Appraisers' Free Forum

Joanne! There you are! Glad everything's OK.

You've read WM's underwriter's reasoning: If the loan went south, an appraisal with that language/style might cause him grief down the road. Do you agree with that assessment?

It makes more sense viewed in that light than a bunch of stuffy ol' farts grumbling that the appraiser's necktie isn't straight. I'm wondering whether you and Mentor share that other UW's view of future risk.

Otis,
The "personal bias" point is well taken, and I agree. I want to give the right guidance, rather than tell the appraiser it "just isn't done." So I've asked here, hoping to hear more from Joanne and Mentor before I do anything.

I gave the report a pass. There was nothing substantive wrong with it. As Edd pointed out, if you can't refute an adjustment, leave it alone. So far, it seems that some hate it, some like it but are scared of the potential backlash, and some don't see anything wrong with it. I guess the right guidance may turn out to be, "Y'all be careful now, hear?"

From what has been revealed so far, I have seen nothing that indicates any kind of appraisal standard violation. However, you are getting some rather opinionated responses from players who aren't appraisers. Is there an expectation underwriters, if not actually a requirement, that appraisals be written in a less folksy style?

If that truly is an expectation, should the scope of work be expanded? Are appraisals required to pass some sort of undefined minimum communications standard? I think that seems to be where this going since it is established by the reviewer that appraiser personal bias did not effect the conclusions.

I'm unwilling to make that a requirement, but I will propose that underwriters focus on something less mundane. Narrative writers have known for years that underwriting is impressed with shear weight of reports. Maybe first impressions matter most.

Edd Gillespie wrote:

WM wrote:His response? The appraiser who wrote that is "an idiot".

Hummm, I think I will stick to a more formal writing style.

Does being an idiot have anything to do with USPAP credibility? ..............................................

WM, any time you can improve anything, do it. It is good for the profession. But help the guys who aren't as well equipped as you are. That is good too.

The last 4 sentences say it all, IMO.

Just how am I responsible for helping this person?

Not sure how I became the target here???

I've mentioned this before (at the other place), but I'll do it again. While that style of writing is not anything like mine as I also took technical writing courses, it doesn't bother me. One of the best rural lands appraisers in this state writes in the first person - in a similar manner as the OP. His descriptions of the individual properties are a bit more formal, but when he is discussing the sales as part of his analysis, he says things like "I like this sale because" or "I don't like this part of that sale". From what I've read in the past, there are many appraisers who would blast him for his lack of formality. However, anyone who is familiar with his work realizes that he produces one of the most complete products around and has more knowledge and experience than just about anyone doing what we do in my area. His reports read a little different than most, but they are also worth more than most.

I cannot get worked up over style. Now, when I see a bunch 'o grammar and spelling errors, that is another story

WM wrote:Just how am I responsible for helping this person?

Not sure how I became the target here???

You are only responsible to whom and what you choose to be. You are not my target, I just used your name.

Jim Plante wrote:Otis,
The "personal bias" point is well taken, and I agree. I want to give the right guidance, rather than tell the appraiser it "just isn't done." So I've asked here, hoping to hear more from Joanne and Mentor before I do anything.

I gave the report a pass. There was nothing substantive wrong with it. As Edd pointed out, if you can't refute an adjustment, leave it alone. So far, it seems that some hate it, some like it but are scared of the potential backlash, and some don't see anything wrong with it. I guess the right guidance may turn out to be, "Y'all be careful now, hear?"

Before I respond, I'll indicated that I've read Stone's post above. That said, moving on. I was taught, by various people and at various classes over the years, that personal bias was not to enter into the appraisal....We're to reflect the market and reference towards and about the market. I "personally feel" that when a report starts reflecting "personal bias" statements, then it tends to show less credibility of the person writing the report. How do we, as readers, know where his/her "personal bias" entered and where the report is reflecting "market indicated data/preferences/etc."?

The first person aspect that Stone was referencing is good, for certain aspects. I.E., I observed the property from the exterior and interior, I measured the property, I research the history, I researched sales data, I verified that data, etc. But a reconciliation where "personal bias" shows up might present the appearance that the preparer has dropped that unbiased aspect and let the personal bias come out. And in the case that you referenced to Joanne about the loan going sour, it might come back and create a rather significant problem for a bank or lender.

Simply saying "I liked this" or something along that line isn't really showing any more personal bias than ranking sales (weighting, whatever term seems applicable). It is just the terminology and level of casual discussion. Instead of saying "most reliance" he simply says "I like". As I noted, this is not my style, but other than sounding quite casual, I don't think there is anything wrong with it.

The appraiser I'm referencing takes the reader through his thought process, and describes the subject and sales, better than most. But, if I hadn't read this particular appraiser's work, I probably would have a different take on that type of style. As it is, this is someone I know personally and call frequently when I have trouble or need assistance. Because I know him and respect his work to the degree I do, I got past it pretty quickly. That might not have been the case if it was simply some anonymous appraiser.

It is certainly more accepted, and I would think it is easier to appear to be a D3P, with a more formal writing style.

Otis, something else just occurred to me. Saying "I don't like that house" is an indication of personal bias. What if you were on the witness stand with an otherwise perfect report. Do you think a good cross-counsel could use that "appearance of bias" to destroy your credibility?

That little thought makes ML's phrasing much more attractive.

Jim, I try to treat everything like I was taught to do reviews: you are reviewing the appraisal... not the appraiser. Sooo, I'll try to find at least one ugly house, or ask a couple agents, for some support to attribute any perceived problem as a marketing issue. Calling one's house ugly will get your arse kicked, saying the marketing time will be extended or some seller concessions would be necessary for alterations and renovations will only pizz off the LO.

I absolutely agree with Otis on the personal bias issue. It has no place in an appraisal report. It's funny and a bit refreshing in a way - but not professional and not how I think it should be worded. I am not sure it would cause grief other than for these reasons, whether the loan goes south or not - if the value was established correctly of course!

Interesting that Otis is concerned that the manner of expression may, in and of itself, create liability for a lender, while Joanne just flat doesn't like it, but isn't too sure about whether it creates liability.

Jim, on the other hand is concentrating on review concerns. Seems Standard 3 and the rest of USPAP is more or less silent as to writing style. I have been admonished for writing appraisal narratives in a stilted, but very precise legal style, sticking hard by the facts.

Maybe the key is to pitch the appraisal to the audience. Is Joanne representative of the reasonable SFR underwriter? Should this issue be addressed in the SOW?

As if the substance of appraising was not tough enough, now we have to worry about professional delivery. We've miles to go. Time to add writing style to Appraisal 101.

Which brings me to ask whether TC is still spell checking. Been quiet from that quarter. Alot.

I am more concerned that the appraiser did a good job coming up with a substantiated value - and will leave the liabilities to the attorneys. If I got an appraisal in like that I would try to make sure the adjustments made sense and maybe wonder what the appraiser had been eating or drinking that day - and maybe read some of it to a few people in the department - but wouldn't get worked up about it. In my OPINION, it's not very prefessional - and I am sure if you asked 6 other underwriters you may get 6 other opinions. :)

Jim Plante wrote:Otis, something else just occurred to me. Saying "I don't like that house" is an indication of personal bias. What if you were on the witness stand with an otherwise perfect report. Do you think a good cross-counsel could use that "appearance of bias" to destroy your credibility?

That little thought makes ML's phrasing much more attractive.

You know as well as I do that any good attorney can tear down a defense or presentation in short order. However, I do believe that the use of the phrase the way you worded would just open the door to the attorney and get more mud slung on to a possible credible appraisal.

Stone wrote:The appraiser I'm referencing takes the reader through his thought process, and describes the subject and sales, better than most. But, if I hadn't read this particular appraiser's work, I probably would have a different take on that type of style. As it is, this is someone I know personally and call frequently when I have trouble or need assistance. Because I know him and respect his work to the degree I do, I got past it pretty quickly. That might not have been the case if it was simply some anonymous appraiser.

It is certainly more accepted, and I would think it is easier to appear to be a D3P, with a more formal writing style.

I'm not saying it's wrong Stone. Just that it doesn't appear to be presented in a professional manner. I'm sure the person you're referencing is more than likely writing narrative reports. In those cases, I can see where such an approach would work. But in form work, it tends to present a less than D3P appearance, IMO.

This seems to be a consistent topic that is brought up somewhat regularly. I don't think there is one correct way. But I do think the appearance of the report by a third party reader might want to be considered by the writer. Does the report sound as if it was prepared by a D3P or someone with a bias?