Appraisers' Free Forum

I want to know if they did it in a methodical and thoughtful way, not if they got the 'right' answer.

Now that we know what you want, what does the client need?

Clients don’t need a mere debate on technique. It’s like asking how some baseball player did and getting an explanation of his stride timing, weight-transfer and swing plane, when all the person needs to know is result. He struck out three times.

I have yet to see my first review where the reviewer even defends their SOW nor explains WHY the appraiser's scope is inadequate.

Maybe I don’t see enough reviews, but that’s what I see. That’s what Jim did, said why the SOW was inadequate; because the search found the wrong sales. What I was debating is the idea that you don’t need to tell the client what that means.

Denis DeSaix wrote:I do three types of reviews, all to do with residential properties: pre-funding, post-funding, and litigation support. I have yet to see one where the pre-printed form's SOW was inadequate. I have seen many that did not meet the minimum reporting standards and, by inference, did not meet the minimum development standards. None of this had to do with an "impeachable" SOW.

And against what do you measure the adequacy of development and reporting other than the stated SOW?

Edd Gillespie wrote:And against what do you measure the adequacy of development and reporting other than the stated SOW?

Edd-

Maybe I missed your point or you missed mine.
The SOW in the form is fine. Here it is:

The scope of work for this appraisal is defined by the complexity of this appraisal assignment and the reporting requirements of this appraisal report form, including the following definition of market value, statement of assumptions and limiting conditions, and certifications. The appraiser must, at a minimum: (1) perform a complete visual inspection of the interior and exterior areas of the subject property, (2) inspect the neighborhood, (3) inspect each of the comparable sales from at least the street, (4) research, verify, and analyze data from reliable public and/or private sources, and (5) report his or her analysis, opinions, and conclusions in this appraisal report.

I've highlighted where the usual failures occur.
Inadequate verification and analysis of the data (as implied by the report's presentation).
Failure to adequately report the analysis, opinions and conclusions so that the rationale used in forming an opinion of market value is adequately understood (implicit in the report's presentation).

By the way, you are not suggesting that the SOW has to include a specific provision to produce credible results that can be relied upon given the intended use/user, are you?

Denis DeSaix wrote:By the way, you are not suggesting that the SOW has to include a specific provision to produce credible results that can be relied upon given the intended use/user, are you?

No but I can if it livens the discussion.

I'm putting you on Jim's team. The within-the-four-corners-of-the-report folk. Not that you knew we were choosing sides.

Come back pineapple. You need reinforcements.

Edd Gillespie wrote:

Denis DeSaix wrote:By the way, you are not suggesting that the SOW has to include a specific provision to produce credible results that can be relied upon given the intended use/user, are you?

No but I can if it livens the discussion.

I'm putting you on Jim's team. The within-the-four-corners-of-the-report folk. Not that you knew we were choosing sides.

Come back pineapple. You need reinforcements.

Usually, you put me on the four corners side when I try to keep you from going down the geo-competency slippery slope. I think Denis is well aware that his clients are looking for assurance about whether they should rely on the results of the reviewed work.

Edd Gillespie wrote:I'm putting you on Jim's team.

Not that I'd mind being on a team with Jim, but are you sure that's where you want to place me, Edd "George Steinbrenner" G?

I think Jim said he found SOWs to be inadequate.
I find that they are adequate, just not followed. In other words, the scope is fine but the work presented doesn't match it.

Denis DeSaix wrote:

Edd Gillespie wrote:I'm putting you on Jim's team.

Not that I'd mind being on a team with Jim, but are you sure that's where you want to place me, Edd "George Steinbrenner" G?

I think Jim said he found SOWs to be inadequate.
I find that they are adequate, just not followed. In other words, the scope is fine but the work presented doesn't match it.

My interest in this transcends the SOW, although I think you and Jim are arguing the same thing. I think, Jim's attack is of the adequacy of the execution of the SOW as well as the SOW itself.

I'm interested in credibilty. To that extent you are on Jim's team, I think. I think you are a within the report sort of guy.

Edd Gillespie wrote:I'm interested in credibilty. To that extent you are on Jim's team, I think. I think you are a within the report sort of guy.

Alright, Edd, I'll see how you develop this issue.
But I would add this to your mix of considerations:
The report may pass an internal credibility test; that is to say, as the data is presented, the report appears credible. That would be an "inside the report" kind of thing.
However, when one then tests what the appraisal reports vs. what is in the market, then discrepancies can occur. If those discrepancies are sufficient in number or significant in impact, then the report would not be credible, despite how it first appeared within its "four corners".

I'm not sure what you are trying to distinguish in your "within/without" division? But, as I said, I'll leave it to you to develop your argument.

Pina Colada wrote:Usually, you put me on the four corners side when I try to keep you from going down the geo-competency slippery slope. I think Denis is well aware that his clients are looking for assurance about whether they should rely on the results of the reviewed work.

Well, that was then, this is now. Anyway, consistency is for appraisal reviewers to comment on.

You and I may be able to agree about what clients think they think, and maybe now is the time to take the next stich. Since most have probably experienced a client who would give diddly for the appraisal process and to whom credilbe results means, "Is the value right?", are we remiss in not including our own appraisal, or exclusion of it, as a part of every review SOW, or just about every review SOW?

Here almost, comes geo-competency. You knew it was lurking.

Edd Gillespie wrote:Here almost, comes geo-competency. You knew it was lurking.

Edd Gillespie wrote:

Pina Colada wrote:Usually, you put me on the four corners side when I try to keep you from going down the geo-competency slippery slope. I think Denis is well aware that his clients are looking for assurance about whether they should rely on the results of the reviewed work.

Well, that was then, this is now. Anyway, consistency is for appraisal reviewers to comment on.

You and I may be able to agree about what clients think they think, and maybe now is the time to take the next stich. Since most have probably experienced a client who would give diddly for the appraisal process and to whom credilbe results means, "Is the value right?", are we remiss in not including our own appraisal, or exclusion of it, as a part of every review SOW, or just about every review SOW?

Here almost, comes geo-competency. You knew it was lurking.

My bold

Edd, this is before your days of becoming an appraiser, so I will forgive you for that aspect. Back in the days of the SREA and AIREA (now AI) the well known firm of LSI used to order two appraisals (one and then another if the first one wasn't good enough for their needs --- and it was typically one from an AIREA member or candidate and one from an SREA candidate or member) and then send both reports to each organization with a demand for just an answer:

"Which one is correct?" Is there really a "more correct" appraisal? Is there really such a thing as "which one is correct"?

Maybe to the second question, there might be. Or, maybe not. There is no, IMHO, "one correct" report, especially if you look at it from their point of view (which dealt with the opinion of value expressed). None of what we do is "carved in stone".

Keep on stirring.

Otis Key wrote:"Which one is correct?" Is there really a "more correct" appraisal? Is there really such a thing as "which one is correct"?

The one that's mine.

Maybe to the second question, there might be. Or, maybe not. There is no, IMHO, "one correct" report, especially if you look at it from their point of view (which dealt with the opinion of value expressed). None of what we do is "carved in stone".

None of what anyone does is carved in stone except God. Following your logic, no one has ever been correct about anything. If you were on the other side of a value dispute, there is one thing I would definitely agree with you about - your appraisal is not correct.

Interesting Review

Reads like a bad chat room post

This theory is so absurd that I am astounded that it has to be exposed and discredited.

Did you redact that review, PC, or did the reviewer not sign the report? Where's his SOW, A&LC, and certification?

Jim Plante wrote:Did you redact that review, PC,

No, it was "dacted" already.

Where's his SOW, A&LC, and certification?

SOW is disclosed in the report along with some choice explanations.