We only control our own actions. We can prepare our reports to able to defend ourselves, and price them adequality

Ditto!!!

An appraisers written report includes the criteria, standards and rules to which we hold ourselves accountable. Our experience is cited within the report as an illustration to the reader of competence or lack thereof.

Various organizations sponsor information, legislation and propose standards. We may or may not agree with some or adopt it all. There are several agreeing, or complimenting, and or promoting our chosen work-profession- or what ever.

An appraiser is anything we chose so long as we are accepted in this litigious society!

If one does not have an appraiser’s license they are not held to any standards, but we know what we are supposed to do based on USPAP; the problem is we review and we call it a review appraisal and we must adhere to the Standards for reviews; if we conclude at a value we have to adhere to Standards 1 and 2, so often a review is very time consuming, and the non-licensed person doing their “review” is not held to any standards, and they don’t have to have experience appraising to judge someone’s work. This is the problem with the AMC model which has failed to add any value to the process!

I agree. I have no idea how anyone can do a USPAP compliant review in the amount of time they say it takes. That’s why I asked if it was a review or a QC check which is basically, “Did the appraiser put the right address, blah blah blah” which a computer can do.

An appraisal review…how can anyone do these if they are 1) not an appraiser or 2) don’t read the addendum. I get exhausted writing, “It’s in the report…”

Does mercury still use Sure Receipts? XML open source requirements leave the appraiser guessing. Once altered the automatic conversion tools have their copy of the final pdf looking as if nothing changed. Just for kicks you can open up an xml report in notepad or a browser and read it code style. Changing or omitting report data with xml is as easy as knowing where to locate the specific line entry. Through the review omission process people are trained how to do that.

The most difficult fact of the matter pertaining to possible litigation is you’ll only be asked for true copy at the end of the line if something has already blown back. That is why I like redundant reporting, restating facts within form and on addenda. When statements are repeated and integrated into sentences differently, it gets a lot more complicated to try and change anything.

As many of my reports have 8,000 to 10,000 words in them, the idea that analyze and explain can be done within the standard form is a fantasy.

Of course if your competing 4 to 9 appraisals a day, I’m sure very little changes from report to report and thus canned comments will fit.

Seek the truth.

Lomas & Nettelton, a large mortgage house of the 1970’s, used two appraisals on every tenth loan. This met the FNMA 10% review requirement. Things were simpler then! They also met their poor housing criteria when they REFINANCED their own foreclosed resales within the troubled neighborhoods. I ran into these occasionally in my territory. They had the affect of supporting prices

It’s that there is a requirement for a certain proportion of all appraisal activity through amc’s to be subject to an administrative review by the amc company, or was that an ethically compliant review, one of the two. And because it’s a sort of quality control requirement that happens after the fact, the originating appraiser may not be copied into various conclusions. Lose your approvals based on a review you never even knew was happening and have no ability to object or answer to.

The point of the story is don’t move to fast, once it’s signed and sent you can’t take it back and may not get the benefit of reactive review services. I like the front page index solution, then there is an additional page which details every report inclusion.

Depending on what software you use, there may be more or less ability to adjust font size, text volume.

Warning; The field is marked no, but there appears to be information entered. The logic behind the ‘review software tools’ needs revisited. When you get more warnings and a lower internal reviewer rating because you’re more thorough and fill everything. Newb reviewers are misled into thinking the appraisers whom speed fill the report with checkbox and quick list only data are actually providing lower risk reports, because they get fewer alert warnings. Underwriters and reviewers deal with long lists of checkbox review based on those alert warnings and have to answer all indicated alerts. A consequence of tech people whom are not qualified to complete appraisals, developing appraisal review software. Also reasons why form redevelopment is going to be an even greater disaster.

When you sign the report, it becomes a legal document which binds the appraiser to scope of work compliance. Simply stated, when you deal with amc’s you deal with a lot more oversight as well as the need for expanded sow compliance. Direct may have audits too but they’ll be more inclined to focus on risk rating scores for bundled saleability, while amc’s seem to focus more on volume of internal review warnings. The things you end up learning the hard way because turnover of front line desk people is often high and they can not tell the appraiser what comes next.

Kim, a believable solution for critical situations is to use SEE TRANSMITTAL LETTER instead of the value statement on the 1004 form. The Addenda can be thrown out by the lender BUT the lender, or the AVM can easily hide the most important line of the 1004 form. Liberal use of the phrase (see addenda) may be UN popular, however it can be protective

Like I’m sitting in front of the state board on every one ;{-)

If the reviewer is too lazy to print the report that is not the appraiser’s fault.

Just what I needed…
another Cloud Based – Appraiser Surveillance and Data Theft tool….

NEXT