Who's Right?

[Michael Giampa]

thank you brian for getting that right and getting that part out of the way. i didnt give them a value by disagreeing in the correct verbage. (why are so many people getting this wrong. i think these 2003 USPAP teachers have a lot to do)

jo ann- the new fnam 200 form was made in 1989!!! is there a newer on in your software?
jim- apprecaite your response but id love to see what you read to bring you to your conclusion. thats exactly my point btw, the lender wants me to do 2 assignments. The review looks to carefully examine what someone else did and agree or disagree like brian wrote. the fnma2000 form was made in 1989 and is way out ouf date. so i've done my job and disagreed. if they want a new value it has to be worked up like standard 2-2 states!
steven- you say "summary (whatever that means)" are you serious??????????????????? if you don't know what a "summary" appraisal is why are you even commenting!!! does complete appraisal analysis, summary appraisal report ring a bell!!! by the way run what you wrote by a USPAP teacher and watch his jaw hit the floor: you could come up with an alternative value in as little as a sentence or two, using the incorporated "summary" report under review as substantiation and thus have a "summary report."

 

[Pamela Crowley (Florida)]

Michael,

What software do you have? There was a newer review form this year. If you want, I'll email you one.

 

[Jo Ann Meyer Stratton]

It is also posted on Fannie Mae's website with guidelines.

 

[Fred]

Brain,
I understand why someone would say that the second statement is not an appraisal, but isn’t that dancing too close to the line. Simple question: If approving/disapproving the conclusion is beyond your scope of review - why go there at all? There is a person on the other end of the sentence that says, ‘the value conclusion is appropriate’ who could take that as you seconding the motion.

Posted by Mike

serious??????????????????? if you don't know what a "summary" appraisal is why are you even commenting!!! does complete appraisal analysis, summary appraisal report ring a bell!!! by the way run what you wrote by a USPAP teacher and watch his jaw hit the floor: you could come up with an alternative value in as little as a sentence or two, using the incorporated "summary" report under review as substantiation and thus have a "summary report."

Mike,
No one knows what a “summary appraisal” is, but I have heard of “summary report.” And no, “complete appraisal analysis” does not ring a bell, but it should get the gong.

My reference to “summary” was intended to mean that USPAP is vague on this because the point is moot on how many words it takes to “state” “summarize” or “describe” – so that you would not get hung up on the volume of work you would need to do.

While we are on the subject, USPAP is a “self-contained” work. I can read what it says without running a question past anyone. I have run questions past USPAP instructors, but usually I am the one who ends up with my jaw on the floor.

FWIW, George Hatch is a USPAP instructor and his post backs up mine. Also, while I don’t put much stock in AO’s, the AO-3 does the Business 101 thing of discussing the mechanics of incorporating documents by reference for those who just fell off the back of a turnip truck, hit their head and ended up with crazy eyes.

 

[Austin]

Let me add a little confusion to this discussion. I do not do reviews for reasons that Steven and George know all to well, that being I think the sales comparison approach as presently practiced is flawed and I don’t want to get into a brawl with some reviewer over something he or she probably never heard of. I have done reviews of marketing grids for my personal edification of every other appraiser’s work I can get my hands on specifically some from sample appraisals form software providers. I have never seen a marketing grid with a fully adjusted data set that was correctly adjusted in my view because the trend line of the adjusted sales still had a slope of $25/sf or more so it could not be adjusted correctly.
Now here is my question: If I did a review of some one’s appraisal, took their data from their marketing grid, adjusted it using my methods, and reported that in my opinion the appraisers under review reported the wrong answer because he did not use the correct sequence of adjustments nor is his data set fully adjusted, is that an appraisal?
If you say yes then let me ax you this: If you check the marketing grid and find that instead of adding for an adjustment the appraiser mistakenly subtracted, you correct the mistake and report a new number, is that an appraisal? Where is the dividing line between correcting mistakes and performing a new appraisal?

 

[Michael Giampa]

not to beat a dead horse to death for a 2nd or 3rd time but ive consulted 2 state certified USPAP instructors today after receiving (incredibly differing) opinions and steven, god love ya, what are you doing in this business??? do you have a clue at all??? you say no one knows what a summary (appraisal omitted) report is??? if you dont put much stock on ao's (these are just like requirements only softer said) i say again, do you even know how to appraise?

 

[Austin]

Michael:
Man you must be new to this forum. Steven and George are two old senile geezers that we keep around just for fun. Don’t pay any attention to them, just humor them once in a while. They are harmless but they serve to remind of us the past. Tell Steven your favorite appraisal method is the cost approach and you will have a friend for life. Tell George that Austin’s methods are the only correct ones and he will follow you around like a puppy wagging his tail. Trust me on this one.

 

[Travis McGee]

Michael,

Complete Appraisal, Summary Report

Not summary appraisal or complete report analysis or however the words get twisted. Steven is making the correct analysis and your missing the point over semantics. You can incorportate the parts of the original appraisal report you agree with into your review report and have it meet the reporting requirements. The FNMA 2000 form requires you to attach the report you are reviewing to the finished review for reference. The review report is not in itself a stand alone product and would be misleading without the other report attached to it. Simply state I agree with all of the original appraisal but the fake comp, and give them a new comp to replace the false sale. If you agree with the value conclusion but not how it was arrived at due to the false sale, state so and you are done.

 

[Fred]

Michael inveigles,

i say again, do you even know how to appraise?

Wow! Normally, it takes years for someone to figure out I can’t appraise.
BTW, your "argument" is long on insult and short on substance. Draw your own inference from that. I think you'll find that people on this forum are knowledgeable and professional; make good debates, and are not impressed with flame.

FWIW, I know what I wrote and think, and this is not it.

you say no one knows what a summary (appraisal omitted) report is???

In any case, if you think you know what a summary report is, let’s have it.


Is this a direct quote from the two certified USPAP instructors?

ao's (these are just like requirements only softer said)

An appraiser knowing that the AO’s “do not establish standards or interpret existing standards” and that AO's are not part of USPAP; is like a skydiver knowing where the ripcord is.

Jeff wrote,

The review report is not in itself a stand alone product

Yes, the review report inorporates by reference a document that is normally already in the client's possession.

 

[GeorgiaBoy]

Steve,

the value conclusion is appropriate

The PORTION of my statement that you chose excerpt doesn't just dance close the line. It crosses the line. If one were to use only that PORTION of my statement it would be considered an appraisal and subject to Standards 1 and 2 of USPAP.

The value conclusion stated in the appraisal report is (or is not) appropriate and reasonable given the data and analysis presented.

This is the statement that I used in my post in its entirety. It refers strictly to the methods of the appraiser under review and does not in anyway imply that the reviewer has come to his/her own value conclusion. If you still disagree with this I would suggest that you read USPAP, AO-20, lines 174-175