What is a review?

[Elliott]

Something has been bothering me. Its those annoying demands
that come from processor types for better comparables, for newer
comparables, for 'proof' the market is not declining or stable, or
pooh poohing my analysis of DOM as not supporting the value of
the tea in china.

I had a 'bad' review a few weeks ago. It was some typical
review form and I got a copy, but there was something that
annoyed me and I couldn't figure out why. The 'review' went
away eventually, loan closed, but....it made 'accusations and
aspersions' but it didn't prove them to me or anybody else
with a brain or experience.

I went to USPAP and here's what I suspected, when someone
'reviews' your work they at a minimum (but apparently if your a
hack, non-appraiser, then the rules don't apply, thanks TAF!)
follow STANDARD 3. And they have to hit all the dots on the i's, they
have to be competent, they have to develop a intended use,
they have to explain their scope of work. And it goes on
further to require the reviewer develop credible opinions and conclusions,
and they have to state their opinions, reasons, and conclusions.

The 'reviewer' has to provide sufficent information for the
'intended users' to understand the rationale for their opinions
and conclusions. I pretty much figure I'm in the intended user
'class.'

And they have to include all known pertinent information and
they have to sign a certification.

So my questions is, is there an appraiser here who has ever
received a review from a lender or state board that has met
the requirements of Standard 3? And of course, if that is
not the case (I assume Ray Miller is listening), then why do
we put up with the unsupported requirements and demands
and complaints that are part of modern appraising? Maybe
its time to go, boo! Mr. Reviewer, you prove your ascertions!

 

[Mztk1]

On the 2000 Form the intended user, use and scope of work, etc., is a preprinted form. But what I don't see, and maybe I am overlooking it, is a definition of market value.

If the review appraiser comes up with a new value the bottom of the reconciliation section does say "my opinion of the market value, as defined..." but like I said, no definition that I can find.

 

[CURT VAN HOOSER]

Unless otherwise specified, is your definition of market value not the same as that in the report you are reviewing?

 

[Mztk1]

I don't know. It doesn't say that in the report anywhere, unless I missed a blurb.

 

[Elliott]

Senor' Curt,
No entiendo lo que usted está diciendo?
Me revisión del valor de mercado?
Hsta la vista babe!

 

[jay trotta]

Elliott

I always push button #1 - don't know any Spanish or Spanglish....enough

Of all the so-called "Reviews" done on my work, I will not rebutt anything unless I have a copy of the Review. To date and this is over 20+ years, I have yet to find a Reviewer that follows Standard #3 - so they are generally easy to rebutt, along with an entire package sent off to the State Commissioners Office for review and a return reciept request incorporated.

chow fer now


PS: have never lost a rebuttle yet

 

[Thomas Fiehler]

Often the review is completed by someone who is not an appraiser. With that said, USPAP would not apply to them. Someone needs to start a clerical version of USPAP. IMHO

 

[RSW]

I have a clarified SOW, intended use and user statement that I provide with my reviews when ever I do one which is not often. I never thought about the definition of market value though. I will need to go in and state it is the definition stated in the original appraisal report under review.

 

[Don Clark]

Often the review is completed by someone who is not an appraiser. With that said, USPAP would not apply to them. Someone needs to start a clerical version of USPAP. IMHO

Thomas,

Therein lies the rub. I have had 2 "reviews" that I had to contest in the past 2-3 years. One was by an AVM with a BPO that was 72 pages long. I posted that on this forum at the time. 4 pages was a BPO completed by a real estate agent with 4 months in the business. My subject was ranch style, about 1300 sq ft. It was 30-40 years old(going from memory here). It was near a major university and had great rental potential. The BPO used only 1 sales that was even close. That was an attached 1 story bungalow of about 800 sq ft. He also used an 80-90 year old 2 story at least twice the size of the subject, and another 2 story that was in very poor condition. Not hard to rebut but a pain in the ***.

The second one was where the public records were off by over 1,000 sq ft on a colonial 2 story. The AVM/BPO used the public record square footage that made the subject smaller. One of the sales they used had been listed for $100,000 more than what it solf for in a market of $500,000 to $800,000 homes. The comps I used were very near the subject, recent sales. The sales used in the AVM/BPO were farther away, and in neighborhoods with lower valued homes. I won that rebuttal as well.

When a non appraiser does a review it is an administrative review and they can say or do anything they want as they are not bound by USPAP. Too many appraisers do not complete a review in accord with STD-3 and often try to review the appraiser and not the report. If that happens to me I will turn them in to the state board.

 

[Don Clark]

I have a clarified SOW, intended use and user statement that I provide with my reviews when ever I do one which is not often. I never thought about the definition of market value though. I will need to go in and state it is the definition stated in the original appraisal report under review.

In the 2000/3/05 Field Review it alludes to the fact that it is in the report under review.