ValueNet

[DWiley]

Turning back reports 48 hour hours after inspection is simply not the monumental challenge some assert. How do I know that? Because I did it (and my staff did it) consistently for the better part of three decades.

At my current company, to get the highest service score, one must return 80% of reports back within 48 hours of inspection. That is actually a lower standard than I had at my own appraisal firm. And, there are certainly times when it cannot be done. That is why the bar is not set at 100%.

Now, having said that, it does require something that many just aren't strong at - time management. It requires things like scheduling report writing time, and sticking to the schedule. It requires one to manage workflow rather than having workflow mange you. When people tell me it cannot be done, especially in urban or suburban areas, I just smile, because I know better. In rural areas it tends to be a non-issue, because everyone faces the same challenges and scores are affected equally.

Also, simple communication goes a long way. If an appraiser communicates a valid reason for delay, then we change the due date, and the scoring adjusts accordingly.

I know some are probably seeing red about this - but the harsh reality is that service time counts. It always has - even more today in this Amazon world we are in. Yes, we score service time, and in the total score service is 1/3 of the score and quality is 2/3 of the score. And, guess what? The lenders score AMCs in a very similar manner.

Frankly, my first mentor taught me more about customer service than he did about the technical aspect of appraisal, and I am thankful for that. I could learn the technical part in classes, and I did. But there aren't many appraisal classes that focus on customer service.

If appraisers as a whole do not become more customer service oriented, it is going to lead to their demise. And, before good 'ol DJ jumps in - that does not mean giving them whatever number they want. It means treating paying clients like, well, your paying clients, and ditching the entitlement attitude that is prevalent among a significant percentage. That attitude is my number one source of complaints from lenders right now.

 

[CANative]

When it's slow, I can turn one in 48 hours. But that doesn't leave much time for everything else involved in the business, including stacking up enough assignments to keep the cash flow going. It's also not impossible in plain vanilla subdivision land.

Luv 'ya Wiley. But I would probably not work for your company. It's why I won't sign on with VA.

 

[DWiley]

That may very well be, if they are looking for some standard of great detail of how each and every adjustment ( including living area ) was arrived at. I frankly don't know what that universal standard is supposed to be. I know for my work I explain how I arrived at GLA sf contributory value and the way it functions after all other adjustments are made in narrowing the value range, the comps on the grid show it in action, it has a relation to cost approach as well.

But I don't run regression or statisticians to support it. So far none of my clients have asked for that . If they wanted that I'd have to feel confident I could use those programs well enough to understand what they are when used.

Imo this detailed support for adjustment is over rated at times, if other issues are weak in the report. For example, I was given the "other appraisal" in a refinance, done by a cert gen, we both had appraised at different times a very high end property. On and on they went with detailed support for an adjustments that was very militarism to mine for Sf. That appraisers exhibit of support for adjustment was superior to mine. BUT and this is a big one - they LIED, flat out lied about the subject and the comps being in the same subdivision ( they clearly were not, due to nature of this unique area the comps were in gated country club community and subject 1.5 miles away and subject was out side it )

so which report overall is more credible and reliable, one based on a lie with detailed "support" for a Sf adjustment or one based on the truth, with similar sf adjustment but a less detailed explain for the adjustment?

Of course the best would be an appraisal based on truth with detailed adjustment explanation...how many clients want to pay good fees, allow ample time, AND hire honest appraisers ? ...agree it is an industry problem

You have inadvertently demonstrated my point. Given the "typical" report content that is received these days, it is simply too difficult for a user to discern a good report from a bad one. Often, when one digs deep, a report that looks terrible at first glance ends up being the best that could be done. Conversely, some reports that look "pretty" are actually a POS. What I am suggesting is changing the digital architecture of reports to make it easier for a user to see behind the curtain and see the analysis, not just the (alleged) results. It would have been impossible twenty years ago, but with the technology of today it really would not be that hard. And, in the end, good appraisers would benefit greatly and "form fillers" and those use just use "the list" would find themselves looking for a different line of work.

 

[George Hatch]

The simple fact of it is that many - possibly most - appraisers work to the form, not independent of the form. So whether we think of it in terms of being an SR1 problem or an SR2 problem the logical starting point is still the form.

edit to add; per Danny's observation, maybe a form which integrates that "look behind the curtain" instead of treating it as a bolt-on accessory.

 

[DWiley]

Luv 'ya Wiley. But I would probably not work for your company. It's why I won't sign on with VA.

No prob.

 

[DWiley]

The simple fact of it is that many - possibly most - appraisers work to the form, not independent of the form. So whether we think of it in terms of being an SR1 problem or an SR2 problem the logical starting point is still the form.

edit to add; per Danny's observation, maybe a form which integrates that "look behind the curtain" instead of treating it as a bolt-on accessory.

I see it as a little of both. It is truly unforgivable that the current software for forms has evolved so little. Far more analytics should be available. Things like pairing of sales, group data analysis, sensitivity analysis, etc, should be a standard feature in all the formsware, yet none of them have those things.

 

[George Hatch]

I'm in no way current with the appraisalware products, so apologies in advance if appraisers are already doing this

But what if you ran your entire assignment through your reporting software:

- Open a workfile in your appraisalware program and from within that program:

- search your local online public records and other references like zoning and such with those results uploaiding into your report;

- run your MLS queries within the appraisalware program, which records up all your filters and each iteration of the resulting data, and which counts how many entries you read; and how many you picked to drive (with the photos you take of them uploading into that record; and the dowloading directly into your analyses

- run whatever analytics you were going to run, however many methods you used to derive your opinions and highlight whatever adjustments you applied via your own judgement due to lack of relevant data

- maybe including a ranking matrix showing which order you ranked your adjusted sales and where you ranked the subject within that range

- and then include links to the various listings, maybe even links to the electronic workfile, regardless on whose hard drive it is being stored.

Perhaps some combination between the written summary vs links to the contents of the complete workfile

Do you guys already have access to an integrated appraisalware program that does all or most of this?

 

[djd09]

TAF should of made "due date" an USPAP infraction. it would have taught everyone a lesson.

they want accurate, objective, (independent) appraisals, but throw us to the wolves. carry on.

 

[George Hatch]

I see it as a little of both. It is truly unforgivable that the current software for forms has evolved so little. Far more analytics should be available. Things like pairing of sales, group data analysis, sensitivity analysis, etc, should be a standard feature in all the formsware, yet none of them have those things.

Honestly, I'm pretty sure the software would have changed if the forms had changed to integrate those elements.


It's a strange experience for me to be dabbling in the possible merits of improving the SR2 form in order to affect changes in the SR1 development. Just considering a potential surrender to the form monkey approach to appraising makes me feel a little dirty.

 

[J Grant]

You have inadvertently demonstrated my point. Given the "typical" report content that is received these days, it is simply too difficult for a user to discern a good report from a bad one. Often, when one digs deep, a report that looks terrible at first glance ends up being the best that could be done. Conversely, some reports that look "pretty" are actually a POS. What I am suggesting is changing the digital architecture of reports to make it easier for a user to see behind the curtain and see the analysis, not just the (alleged) results. It would have been impossible twenty years ago, but with the technology of today it really would not be that hard. And, in the end, good appraisers would benefit greatly and "form fillers" and those use just use "the list" would find themselves looking for a different line of work.

sounds promising, how would that be done aka what would the format look like?

Perhaps a summation of key questions at end of report

Imo, a good review also accomplishes this...but the reviewer has to know the area etc and a review takes time. and $