We can only do our job as we describe it. Dishonesty is as old as the world! How about the judge stating that he can see a lie being made. Can we tell the truth better than our competition.

Sure. Because it is SO difficult to take a picture when I am out carefully viewing a comparable property. My memory in viewing multiple properties on a day in the field is far superior to having something to job my mind.

I get the logic of your retrospective perceptions. I also do litigation work. I take current photos as well as using historic ones; and note any differences. I also take far better pictures than the typical mls photo. Photos that are much more representative of the overall property appearance and orientation of improvements to the site.

Respectfully disagree about separating fundamental functions. It only allows the dishonest appraisers another spurious excuse in their fallacious arguments about driving to see comparables.

Michael, sadly some in our profession DO lie and cheat. Sad, but true.

Abdur if you believe that driving comparable sales is not needed for credible appraisals, then my friend, you are part of the problem and not the solution.

Don’t conflate USPAP not requiring property inspection to infer generic acceptability of all alternate methods as currently practiced.

A CREDIBLE appraisal is one that is complete. It includes as thorough inspection of the property as is possible and practical; as well as of each comparable. REDUCED credibility appraisals have become acceptable since we adopted SOW instead of departure justification. That’s where we shift the blame from ourselves to the client and SOW for report shortcomings.

For the record, desktop appraisals are not credible (compared with a complete appraisal – a meaning that used to be easily understood until TAF started screwing around with definitions). They are not credible when compared with a 2055 exterior inspection based appraisal either.

They should NEVER have been allowed to be used for anything other than restricted appraisal reports. Realistically they are only marginally better than the comp check each appraiser does for their own preliminary work

Desktops coupled with some form of half-assed “bifurcated” inspection are less credible than appraisers’ own desktop. The reason is that the desktop does not pretend (by format) to be more than it is.

You clearly missed the point re $7,800 fee. The point is to charge what is required in order to take the time to properly complete an assignment.

An attorney asked if I knew anyone that would do an sfr appraisal for $500 to $600 yesterday. I said I might consider it at $600 depending on nature of litigation. Then he mentioned it was forensic back to 1991. Fee shot up to $1,000+ (I’d want 1500 but this is a good client asking for a favor). I’ll end up referring him elsewhere because THAT is something I WON’T do for $600 with a 1991 value date.

The fee point is either charge enough to do the job correctly or don’t do it at all.

Mike,

A standard borrower cannot afford to pay $7,800 for an appraisal. The work you are describing applies to an extremely tiny fraction of all appraisal work. One size does not fit all. Some appraisals require extreme detail and analysis and others are more routine.

In many cases, where an appraiser drives a neighborhood all the time, and knows every alleyway in their market, driving comps is not needed for credible assignment results. Not in the age of massive digitization of nearly all of Earth’s surface elements.

If after seeing a home and analyzing selected comps an appraiser realizes they need to head back out to the field to view some comps to check influences, that’s fine. Again, I am all for being thorough, but I am also for being reasonable.

Current technology provides numerous photos of most properties on the MLS, far more photographic documentation than the appraiser can get from a drive-by picture (often from a moving vehicle). My practice focuses almost exclusively on litigation and other non-lender work, and many assignments involve retrospective valuations. A current photograph on a comparable property that might have sold years ago provides little useful information about property at time of sale.

So while I’m not an advocate of mandatory comp photos, that DOES NOT mean that I eschew the idea of DRIVING the comparables. Physically inspecting comparable properties provides valuable information about the neighborhood, the property and the relationship of the comp to its surroundings. Even in cases where I’m using numerous comparables for statistical modeling, I still drive the neighborhood to get a sense of locational and other factors that might play into my analysis.

So that’s my two cents . . . photos should be optional, but driving the comparables (depending on how many there are) is a no-brainer. For the record, I’ve posted the same response to Michael Ford’s commentary as well.

Absolutely agree.

Abdur, HOW exactly would one know if it is required for credible assignment results without going to see the comparison in the first place?

Better yet, how would one convince CA BREA that one complied with USPAP WHEN THEY THEMSELVES DON’T FOLLOW IT? Instead, they have arbitrary interpretations of ‘factual findings’. They would ask; “Did you go see the comparables?”. Answer no. You would be in violation of SR 1 which requires that all relevant data be considered and analyzed through THEIR interpretation of compliance would not necessarily be that which is required by and under USPAP itself.

Appraisers should be very wary of ‘skipping’ over any expected or traditional methods. Many can’t even articulate a defensible exclusion explanation for cost or income approach on an SFR.

To say driving comps is not a USPAP requirement but only an FNMA requirement is disingenuous for a generally accepted, sound appraisal practice fundamental for over 40 years! USPAP requires that we consider all available information. Not merely information that is conveniently acquired.

Just because TAF wrongly dumped the Departure Provision in favor of a much more ambiguously interpreted scope of a work rule, does not mean half-assed appraisal has somehow become acceptable.

For over 40 years, no appraiser organization has endorsed giving free ‘comp checks’ verbally over the phone. None. CAN it be done? Sure. Just twist disclosures and compliance into a pretzel and call them restricted appraisals. Not exactly the same thing though.

Desk appraisals are not new, but they had (have) to have certain elements for acceptability. Not the least among these should be a GIANT disclosure (rather than hidden boilerplate) that assignment results and conclusions may have been affected by the abbreviated nature of the assignment (stated as EAs &/or hypotheticals).

Even though Evals have not been adopted by more than 11 states (as being ok for an appraiser to do), it is clear that appraisers have been doing them for years. Otherwise, how would they ‘know’ so many clients are demanding them? The interesting thing about Evals is that FIRREA specifically prohibits them being called any kind of appraisal. Some states in their adoption of ne legislation allowing them to REQUIRE that they are labeled “Evaluation Appraisal” which is a direct violation of FIRREA. I would not do an eval on a single piece of real estate or multiples in tenant in common ownership. I MAY do them under an entity interest valuation (which is really more of business valuation or a stock analysis). Another line that is improperly being blurred in my opinion.

Perfection is not required under USPAP (nor is it considered attainable). But items 1, 3 & 4 are supposed to be getting done already. The fact that appraisers have figured out workarounds; assumptions and side-stepping verbiage that FNMA ‘usually accepts’ does not make those work arounds ok. They certainly are not indicative of sound appraisal practice.

HBU requires legality of use. Failing to verify permits (legality of use) means we have not properly performed our HBU obligation.

Lastly, I have charged a client $7,800 for a C&I job I could have done locally for $1500 to $2500. It involved three in-the-field days; driving 12 California Counties, interviewing numerous local agents, interviewing hotel/motel and restaurant owners and managers and driving 1,389 miles and a huge amount of online research.

You have to charge what it takes to do the jobs properly, or not accept them. Seeking after the fact justifications for not doing what we are hired to do is not sound appraisal practice. It undermines our profession.

Concur with all except pone giant issue “FNMA nor longer has a per line, net or gross adjustment guideline, all of my clients still use this”

That is an unacceptable assignment condition where the client is telling you NOT to use market data. They are in violation of Dodd-Frank, Appraiser independence guidelines and most generally accepted sound appraisal practices. ANY client directing that needs to have their executive officers contacted and urged to comply with the law.

If risk of being dropped is too high for you, redact all appraiser identifiers from such an order (and file number) and send to me. I’ll contact their compliance department.

Casey, I get the distance issue. That is NOT the same (or valid) argument for using mls pictures instead of originals. It’s certainly an honestly stated objection to comparables inspection, though.

Respectfully, if it takes all day in Alabama then charge more. (It takes me from 1 to 4 hours in Los Angeles and Inland Empire Counties). This is why I also contend that for most of us it is simply not physically possible to do two or more full appraisals, start to finish in one working day of 8 hours with only the appraiser doing all the work.

We are ALL subject to USPAP; Dodd-Frank, State Laws and generally accepted practice in addition to being obligated to follow clients Special Requirements. It is NOT UP to individual appraisers to decide whether approaches and assignment requirements can be ignored simply because they are inconvenient or deemed to be ‘obsolete’ (by a limited segment of appraisers).

I respectfully repeat, if assignment conditions are time-consuming THEN CHARGE accordingly.

Brandishing a firearm and certainly aiming one at someone that is on a public right of way is illegal in every single state I am aware of. I’ve had people follow me by car until I pulled over an explained what was happening. More were appreciative of the explanation than not.

The only one that ever demanded my camera and film was a security guard for a gated City (Rolling Hills CA). In his case, I simply told him to go F himself. We have all had instances where people ‘confronted’ (softly or harshly) us. We have a couple choices. Learn to deal with it effectively or as you mentioned, get out of the business.

Has anyone ever posted the address of someone that challenged them with a gun or threats of harm?Turned them in to the police? Have you written an editorial to the local paper pointing out WHY we do what we do and reminding hyper-sensitive owners that the public right of way is just that?

Hell, I’ve had the police actually draw down on me telling me to exit the vehicle and walk backward toward them. Turns out home invasion took place in the street I was taking pictures on the night before. Once they verified ID they were apologetic for inconvenience and any alarm they may have caused me, and gave me a card and said here is a number to call IF I felt I had been mistreated or abused in any way. Given the background, they were just doing their jobs.

We DO work in a profession that has risk of unpleasant confrontations. We either accept it or get out of it. Same as a cop, divorce attorney, bill collector, tax assessor, (even IRS, though as an appraiser that was always fun in the field) door to door sales people, etc..

Name calling? “You mean ‘waste’ up to four hours properly performing your appraisal?”

Not exactly an accurate or factual statement DW.

DW there is no personal offense or slight intended. I tend to write long missives. I was being overly brief and with 20/20 hindsight perhaps its is an insensitive post as queried.

My point is simply this. Properly performing an appraisal involves a complex set of procedures that starts before an order is even accepted. Verifying ownership interests and property complexity BEFORE an order is undertaken used to be so commonplace most assumed it was mandatory. No we ‘auto-accept’ (some).

Reconciliation of data used to take place in each approach ad then again in the overall conclusion as to approach. Now many automatically (improperly) exclude both income and cost approaches and as a result think no reconciliation is needed anywhere.

There are a lot of steps in between that also become truncated, ignored, assumed or incompletely performed.

One of the most common is a failure to bother driving by comps for many. It was so abusive FNMA said “Enough!” Prove you saw the comparable sales.

The end result is that many (like myself) are automatically ‘suspicious’ as a result of having specific instances where we proved (including by admissions) no comparable sales inspections took place when some mls pics were used instead of originals. Not all instances, but some.

Every single ‘step’ we cut out or do in a half-hearted manner is one more argument for replacing appraisers with automation. I can’t speak for bill, but THAT gets me pretty ‘energized’ to oppose it. Sorry you feel its a statement that ‘you personally’ are lazy. It is intended to convey illustrative generic laziness – not yours specifically.

Try the other side of the coin. If an appraiser is inspecting a comparable anyway. Even if only at the driveway gate, how much effort does it take to shoot the gate and explain the improvement is not visible from theroadway? Or to describe why it is not visible?

DW – Your opinion is as equally valid as any other. Getting your feathers ruffled once in awhile is no reason not to post it. I am offended by appraisers that post willingness to adopt what are to me unacceptable appraisal practices, but that won’t keep me from posting. Nor does periodically rudely being told I’m out in left field. (not you – again generic).

I do sleep easy. I have reviewed many appraisals and understand there are some bad apples out there, who give appraisers a bad name. That said, this whole conversation began with me merely stating that taking comp photos is a waste of time, and I stand by that statement. It would appear this opinion is 50/50 from the reactions to this article as well as comments on appraisal blogs. I would just appreciate those on the opposing side not throw derogatory comments to those who disagree.

Sleeping Easy in Ohio

I’ve had a home owner run out of the house and chase me on foot for 1/8 of a mile cursing and spewing threats the entire way.

I’ve had a guy stand up on his porch and aims his gun at me.

All the more reason to get the L out of the business. At $400 to $500 fees (pre 1004MC, pre 6 comps, pre UAD) it was barely worth it. At $225 to $275 I will gladly allow you guys to play JFK and take a hit for me. Quite frankly, I wouldn’t touch a residential appraisal today with the added BS addenda and liability for $1,000 a pop.

As I said in a previous comment Denise “I have no beef Denise, but rather am sharing a different opinion”, I get where your coming from.

Perhaps this doesn’t apply to you Denise and if so sleep easy, but many appraisers like to use the exceptions and apply them as the standard when it comes to pictures. By way of doing reviews on a local level, and seeing 1st hand the percentage of appraisers that don’t visually confirm they drove the comps (via an original picture), its often a small step to show they didn’t confirm other things as well.

Sleep easy Denise, buts its true that many appraisers get lazy and don’t treat each assignment like they will be going in front of the review board upon completion.

Seek the truth.

So this comment, as the previous one by Bill, is why I usually lurk rather than comment. This is uncalled for. I have an opinion, you have an opinion. But name calling doesn’t help your argument. “Waste” performing my appraisal? Really? It is clear you are saying I’m a lazy person who doesn’t want to complete a credible report. Yes, I’m offended by this comment. Happy Sunday

Even though you have valid points Abdur that might apply 1 in a 100, or 1 in 10 times (by appraisal volume), its the lazy 99 in a 100, or the lazy 90 in a 100 appraiser that wants to apply these exceptions all the time that concern me.

With society the way it is today and with children limited in their ability to play in their own front yards, in doing review assignments, I find it amazing how appraisers seem to find all of the homes where children are allowed to play and are playing the exact time they are driving by.

Seek the truth.

The taking of the picture Mr Trades is to offer your immediate client support for what you did, and perhaps more importantly provide documentation for others that view your work down the line (Federal Gov. / via UAD portal / state review boards, etc.). As an example, I used a comp the other day where I was on the fence concerning its location designation (satellite view / etc.), however upon driving the property the newly paved old street now had double yellow lines, and speed bumps (obviously adverse). The picture I took of the property in part focused on featuring the adverse features (showed double lines / speed bumps) so that all parties involved had a visual understanding of why I did what I did (location rating).

Interesting enough Mr. Trades, neither the listing agent nor the 9 other times the property was used as a comp (via A la mode) by a panel of my peers, was the property identified as warranting an adverse location designation, nor did any of the appraisers photos show the adverse characteristics.

This is a great example of why we drive the comps, and why we use our photos instead of using what the agent wants to show, or perhaps what even other appraisers don’t want to explain.

Seek the truth.