comparing appraisals based on different assignment conditions (or different dates or different definitions of value, etc) as if they should be equal, too. Not appropriate then and not appropriate now.
You know, if I have to live with the things I've said in the past, so must the rest of the appraisal profession. I'll be the first person to admit that I've learned a lot about appraisal standards in the last few years and while we're at it, to credit some of that understanding to what I've learned from you. Hopefully I do have a better understanding of it now than I did in 1999 and hopefully I'll be farther along in 2010 than I am now.
The appraisal profession has never had an "accuracy" requirement as such, has never taken a binary correct-incorrect approach to value conclusions, and has always focused on the use of the data and methodology to judge between reasonable and unreasonable. We've never been able to point to only one universally recognized source to say "that is the one and only correct way to perform this valuation method". I can look at Akerson's teachings and see differences when compared to Ratliff's - did that make one or the other of them "wrong"?
IMO, your attempts to portray the ASB as breaking the faith is unfair because USPAP serves more than one role. Even if your way is the most correct way, having the most idealogically pure standards won't do us any good if we can't enforce them. And by "enforce" I'm not just referring to licensing. We have our hands full enough just dealing with our peers that won't adequately observe the requirements of "true and correct facts".
I shouldn't need to point out to you that the different conclusions in the 3 examples are primarily attributable to the different levels of available information about the subject - it has nothing to do with appraiser laziness or wrongdoing and virtually everything to do with the different clients (and their designated users) deciding which level of diligence is sufficient for their needs. Because the client is an active participant in this decision process some level of responsibility for that decision rests with them. Even though their's is not the last word it is a consideration and we are required to include that consideration in our SOW decision.
As for the reviewer looking at all three workproducts, they would judge the credibility of each of the workproducts within the context of its SOW. There's absolutely nothing new about that, and when I say "nothing new" I'm going back before USPAP. There have always been examples of reviewers having additional information available to them that was not available to the original appraisers (#1 and #2 in these examples), such as more recent sales data that occurred after the effective date or a change in condition. It has never been appropriate for a reviewer to hold an appraiser accountable for information that could not have been available to them during the course of their assignment. That goes for directly comparing appraisals based on different assignment conditions (or different dates or different definitions of value, etc) as if they should be equal, too. Not appropriate then and not appropriate now.
You know, if I have to live with the things I've said in the past, so must the rest of the appraisal profession. I'll be the first person to admit that I've learned a lot about appraisal standards in the last few years and while we're at it, to credit some of that understanding to what I've learned from you. Hopefully I do have a better understanding of it now than I did in 1999 and hopefully I'll be farther along in 2010 than I am now.
The appraisal profession has never had an "accuracy" requirement as such, has never taken a binary correct-incorrect approach to value conclusions, and has always focused on the use of the data and methodology to judge between reasonable and unreasonable. We've never been able to point to only one universally recognized source to say "that is the one and only correct way to perform this valuation method". I can look at Akerson's teachings and see differences when compared to Ratliff's - did that make one or the other of them "wrong"?
IMO, your attempts to portray the ASB as breaking the faith is unfair because USPAP serves more than one role. Even if your way is the most correct way, having the most idealogically pure standards won't do us any good if we can't enforce them. And by "enforce" I'm not just referring to licensing. We have our hands full enough just dealing with our peers that won't adequately observe the requirements of "true and correct facts".
