Appraisers' Free Forum

Edd Gillespie wrote:......... as far as I can tell an awful of of specific SOW stuff is made up on the fly by clients, reviewers and regulators after the appraisal is complete. Witness my honored encounter with a "national reviewer."

SOW is established in advance by the client and is address throughout the report. If a client wants to change at some point in the future, then they should expect to pay for it. What you charge is up to you. In reviewing, you check to see if the SOW is sufficient to meet the needs of the client........

Edd Gillespie wrote:Did you check to see if the client told the appraiser to explain each and every thing or is that something every summary report should automatically contain?

I always thought that you should be clear, both as to your conclusions and how you arrived at them. I summarize my research......I don't list every detail of every sale or listing that I consider and explain why I did or didn't use it, but if I deviate from the "I adjusted $30 psf for this $120 psf house" crap that gets sent through, then I need to explain why and how I did it. Who knows, maybe someone in those cubicles can learn what an appraisal is supposed to be rather than what they've been getting for the past 10 years.

Edd Gillespie wrote:Frankly, I want to join the no-boiler plate crowd and then some guy comes along and wants to pay for boiler plate. So what to do, give him a Cadillac for Yugo price?

You state what your price is. If he doesn't like it, he doesn't hire you. It is going to be rough out there, but sooner or later they will learn that when you get hired, their appraisal is credible.

Edd Gillespie wrote: How can anybody hold a guy responsible for doing some specific thing that nobody ever taught him to do and that has no consensus in the industry?

It is called education. and we are trying to change it to where it IS the consensus.

Edd Gillespie wrote:Why can't the appraiser get the benefit of the doubt that is undoubtedly in every conclusion?

Because we've seen too many appraisals that are garbage to accept unsupported conclusions.

Goodpasture wrote:

Edd Gillespie wrote: How can anybody hold a guy responsible for doing some specific thing that nobody ever taught him to do and that has no consensus in the industry?

It is called education. and we are trying to change it to where it IS the consensus.

OK. So, the plan is to adopt the NAIFA standards for GLA adjustments and change the consensus. Sounds like living large. How can I help?

Goodpasture wrote:What you charge is up to you.

True. And I submit under the current conditions all of our independent decisions, which are based on trying to stay in business, are deteriorating the profession even further.

Edd Gillespie wrote:

Goodpasture wrote:

Edd Gillespie wrote: How can anybody hold a guy responsible for doing some specific thing that nobody ever taught him to do and that has no consensus in the industry?

It is called education. and we are trying to change it to where it IS the consensus.

OK. So, the plan is to adopt the NAIFA standards for GLA adjustments and change the consensus. Sounds like living large. How can I help?

Start by joining

Goodpasture wrote:

Edd Gillespie wrote:

Goodpasture wrote:

Edd Gillespie wrote: How can anybody hold a guy responsible for doing some specific thing that nobody ever taught him to do and that has no consensus in the industry?

It is called education. and we are trying to change it to where it IS the consensus.

OK. So, the plan is to adopt the NAIFA standards for GLA adjustments and change the consensus. Sounds like living large. How can I help?

Start by joining

Proselyte.

Otis wrote:I voted maybe because there's not really enough info for me to make a decision - it could be justifiable or it could be someone who doesn't know what s/he is doing.


And I might just be getting too tired of the bullshitters in this business.

I voted "no" because in my market the most reasonable information I have is that it would not be justifiable. However, Otis is right. If there was some justification for it that could be proven in the market, then it would be okay.

My take on it is like this. Around here, you could justify not adjusting for the first 100 sq. ft. difference (I use 50 sq. ft. myself) simply because real estate agents (usually the source of the best data) don't measure all that well. However, that doesn't translate to larger differences. So, once that limit is exceeded, the market does show a willingness to pay more per square foot for the larger house... every square foot, not just the ones in excess of the uncertainty.

While we are at this adjustment stuff. Where did Fannie get the maximum adjustment percentages for the entire nation? I've tried explaining when the adjustments limits are not supported by the market and the explanation is not accepted by the underwriters. Get another comp they say, that is more similar to the subject they say.

Tell them to send you one of theirs, after all if you are going to make shit up, it might as well conform to their guidelines perfectly........

Goodpasture wrote:after all if you are going to make shit up, it might as well conform to their guidelines perfectly........

My preception is that is exactly what is going on. Most of the SFR guys around here are trying their level best to satisfy their client's underwriters (seems underwriting resists instruction as well). That is after all, the appraisers say, good for business. They may be right about that.

Edd Gillespie wrote:While we are at this adjustment stuff. Where did Fannie get the maximum adjustment percentages for the entire nation? I've tried explaining when the adjustments limits are not supported by the market and the explanation is not accepted by the underwriters. Get another comp they say, that is more similar to the subject they say.

I can't speak for your experiences Edd, but I have, in the past, turned in secondary market appraisals with gross adjustment higher then 50%, net adjustments about that high, and line adjustments well beyond 25%. Fully explained, they were accepted.

However, I think you bring up a good point. Fannie set guidelines, which quickly became interpreted as requirements, and then, almost as quickly became accepted as requirements for non-Fannie work. There is a reason for that, the guidelines are good. There is little question that a comp with 25% gross adjustment is usually more like the subject than a comp with 40% gross adjustment. The problem is not created by the guidelines, but rather by UW's, many of whom have never had a shred of power in their lives, and now, once they are given some intend to exercise it to the fullest. Under the current set of regulations that rule our profession, your options are, unfortunately, very limited.

Just a thought on the issue; FNMA at one point suggested a 10-15% variance in GLA between the subject & comps, personally I have felt this is perhaps a reasonable "guide", as it does keep things orderly. As far as the 100 SF thing, if your adjusting one, all should be adjusted no matter. So it's a $50-$100 adjustment, in the scheme of things it ain't shaken up the overall report.

Over the past several years there has been a significant increase in these arguments for SF/GLA or whatever - in the overall package it does play a small part in the package, but it is not significant. What I find significant is the dollar value used for that adjustment; IE: $20/SF maybe be reasonable, $25-$35 maybe be reasonable, but when anyone (in my area) jumps up more than that, it causes me to take note because they may be "driving value" and Not reporting a reasonable solution to the value estimating process. Additionally, we have as a group "looked" everywhere to find out "How To Measure" a dwelling and we now have 50 ways to try to "organize that issue"; IMHO-we should stick to what is not broken, use the "traditional" FNMA guide and end the maddness. Measure the box and everything within is the GLA, with slight differences from assessor theory's, it has been the best approach I have found over the past 20+ years and creates the least amount of argument. SIMPLIFY

This is from the Snowglobe Library; because I yam aging so well, I will share with ya'll one of my Court Room experiences- an Attorney who I've know for many years (actually taught my first Appraisal Class) and I went to court on a Tax Appeal case, maybe 15 years ago, I was a young upstart at this (he is partially disabled and use's this very well in court-so I knew I was at a disadvatage anyway) and we began our "ptich" to the court, I was in the lead so to speak on the case, when he presented this viewpoint; your honor if we can remove all adjustments and view the comparable sales and there Sold Cost Per SF, you will see that they "support" my appraised value quite well. Needless to say, he won the case on that point.
There are numerous ways to present and support your work and every day should contain some portion of an Edumacational moment......even if it means an email from Otty

Thank You and goodnight

Daaaaffeeeeee!

Yoo Hoo! Daffeeee!

You wanted good appraisal questions. Where the hell are you?