Why field review after closing

[Sadie]

One of my pet peeves is appraisers using comps on hilly terrain when subject is on level terrain.
Comps should be same terrain thus no need to adjust for views if possible. Hard to determine $10,000 to $1,000,000 views. So subjective.

Only works if you have comps with the same terrain.

 

[Sadie]

In a review, you are checking to see if the report conforms to USPAP. You don't have the engagement letter so you can't comment on that. If the report is on a FNMA the report needs to conform to Fannie guidelines, unless the engagement letter did not specifically ask for a Fanne/Freddie form. If it didn't you have another set of problems. Field reviews were ordered in 2008-2010 by lenders who had to take properties back and used as a tool to determine if the appraisal could be in part responsible for over leveraging a property.

 

[Surf Cat]

Fernando winged it throughout his career and still appraising.

When I started, I worked in bank and didn't have a mentor helping me as an independent appraiser. I winged it.

These two comments explain "everything".

My analysis of Fernando a few months back was correct. He is like Mr Magoo haphazardly wandering around luckily evading the pitfalls of his ways.

 

[Scott.A]

90+% of my reviews are post closing. I might not have an impact on the deal, but I can help another appraiser improve their craft, improve my skills through someone else's work, and gather data to help our processes.

At least that's what I tell myself so I feel like its contributing.

 

[Zoe]

Also many times if a federal regulator or state regulator audits a bank, which happens frequently, they can even require the bank get a second appraisal on the subject and report back to them.

 

[J Grant]

90+% of my reviews are post closing. I might not have an impact on the deal, but I can help another appraiser improve their craft, improve my skills through someone else's work, and gather data to help our processes.

At least that's what I tell myself so I feel like its contributing.

There are far fewer field reviews ordered now, but that can change of course ( though I refuse to do them for low AMC pay). At one time, I did a large quantity of field reviews, and I did not care about helping anyone improve their craft. In a post-closing field review, an appraiser usually won't know that their report was reviewed - they might find out only if a complaint about it was lodged. Sometimes, it leads to a client or clients putting that appraiser on a do-not-use list if the OA was a POS.

I always looked at it as another assignment, and if an appraiser was really egregious with value pushing, perhaps it would lead a client to take action. What a client does or does not do with our review after we turn it in is beyond our control, just as the reason for the review typically remains unknown.

The interesting thing was that a first superficial read of the appraisal could look fine - it was only when I got into it and saw the terrible comp choices and how they overlooked more similar sales or made fudged adjustments that the problem was revealed. That is why a rote scan error or USPAP compliance checklist does nothing to address the real problems present in some appraisals.

 

[sputnam]

In a review, you are checking to see if the report conforms to USPAP. You don't have the engagement letter so you can't comment on that. If the report is on a FNMA the report needs to conform to Fannie guidelines, unless the engagement letter did not specifically ask for a Fanne/Freddie form. If it didn't you have another set of problems. Field reviews were ordered in 2008-2010 by lenders who had to take properties back and used as a tool to determine if the appraisal could be in part responsible for over leveraging a property.

There isn't just one type of review. Reviews are governed by Intended Use and Scope of Work in the same way that appraisals are. If it is a compliance review then, yes... you are looking at USPAP and Client specified assignment conditions. Compliance reviews often do not include the reviewer's opinion of value (psst... saying you agree with the appraiser IS an opinion of value). If the Scope of Work includes the reviewer's opinion of value then, the review is also an appraisal. In that case the review and review report must comply with USPAP Standards 1, 2, 3 & 4.

 

[Airstream]

During the crash I did lots of forensic reviews. I did not sweat the small stuff. Even did a few interior field reviews. That was interesting. Reviews are to be done to make sure the appraisal is credible. Just remember no one does an appraisal without some error at some point. I looked for egregious errors and if there were a significant number of them that led to a misleading report. The biggest issue is always comp selection and fudging the adjustments.

 

[J Grant]

Compliance reviews are a waste of money and are used to fulfill a review requirement, but IMO they should be called a checklist and not called a review. A compliance "review" can pass an appeal for not having errors or having USPAP compliance, much of which is rote such as proper license verbiage and including prior sale transaction. none of it addresses comp selection and things that materially affect value or other conclusions and many a bad appraisal can pass a compliance or other checklist type of review, some of which need not be performed by an appraiser

 

[J Grant]

During the crash I did lots of forensic reviews. I did not sweat the small stuff. Even did a few interior field reviews. That was interesting. Reviews are to be done to make sure the appraisal is credible. Just remember no one does an appraisal without some error at some point. I looked for egregious errors and if there were a significant number of them that led to a misleading report. The biggest issue is always comp selection and fudging the adjustments.

Same here. It is a mistake to assume a forensic or field review is about "getting" an appraiser or unearthing minor petty errors. Only an error or series of errors significant enough to materially affect the value or other conclusion deserve being addressed; minor ones can be pointed out if found, of course. The meat of a review is as you note comp selection and then the adjustments or if a misleading statement or omission was found that affected the result. A review is about the appraisal, not the appraisal, and most of the time, the appraiser's name was blacked out, or there it remained it had no impact on anything.