USPAP Standard Rule 2-1

[djd09]

The reason i get "stipped" often is because the report is a 2.5 CU score or higher. Is that an assignment condition?

 

[Mike Kennedy]

Why not $275? would $5,000 make a difference between closing a sale or a refi?
If the sales price is $275 or less I would use $275 If it is $280 and comp 4 is second most similar I would use the weighted average between 1 and 4 which yields $283,500

Lets not forget that appraising is not an exact science or "art" I would say

Okay, then $279,950.50 work for you? lmao

um........ "if the sales price is $275 or less i would use $275" ahem ahem .............the Bullseye Lives.

 

[J Grant]

I would like to know the opinion of my fellow appraisers about statements like these
"The DSCA reflects an opinion of value of $zzz derived by the weighted average method"
"The DSCA shows a range of value from $100,000 to $160,000 with a value indication of $121,000.
My opinion is that statements like there are a violation of USPAP standard rule 2-1 b as they are misleading

The statement in and of itself may not be misleading, but the 100k-160k wide range of adjusted values for that price point is amateur hour- probably bad comp choices; the whole thing a rush job.

What does stick out is the statement and the value sound "rote"- if an appraiser lets their software program pick the weighted average as a value opinion, is it the appraiser's opinion, or the logarithm's opinion?

What could be misleading in the statement is if the appraiser let the computer software pick the value and did not disclose that reliance. Which touches on the USPAP statement about an appraiser understanding how the data works if appraiser relies on an AVM- .

 

[DWiley]

...... an appraiser understanding how the logarithm and data works

A little irony for breakfast this morning

 

[J Grant]

A little irony for breakfast this morning

Maybe so, I let spell check do it for the word- talk about reliance on computers!

 

[DWiley]

Maybe so, I let spell check do it for the word- talk about reliance on computers!

It was not the spelling that inspired my comment.

 

[J Grant]

Then I missed the irony part!

 

[Eli]

OP, you can narrow the indicated value range by quantitative and/or qualitative analysis.

I know you are better than that. Tell them I quit and don't charge them.

 

[App601]

I would like to know the opinion of my fellow appraisers about statements like these
"The DSCA reflects an opinion of value of $zzz derived by the weighted average method"
"The DSCA shows a range of value from $100,000 to $160,000 with a value indication of $121,000.
My opinion is that statements like there are a violation of USPAP standard rule 2-1 b as they are misleading

The statement in and of itself may not be misleading, but the 100k-160k wide range of adjusted values for that price point is amateur hour- probably bad comp choices; the whole thing a rush job.

What does stick out is the statement and the value sound "rote"- if an appraiser lets their software program pick the weighted average as a value opinion, is it the appraiser's opinion, or the logarithm's opinion?

What could be misleading in the statement is if the appraiser let the computer software pick the value and did not disclose that reliance. Which touches on the USPAP statement about an appraiser understanding how the data works if appraiser relies on an AVM- .

I have never let the computer software pick the value. In fact I don't even know how to use it. I have TOTAL from Alamode
The $100k to $160k was a little sarcastic to prove my point
I already had answered my original question about the fact that if a statement like this is misleading or not

The adjusted value range is from $100,000 to $120,000 with a value indication of $112,000.00

It may not be misleading but I never had used it and never will use it

My typical comments in the summary report is like this.

Site values per square meter were estimated at $x for comparable sale # 1, $y for comparable sale number 2 and $z for comparable sale number 3. GLA was adjusted at $xx per square foot All other adjustments were by lump sums. Adjustments were at contributory value and not as per cost. Most weight was given to comparable sale # x considered the most similar

That's what I learned in my first appraisal course and in the first appraisal company that I worked before going on my own

I have a moderator from this forum that agrees with me by saying that an appraiser that uses the first statement in italics is stupid. I also have a comment by Mr Rex that says that my professor is a moron

Whom do you think is right?

Rex the troll?
or the moderator? The good guy

 

[J Grant]

?? Who is "right" ...why does there have to be a right person and a wrong person, a winner and loser in these threads? People offer their viewpoints and opinions .

I agree with your take on it that the wide range of values was dopey. I don't know if this was an invented example or not. There are appraisers (not me and not you ) but there are appraisers who let the software pick the value. I rarely run the software for that function, when I do I run it it is curiosity after I concluded my value- usually they are rather close.

I'm on board for giving most weight to one comp if it makes most sense to do so. Whatever methods an appraiser uses to arrive at their market value opinion is acceptable as long as it is credibly supported in the market and explained. The methods can vary even for one appraiser in different reports depending on the assignment and data.