Appraisal Service Anywhere In The United States
The Field Appraisal
Review is the Trump Card
By Charlie Elliott, MAI, SRA, ASA
This is the third pf three columns that I am
writing to bring attention to and extol the virtues of the three most commonly
used appraisal review reports as quality control tools. These tools are (1) the
Electronic Appraisal Review, (2) the Desk Review and (3) the Field Review. They
are listed in the order of the least comprehensive to the most comprehensive,
and the column is designed to assist the reader in making the proper decision as
to which review tool is best for a given situation.
Of all of the appraisal review products available to the lender, the Field
Review is the trump card. It is the method of reviewing an appraisal that will
typically yield the most accurate and credible analysis of the appraisal under
review. It consumes more resources than either of its less-comprehensive
cousins, because it takes more time, requires more research, requires travel,
includes a property inspection of the subject property at a minimum and, in many
cases, requires an inspection of the comparable sales used in the analysis.
Therefore, it costs more. The appraiser, through this additional effort, has
much more information from which to base his or her opinion and to render the
most creditable results.
The Field Review, unlike some of the other reports, will typically provide a
review appraiser's opinion, which agrees with that of the original appraiser or
offers a dissenting opinion, complete with additional comparable sales and a
different final opinion of value. While the Field Review will typically be
reported on a standard review form, it is much more like preparing a completely
new appraisal. The reviewer not only has seen the subject property, usually from
the curb, but he or she most likely has inspected the comparable sales used in
the appraisal, as well as other competing comparable sales. He is more likely to
have in-depth knowledge of the subject neighborhood, as well as a feel for the
overall market in which the subject is located.
The Field Review like the Desk Review is covered in Uniform Standards of
Professional Practice (USPAP) and the reviewer is required to meet certain
standards. Under USPAP, when the reviewer provides a reviewer value opinion he
or she must state and/or identify the client, the users, the purpose of the
review, the work under review, the date of the work under review, the effective
date of the opinions and conclusions, the name of the appraiser performing the
appraisal, the effective date of the appraisal review, all extraordinary
assumptions and hypothetical conditions and how these assumptions and conditions
affect the results, scope of the work, reviewer opinions and conclusions. The
appraiser must also include a signed certification, state the reviewer's opinion
of value, state information, analysis and opinions accepted as creditable, and
summarize any additional information relied upon in the reviewers value opinion.
Even though it is the granddaddy of the Appraisal Reviews, the Field Review does
have its shortcomings. First it costs a lot more than the other review products
available to the lender. While Electronic Reviews may cost less than $50 each
and Desk Reviews are normally priced between $100 and $200, a recent survey
indicated that the Field Review costs about the same as an appraisal and, if
things get complicated, it can cost more. The estimated cost of a Field Review,
for most properties in most localities, ranges from $300 to $400. The Field
Review also takes more time than most competing appraisal review tools. While
Electronic Reviews are available at warp speed or usually in less than 30
minutes and Desk Reviews can be performed usually within one day, Field Reviews,
like appraisals, can take four or five days to complete, sometimes more. One
last drawback with Field Reviews is that not all appraisers are competent to
perform them and many do not like to do them. Therefore finding an appraiser
interested in performing them can sometimes be challenging.
The decision to select the Field Review should be one of what is the best tool
for the job. Most lenders do not order Field Reviews unless there is reason to
suspect that there is a serious problem with an appraisal. This is usually the
case, due to the additional cost associated with it, not to mention the
additional time. Time is especially an issue with new originations, where
closing dates are set and there is often little additional time to spend on
evaluations, requiring up top a week to complete. In order to conserve
resources, I recommend a triage-type method of determining the review tool to
use. This method begins with an Electronic Review of the appraisal. Upon getting
the results and having them evaluated by a quality control officer, the lender
decides whether to accept the appraisal or to order a more comprehensive
appraisal. If a more comprehensive evaluation is needed, usually a Desk Review
is ordered. If the Desk Review indicates that an inspection of the property is
necessary or that some other issue requires a closer look, a Field Review is
ordered. In other cases, where there is reason to question the appraisal from
the onset, a Field Review may be ordered upfront to save time and money and to
get a comprehensive review.
In summary, the Field Review is the most comprehensive and thorough appraisal
review tool available to the lender in evaluating an appraisal. It is also the
most expensive and time consuming. Due to the resources consumed by the Field
Review, sometimes lesser products can do the job quicker and cheaper, while
providing adequate quality control. The decision as to what level of review to
order should not be taken lightly. It should be made based upon the evidence at
hand, some of which may have been gleaned from other appraisal review tools.
Lenders not having qualified quality control officers on staff may consider
hiring someone in this capacity to make decisions as to which review tool best
serves a particular need. Outsourcing of quality control and appraisal review
supervision may be an option for some institutions. Whatever tool is chosen, if
there is a question about which tool should be used the Field Review is the best
review tool in the toolbox given the resources to acquire it.
Charlie W. Elliott, Jr.,
MAI, SRA, ASA, is president of Elliott & Company Appraisers, a national real
estate appraisal company. He can be reached at (800) 854-5889,
charlie@elliottco.com or through the company’s Web site at
www.appraisalsanywhere.com. |