Appraisers' Free Forum

Mentor wrote:Stone, you grew up in the Twin Cities as I recall. Did your father practice here? In the '80's a rather prominent MAI ran a puppy mill shop and got into trouble when a client or more than likely, Fannie noted the unusual statistic that he was co-signing literally hundreds of appraisal reports some months.

A branch manager of a larrrrge lender told me that around 1985, when I was converting to appraising from my RE brokerage, which I balanced with appraising for a couple years.

The guy is still active, probably quite old. That's my only anecdote.

My folks are from Minneapolis, but I grew up in a small town in WI. My father has only practiced in WI.

I have no doubt, and didn't express any, that people sign as "did inspect" when they did not. I also agree that getting rid of that practice would be a huge positive and that it likely is one of, if not the, biggest problem in our profession. Where I found Mako's post to be a bunch of BS is when he states he's "heard" of clients who allow a supervisor to sign as did not inspect, but he's also "heard" of "Ghost Bears". That meaning is pretty clear, IMO.

I'm willing to bet there are a lot of small town banks and some not so small banks that aren't large chains, who have been ok with not inspecting. I wonder, Mako, how many of your clients were small banks in small communities? I doubt I ran into the only two around.

Stone wrote: I wonder, Mako, how many of your clients were small banks in small communities? I doubt I ran into the only two around.

I don't live anywhere near "small communities." Wish I did...I prefer the lifestyle.

I worked for an Eastside SRA who had SMALLER banks amongst his clientele, however, they required he co-inspect. He was the most ethical appraiser I've ever known, and I've tried to pattern my own business similar to his. I would like to note the guy couldn't take on anymore than three appraisers & at that he ran himself ragged.

Stone wrote:Where I found Mako's post to be a bunch of BS is when he states he's "heard" of clients who allow a supervisor to sign as did not inspect, but he's also "heard" of "Ghost Bears". That meaning is pretty clear, IMO.

If you're offended by those comments...you're having to try hard to be so.

I mean no disrespect, and I'm simply reporting what I've experienced. So maybe the meaning wasn't all that clear.

So...I'll spell it out; Having performed some 5,000 appraisals...I've never had a client who would accept a "did not inspect" report. That's not to say I don't believe those types of clients aren't out there...or that an appraiser (such as yourself) couldn't cater to those kinds of patrons. Or, that some region of the country isn't, or couldn't be predominately a "did not inspect" locale. However, those categories of customers (relatively speaking) are extremely rare...thus the "Ghost Bear" reference.

Hope that clears it up.

Mako wrote:......I've never had a client who would accept a "did not inspect" report.............

I never had the opportunity to discover a client that would accept a "did not inspect" report as I insist on inspecting at some point during the development of an appraisal. I do not necessarily have to accompany the trainee, and there are times I didn't see it at the same time as the trainee, but I inspected it none-the-less. If it was a new house and I had sufficient photos on file I may not do an interior inspection but I at least would do a drive by viewing of the property. I don't even feel the need to do the measurements, take the photos, or do anything but walk around and look. But before I put my license on the line, I want to see the property.

Goodpasture wrote:

Mako wrote:......I've never had a client who would accept a "did not inspect" report.............

I never had the opportunity to discover a client that would accept a "did not inspect" report as I insist on inspecting at some point during the development of an appraisal. I do not necessarily have to accompany the trainee, and there are times I didn't see it at the same time as the trainee, but I inspected it none-the-less. If it was a new house and I had sufficient photos on file I may not do an interior inspection but I at least would do a drive by viewing of the property. I don't even feel the need to do the measurements, take the photos, or do anything but walk around and look. But before I put my license on the line, I want to see the property.

This answer, once again, points out the shortfalls of Fannie's form... the checkbox simply says did or did not, it does not go into any detail about the degree of inspection. Question. Would it be possible to check "did inspect" if you looked at an aerial view of the property with Google Earth? You certainly saw it, just not in person. Of course, the certifications would have to be changed in such a case, since they are more specific... so, perhaps the "did" does require feet-on-the-ground. Personally, if I was doing one with a trainee, I would take part in the inspection because I believe that is the most cost-efficient way to do it. Two people working as a well-oiled team can do it in less than half the time of one.

My wife was out of the country for a few weeks this spring, and she left me in charge of quite a few plants, inside and out.

On more than one of our skype calls, it came in handy to walk the laptop past the sickly looking plants and get her diagnosis, which came down to over watering, under watering, too much Sun & not enough Sun and "OMG, what have you done to (insert plant name)."

I think she could sign a "did inspect" report, but it would be nice to flesh out the level of inspection in SOW. She did have control of the view as she issued me verbal instructions, I would like to think were suggestions, like, "closer, go back again, etc."

Those MacBooks have great built in camera and mic.

Mentor-

Until trainees are carrying shoulder mounted camera's & bluetooths into an inspection under direction of command central - the "did inspect" rule will continue to be NECESSARY. There's just too much that can be missed by greenies. Without the experienced/certified appraiser inspecting the subject...there's just waaaaay too much that can be missed.

This is why we don't have certified appraisers sitting in Calcutta appraising properties courtesy of Google Earth. It's also another reason AVM's haven't worked to any degree of required accuracy (and they never will). As a side note...I should think it would be far more practical (& cost effective) to run the entire lending process from Mumbai.

The future of appraising - 'The Van Man's' got nothing on these trainees/pest exterminators combined!!!
VVVVVVVVVVVVVV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZ5J8ZiS2f8

Steve Owen wrote:This answer, once again, points out the shortfalls of Fannie's form... the checkbox simply says did or did not, it does not go into any detail about the degree of inspection. Question. Would it be possible to check "did inspect" if you looked at an aerial view of the property with Google Earth? You certainly saw it, just not in person. Of course, the certifications would have to be changed in such a case, since they are more specific... so, perhaps the "did" does require feet-on-the-ground. Personally, if I was doing one with a trainee, I would take part in the inspection because I believe that is the most cost-efficient way to do it. Two people working as a well-oiled team can do it in less than half the time of one.

This state is quite clear on the subject & sent out notices long ago regarding this topic. "Physically inspect or DO NOT mark the did inspect box." I once knew of a "did inspect" liar who'd claimed they "drove-by" when pressed. This jerk ran 8 offices once upon a time & had "trainees" running ALL OVER the state. Can you imagine how many honest & ethical appraisers lost work due to this creep?

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it, 'if they're lying about inspecting....they're lying about every other aspect of their business as well...including inflating values (number-hitting).'

The afore mentioned walking waste of blood had a sibling, and a parent who were licensed...both were equal fraudsters. The siblings would take classes in the parents name, while the parent vacationed on a sailboat down in Mexico. HELL!...the children ran the offices before they were even licensed themselves.

The had another character flaw--besides being liars---they treated people like dirt! Former friends & employees started turning on them. Eventually, the sailing parent lost their license...the IRS came knocking & last I checked, one's license was "denied" (never seen that status before), and the other's is delinquent. Bye bye high end marine view property.

I just wonder WTF took the state so &@) @$%& long