What is a review?

[Lee Lansford]

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!

I can't say as though I have received such a "review"...but I have conducted such reviews.

 

[rcsone]

....reviews are separated kinda by with or without value conclusion.....first is an administrative or appraisal rules and process review on adequate data, logic and explanation of adjustments, and satisfactory use of methods and techniques which are used to form an opinion of value. This review should directly relate with regulations and guidelines as stated(?....my question) in USPAP. This type of reviews that I have recently done are divided into two parts: 1) a general review by section of 1004, and 2) an USPAP compliance audit. They are both most almost line or section specific by comment or question beginning with the Preamble through Standards 1 and 2 of the USPAP or top left of 1004, so that there is no confusion as to direction or source of reason of comment.
There is no comment on value other than an overall expression of whether the reviewed report seems to be or not to be reasonable or unreasonable by being incomplete/confusing or a lack of compliance with USPAP. If disregard of report quality occurs, a technical or field review is recommended which is a complete re-appraisal with a value requirement as part of the SOW......hope this helps.......rs

 

[Lost Cause]

Despite What TC Thinks, There Are Some Competant Reviewers Out Here

Elliot, since you asked, every review I do is fully compliant with Standard 3. Everything is included, discussion of scope of work, intended use and user, signed certification, etc. A definition of market value is not included as it is assumed that it is the same definition as included in the appraisal under review. And not just my reviews, all the reviews done by any of the appraisers here at the bank.

No one doubts there's plenty of hack and skippy reviewers out there. Presumably there's just as big a percentage of reviewers who are hacks as appraisers who are hacks.

 

[CURT VAN HOOSER]

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

Sorry.... I don't speak German dude!

 

[Mztk1]

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

Fue en respuesta a lo que yo había escrito en cuanto a la definición de valor de mercado.

 

[Mztk1]

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

It might, but it also alludes to the idea that you yourself have provided a definition of market value at the bottom of page two where it says "my opinion of market value, as defined..." but there is no definition.

Otherwise I am comfortable with the idea that my reviews are Standard 3 compliant, and never thought of the market value definition missing before, but for the sake of inclusion I just added it to the addendum in my clone.

 

[RSW]

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

I guess I don't have to put it in there then. Thanks!