Non-permitted Additions

Other the last few weeks I have noted a common theme in my conversations with appraisers across the nation. This topic seems relatively simply and yet since I have encountered endless questions I thought this post may add something to overall community.

The question boils down to “What is the big #$%^&*@! deal with non-permitted additions?”, for residential lending purposes. Of course this stems from the fact that many residential lenders are pushing back appraisals that have given value consideration to an addition which was non-permitted at the time of construction. This is not a new idea to me, but apparently it is very new to some of my colleagues.

Generally what I am finding is that if the origination appraisal report failed: to properly recognize the addition, discuss the functional utility (or inutility as the case may be), discuss the insurability; discuss the construction methods; and address the marketability, then the lender will push back and ask for the addition not to be included in the appraisal.

While that last thought ruminates for a moment, let’s break it down. There are three basic concerns that a  lender has with regard to additions. 1) Health and Safety; 2) Insurability; and 3) Market acceptance.

When a property is first built most of the time the home was built in accordance with local regulations, building permits were obtained proper inspections were made to ensure the home has met the national building codes that are designed to ensure the longevity of the structure and promote the health and safety of the future occupants; however, when the property has an non-permitted addition the lender has no way of knowing if the proper building codes were followed and the wiring, plumbing, and structural components are then in question. If the occupants of this home were injured due to a structural or mechanical flaw of this home (relating to the non-permitted addition) anyone within the chain of title, after the addition, could be considered complicit because legally the lenders are required to conduct due diligence, which includes  the collateral, prior to funding a loan.

Throughout out the course of time this premise has been tested time and time again in the court systems and when the additional non-permitted work was found to have been completed in a “workmanlike manner” the courts have generally found in the favor of the lenders because the absence of a permit does not change the degree of workmanship. Adherence to building codes is generally implied by a workmanlike manner.

All property that has a mortgage must be insurable to safeguard the financial interests of the lender and the borrower as well. Although this is not the law, it is industry standard that has been expected by Fannie Mae and other secondary mortgage investors. An non-permitted addition that was not completed in a workmanlike manner may not be insurable. Thus the lender  will require that hazard insurance will accept either the original property and the addition, or at least will accept the original property and not add any exemptions due to the presence of an non-permitted addition.

Of course even if the health and safety of the occupants are ensured by proper building methods and the home is insurable, the lender will not be happy unless the home also is readily accepted within this marketplace and could be considered a competing alternative to the surrounding homes. This is because it has become widely known that conformity is an important factor of value and acceptance therefore most lenders would prefer to lend on collateral that conforms to its surrounding neighborhood.

It this is last reason that allows the flexibility in most lender guidelines. The non-permitted addition can be considered as long as 1) the additional has been built in a workmanlike manner, 2) the addition is common for the area, 3) the appraisal report provides market data (i.e. closed sales) to show the market acceptance of similar improvements.

The bottom-line is that when the appraiser has determined that a property has had an addition. The report should address: the quality and functional utility, the conformity and acceptance within the neighborhood (illustrated by market sales when available) and the insurability of the improvements.

As far as insurability is concerned, it is my opinion that the report should contain an extra ordinary assumption that the non-permitted addition will not impede the acceptability or insurability of this property.

See you are around the water cooler!

Uncle Zev

 

It may be trite, but truth tends to get repeated…

The acting of appraising, is one that is complex but simple, commonplace and quite rare. We as appraisers should take a moment to remember that our profession was borne out of a time mistrust and calamity. Actually it has been said, that the appraisal profession is the second oldest profession in the world… that is to say, somebody had to put a price on it… but I digress.

So often we can get sucked into the practice of trying to balance the guidelines, the time restrictions, the unreasonable client demands and (a little thing I like to call) life, that we can forget that ours is a noble profession. We are the ones that people turn to when they are seeking accuracy and reliability. They want to know that value they are placing on an item is one that others would also agree with or tend to accept.

The reasons for this need vary greatly, but the basic foundational premise is that we all need someone who we can trust to make sure our thoughts on a matter are reasonable or accurate.

Of course, you can put this in the context of real estate and mortgage lending, and greed and profit, and people pushing the limits just to close a deal and once you do place your mindset into their realm, then you run the danger of being sucked into the vortex of endless attempts to satisfy unreasonable demands using antiquated methods and approaches that were designed years ago by men who understood the need to place objectivity into the world of money. They wanted to make sure that the process of lending money was backed by solid reasoning unimpeded by greed or corruption. At least that is the “truth” I choose to believe. It helps me sleep at night to believe there are still a few good men and women out there who are not only interested in lining their pockets at whatever cost necessary.

To all who continue to treat appraisal as a profession, I tip my hat.

See you around the water cooler!

UncleZev

Sense is like courtesy it is no longer common!

I dealt with an old question recently that I felt was pertinent and worthy of repeating.

The question arose in  Brooklyn, NY when an underwriter demanded that the appraiser include the basement area as part of the gross building area when comparing the subject to the comparable sales.

After all they reasoned, Fannie Mae guidelines, i.e. Property and Appraisal Guidelines,  XI 405.07 state, “Gross building area, which is the total finished area (including any interior common areas, such as stairways and hallways) of the improvements based on exterior measurements, is the most common comparison for two- to four-family properties.  The gross building area must be consistently developed for the subject property and all comparables that the appraiser uses.  It should include all finished above- and below-grade living areas, counting all interior common areas (such as stairways, hallways, storage rooms, etc.), but not counting exterior common areas (such as open stairways).

We will accept the use of other comparisons for two- to four-family properties (such as the total above-grade and below-grade areas as discussed above in Section 405.06), as long as the appraiser explains the reasons he or she did not use a gross building area comparison and clearly describes the comparisons that were made.”; however, within this definition of gross building area was the appraiser’s response. Although the “appraisal gods’ have clearly mandated that gross building area must include the area below grade, this only applies when this space is also generally included by the market area.”

The basic problem, as I see it, is that there are way too many people trying to decide how to apply the guidelines that really are very straight forward. Fannie Mae set forth guidelines because there are no hard and fast rules that would uniformly apply across all states in the Union. The guidelines attempt to address what is considered to be the norm for the country; however, attempting to find a norm for 50 states is the height of hubris in a of itself. Still it is better to have guidelines in place rather than have none at all, but not at the expense of replacing common sense. In fact if you were to actually have the benefit of interviewing a Fannie Mae review appraiser you would find that they are very down to earth and understand that their guidelines are not hard and fast. They provide a framework of acceptability but with the proper analysis and explanation Fannie is very open to appraisals that must report outside of their guidelines. On the other hand, many underwriters (especially the relatively new batch which have recently hatched out of the most recent debacle of the ongoing mortgage lending saga) simply do not understand that appraisers are given the flexibility to present an appraisal that is reflective of the subject property and its market area which may, or equally may not, conform to Fannie Mae guidelines.

My point is simple, and  fairly consistent (I believe), common sense needs to take the place of algorithms and automated valuation models. In the case of Gross Building Area versus Gross Living Area; it is imperative that lenders allow their local market experts report the market reaction to the properties that are being submitted as collateral; and not attempting to dictate a set of general guidelines that were designed to enable an appraiser to report their findings in a consistent manner.

The root of this problem, of course, is one of responsibility and enforcement. Our long honored legislators decided long ago that the lender had the ultimate responsibility to select, review and audit the real estate appraiser that was submitting the assignments to the bank. The problem is that this has never been a good idea. Then we wrap this notion in the most current legislation that dictates that the lender is able to use appraisal management companies to direct appraisers, but appraisers no longer have the ability to reach out to their actual client (the lender). This simply places the appraiser in the worst possible position. Now they must try to develop a business without any personal contact with the client and must attempt and defend their reports without any chance of actually communicating their findings except in writing.

The report is now cloaked in the use of UAD which is a format and series of codes designed to dehumanize the process of analysis and decision-making all for the purposes of making money. Personally I am all for making money, but not a the cost of disabling appraisers from promoting and growing business relationships.

There really needs to be a modification of thinking that Lenders are responsible for the appraisers conduct or performance. The thinking that a management company can solve this is naïve, because a management company has no authority or power. They themselves try to wield a “sword of authority” by controlling work flow; however, this is a quasi-legal practice and very soon you will find appraisers begin to figure out that their rights are actually be diminished by economic sanction. This type of pressure was supposed to be eliminated by the Frank Dodd Act but instead it has simply been exacerbated.

It is time that appraisal organizations actual engage in re-engineering the foundational concepts of direction and control when it deals with mortgage lending. Appraisers never should have been controlled by lenders; in fact lenders should have to deal with an appraisal report once. If the report has passed the clearing house (so to speak) then the report should be accepted once and for all and move on. Of course this is naïve because loan officers will never go quietly without a fight this how they generate their 6-figure income, while appraiser deal with ever diminished fees and are asked to provide evidentiary support for each word provided within an opinion of value (aka an appraisal).

See you around the water cooler!

UncleZev

If you want to stop crime, make it against the law!

It is this type of thinking that has made it increasing difficult for honest appraisers, while providing a buffer for the true criminal that seeks to manipulate the system. Is it really as simple as the best appraiser is the one who is always on time, always fills out the form according to UAD, and never strays from a Fannie Mae guideline? The report reads clean, passes review and never makes the slightest ripple when place in the loan pool, so how could it be wrong?

The ugly truth is that often the “prettiest” report is the one that is the best fiction. If our goal is to receive professional opinions of value, then we need to be selective of individual appraisers that are honest, industrious and able present well-reasoned arguments that are based upon verifiable information.

Of course, the real question is how do you determine that a man or woman is honest. Can we simply ask them, “Are you an honest appraiser?” The chances are they ones that answer something like, yes I am 100% honest and have never ever lied or stretched a value are the crooks of the bunch. The ones that answer something like, well I try to be as honest as possible. Sometimes over the years there may have been assignments in which I lost my objectivity and favored the cause of the client; but, I believe that was mostly from inexperience and a subconscious need to be liked. Yes, I believe I can say that I am honest. I have not purposefully ever taken an assignment, or completed one that required me to lie. This is the appraiser that I would personally do business with.

Can we stop crime by making it against the law? Well the absurdity of the question bears examination, but the short answer is best explained by two very short statements my father told me of the years. #1 – Locks just keep your friends out. and #2 – A contract is only as reliable as the parties involved in the agreement.

The gatekeepers of this industry have become machines and analytic tools, this is what has allowed the unscrupulous to thrive. It is not any more simple than that. When an experienced review appraiser, or underwriter actually reads a file and calls an appraiser on the file, this is best approach to safeguarding the process and making sure the person who is writing the report is not an advocate to the client, or a nitwit who could unwittingly mislead the process.

Points to ponder as we continue in “the good fight’…

 

See you around the water cooler!

UncleZev

For Clarity Sake

Once again I find myself harping on the original intent of USPAP. The purpose of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) is to promote and maintain a high level of public trust in appraisal practice by establishing requirements for appraisers. It is essential that appraisers develop and communicate their analyses, opinions and conclusions to intended users of their services in a manner that is meaningful and misleading. (quoted from the Preamble of USPAP).

Why is it then that GSE’s can then dictate forms, like the MC Addendum (or affectionately known as the Market “Confusion” Addendum). Of course the “market conditions addendum” I have railed on before, the inherent difficulty of trying to suggest a trend from a very small sampling of data is that erroneous assumptions and statements are made in an attempt to try and gain an understanding from information that has now been mandated by the guardians of the industry.

It is like being asked to evaluate the ocean by analyzing a teaspoon of water under a microscope. While this may be a fascinating exercise in microbiology it could easily produce erroneous results for an oceanographer.

The ever popular UAD (Universally Audacious Development of irrelevant facts) which was published by well meaning, well educated individuals who were clearly not appraisers.

The idea of creating a system of rating condition, for example, is a good idea. The problem is that since the majority of appraisers can not handle the concept of a property that typical for its market area is rated as “average” condition, is not really going to handle the idea that a home that was built in 1950, with no updates in the last 15 years, but in market accepted condition is now rated a c4 rather than a c5.

Think of it is this way, when you want to communicate to a child you do not devise charts and graphs and hand them an appendix so that they can figure out what you are trying to say. No, instead you use commonly understood words, phrases, and concepts. You “paint the picture” and “walk them through the logic” so that at the end of your attempt at communication the point has been made and the information received and understood.

An appraiser rarely has the opportunity to be reviewed by another appraiser, but must constantly train, explain, and provide further clarification to an industry that is now filled with new players, with new rules, and new ways of communicating the information. This was all done for the sake or creating a clear and simple process?

The function and role of the appraiser has now become even more important, because now even more they need individuals who understand the process and communication of results, but also can translate the definitions and though processes that have been imposed upon the residential mortgage appraisal industry as a whole.

See you around the water cooler!

UncleZev

Signed or Unsigned that is the Question

There is an interesting discussion taking place on some of the forums over the last 9 days with regard to USPAP 2012-2013. Whether or not the additional certifications require a signature. Before weighing in on an esoteric discussion, I would like to remind everyone that the first and foremost intent of USPAP is clarity. To provide an opinion in a manner that is clear, easy to understand, and professionally derived. Therefore, as long as you pay attention to the particulars of USPAP and provide your reports in a manner that is clear, easy to understand, and professionally derived you should be able to withstand the scrutiny of a peer review and or the state board.

Often times it seems as though or reaction to situations are driven by an inane desire to avoid litigation which is easily understood given the very nature of this litigious society; nonetheless, I maintain that our basic responsibility as objective professionals is to provide an opinion of value that is shaped by the foundational concepts of real estate appraisal. Over time the provision of this opinion has evolved from index cards with a Polaroid on the back to computerize forms with maps that are automatically generated with digital photos, and aerial views. Still the appraisal report of today is less clear, in many ways, that the reports of old. Why is that?

Back in the early 1980’s my father announced to me that the appraisal industry was “going to hell” because the industry was filling up with women and children. Of course that was tongue-in-cheek, because my mom and I both worked as a appraisers in his office at that time. The longer I stay in this business I understand the sentiment, of my playful father. I do believe the the ruination of the appraisal industry was allowing clients, specifically lenders, to control the content and form that an appraisal report must take. What I mean to say is that allow, USPAP has grown to provide a basic definition and structure, the revelations of USPAP were not new or earth shaking in any manner. Any old school appraiser who was “worth their salt” already provided appraisal reports that exceeded the expectations and requirements of USPAP. The foundational idea of provide a report that is clear, concise, and supported by sound reasoning was hardly a new way to think of the appraisal report.

So what was the catalyst  began the fiasco that now know and “love” to be form appraising? I personally believe it was a phenomenon that occurred during the decades that followed WWII. No one reading this blog will likely remember those days except for the stories our families told us, or what we have read. But at that point in our history America was at its strongest financially. We had a very large majority of our population returning home and rebuilding their lives. Demand and expectations of profits began to rise and escalate with each passing generation. Very soon the generations that did not work to create anything, began to wonder why can’t we make more than “the old man”. Respect for the elderly diminished, the “youngsters” of the sixties, seventies, and eighties raised their children through proxy because most of them were working and creating “bigger and better ways” to become wealthy. This hunger for more, eventually created the circumstances that lead to our biggest real estates booms and busts. The mortgage industry was born out of these times; however, due to the demands by consumers there was very little training or education required for this newly formed “experts” and rules and regulations were developed as the need arose.

We have not changed very much, we still react to issues that we have created. While it is of course most important to take evasive actions during a crisis, there really needs to be more and more understanding by those who dictate our futures with the piles and piles of “stuff” that is created in response to epic portions of greed, corruption, abuse and mistakes.

Due to the melt down of our financial sectors, many of us are looking around, doing a lot of soul searching and trying to figure out “what the hell happened?”.

My suggestion? I say it is time for each and every professional who is objective, to stay focused on providing the services we have spent our lives learning to provide. Breathe and remember that many of those in power today, believe that the 1980’s was a life time ago. There is absolutely nothing wrong with youth, and age alone does not create wisdom. But we all should develop a sense of respect and appreciation for each and every individual with whom we interact. The process of real estate appraisal is not complicated. The reporting of an appraisal should also be “easy”, but in the process of communicating we often find ourselves in the role of consultant or teacher. Because the majority of our clients are checking boxes and filling out forms and if everything fits in the box you must be a good appraiser. If everything does not, you must be bad.

We really need to “preach” the basics and provide reports that take the time to explain why we have taken the approach, why we have used the comparables we choose, or why we excluded a particular data set. I know I can already hear, I do not have time to teach. I do not make enough money to educate my clients. But my response to this I also “steal” from my father (who I am sure borrowed it from someone else). “Education always costs… but ignorance costs more.”

Back to the original question, Do additional certifications within a residential appraisal require a signature? There is case to be made on both sides of the debate, to reconcile this and move on to the next assignment. Simply make room for the certifications on page 3 of the form (above the cost approach). All the information on this six page form is covered by the signature.

See you around the water cooler.

UncleZev

Customary and Reasonable?

What if the custom has become beyond a point of reason. The change that appraisers have been asked to make is their new operating budget because their fees for one assignment is about the same amount you collect in one machine at a laundromat in the middle of the week.

Customary and Reasonable? For whom?? The consumer, unfortunately has certainly grow accustomed to paying higher appraisal fees, the management companies are certainly having no issue in taking half of the fee. Lenders certainly have not issue in charging the borrowers for the increased appraisal fees.

Yet appraisers continue to work for low fees, why? How is this reasonable? At what point was this considered customary?

I will admit that appraisers have done this to themselves. The refused to starve, refused to leave the business and refused to keep the fees in a level that would have been reasonable for their time and expertise. One you get one appraiser to lower their fees it does not take much time at all for the overall populace of appraisers to lower their fees to try to compete.

Today, the custom is no longer reasonable. The idea that appraisers bid for jobs in a matter of minutes, and the one with their finger on the chat feature of their smart phone gets the privilege of working at fees that are figuring at just above $15 per hour.

Each and every residential appraiser needs to really look into establishing a base of rental homes, where they have a passive income outside of appraisal. Then raise your fees. I remember when professionals billed their time based upon the complexity of the activity that they were asked to perform. For complex tasks the fee was higher, less time-consuming tasks rated a lower fee.

This will never change, until appraisers wise up and make the change. Create a passive income stream, hire a manager to keep that passive income active and profitable. Then appraise, because for the proud few it is in the blood, we will not ever retire, we will remeasure, rewrite and will never relent. Is anybody buying this????? Yeah, me either.

I guess I have dealt with customary and reasonable for so very long, that it felt good to be uncustomary and unreasonable even if for a few short seconds within the safety of my blog…

See you around the water cooler!

UncleZev

I got two appraisals, “Why don’t they agree?”

This question has come up so many times in the recent few months, and of course it is not a new question, but I have decided to blog about it because in truth the question has merits. In a perfect world, where people all live in homogeneous neighborhoods with no adverse influences, no functional obsolescence, two cars in every garage and 2.5 kids, ok that might be pushing it, there may be instances where you can find two appraisers that if the saw the property at the same time on the same day they might agree on the value of a home.  – ok if you are wondering how you determine 2.5 kids, I once asked my dad this question. He explained that when you are working on the farm, one boy is a boy, two boys is half a boy, and three boys is no boy at all. So using this math I figure 2.5 kids must mean 2 girls, and 2 boys – but I digress.

Remember a real estate appraisal is an opinion of value. The opinion, by law, must be reasonable and based upon techniques and principles that are well accepted and known within the industry. But at the end of the day, it is simply an opinion. When data is abundant and there are several recent closed sales of homes that are identical, then the opinion of value should be shaped by the proximate, recent sale. As the degree of uncertainty increases as to how the recent sales actual compare to the subject this is where a matter of opinion can come into play.

Still, back in the day, relocation companies use to order three appraisals. They expected the three appraisers to come within 7-percent of each other and the closest two shaped the purchase price. Then when the relocation company sold the property they expected the appraisals to be within 2-percent of the final sale price. My point is that even though appraiser‘s rarely agree on everything, the market still should dictate the final opinion of value; therefore, the opinions should be relatively close together.

See you around the water Cooler!

UncleZev

 

Back to Basics – part 2 -The Cost Approach – An approach to value, without worth, really?

The foundations of appraisal were based upon three independent approaches to value. A system, when developed correctly, presents a check and balance within the report. The idea being that when an appraiser takes the time to develop each report, the data will show three independent motivations and three separate value conclusions. Nonetheless, the conclusions will support one another because the underlying principle for each approach is the principal of substitution.

For the purposes of valuation or real estate appraisal, the principle of substitution is defined by practical application. Simply the idea that a prospective purchaser will pay no more for a property than the cost of acquisition of an equally desirable substitute  having equal utility and acquired within an equal amount of time. This principle  is accurately assumed to be the underlying principle of the direct sales comparison; however, it should be recognized that the principal of substitution is also the underlying principal for the cost approach was well.

The cost approach, when completed in a serious and professional way, is not only crucial to the appraisal of residential real estate, but also crucial for an underwriter to properly understand other factors that influence the value of the subject. Additional principles that are in play within each real estate market, but few people take the time to identify  these factors or understand their effects. A few of these principals will be listed below, in an attempt to help the average user of an appraisal gain a deeper appreciation for the thought process that goes into each appraisal report.

The Principals of Anticipation, Balance, Change, Conformity, Contribution, Progression, and of course Substitution are the basic tools of analysis that go into the professional analysis of each report.

Anticipation is the underlying fountain of the Income Approach to Value, but it also reflects the motivations of prospective purchasers of residential properties and has a foundational effect within the Direct Sales Comparison Approach as well. The income approach is of course a reflection of the present worth of anticipated income. The Direct Sales Comparison (or Market Approach) reflects what competing purchasers are willing to pay for the anticipated benefits that are attributed to a particular property, or characteristic, like quality, appeal, or location. These motivations are carefully considered when understanding a property and how it relates to its market.

Balance recognizes that the value of a property reaches its greatest potential when the four agents of production achieve the state of equilibrium. The four agents, being labor, management, capital, and land. When these agents are out of balance (in residential properties) you see a loss of value due to an over or under-improvement to the land. This principal comes into play when determining the proper highest and best use and remaining economic life. All three approaches to value are affected by the Principal of Balance.

Change is inevitable – except from a vending machine.  ~Robert C. Gallagher, but I digress. Change is continual therefore an appraisal is only reliable as of the date of value. The very next day, a plant could open in the town that would employe 1,000 workers increasing the purchasing power of the community and creating a demand for immediate housing, or the opposite could happen as well. Nothing ever remains the same in this world, this is a principle that affects all things not just real estate appraisal. It is this principle that lenders today are very concerned about as they are wanting appraisers to decipher the market conditions and decide which stage of change the marketplace is in (i.e. growth, stability, or decline).

Conformity states that maximum value is generally realized when there is a reasonable degree of neighborhood homogeneity. That is to say social and economic characteristics should be harmonious, deed restrictions and/or land uses compatible and property types reflective of these factors. Generally speaking the elements of conformity are not planned, but are borne out by the market forces that shape a community over time. Successful neighborhoods that thrive and enjoy stable or increasing values are communities that have developed amenities that are supportive of the overall needs and expectations of that community.

Contribution reflects the market reaction to a physical improvement of a property, not its cost. The best and well-known example is a swimming pool that today can easily cost $50,000 to $85,000 for a pool with a heater, and filtration system, and spa, and water fall, and all the “accoutrements” relevant to the enjoyment of a swimming pool. But the market generally resists the real cost of such improvements. The amount the market is actually willing to pay is known as the contribution value, of course the loss of value (or buyers resistance) should be shown as functional depreciation, but that is for a different discussion.

Progression, this principle is a politically correct way to discuss the basis for external depreciation and reflects the marketplace today with many REO properties on the market. This principal teaches that when properties of similar quality are adjacent or associated within a particular market area, the inferior properties will benefit from the association of the superior properties. That is to say you have an equal number of inferior and superior homes, the prices of the superior homes can benefit the inferior homes. The inverse is also true. The prices of the superior homes will regress due to this association.

When these principles are understood, employed and correctly analyzed the appraiser is then able to give insight not only to “the three best comparables” but why the market behaves in the way that it does and an appraiser can then anticipate future expectations making certain assumptions about performance based upon previous trends and reactions.

Unfortunately, this material was not sexy, or alluring, but I hope that those underwriters, operations managers, lenders, regulators or even appraisers who may not have had the best training will find some benefit in the information that I have provided above. It is critical for all to you know, understand and acknowledge. Nothing I have presented in this blog, is an original thought and I take no credit for the thoughts or analysis.

I have drawn from several years of study and instruction to give this summary of some of the foundational basics of appraisal to enable the users of our reports a brief insight and hopefully, new-found appreciation of the thought and time involved in the production of a real estate appraisal.

See you around the water cooler!

UncleZev

 

A world bereft of humor

A world bereft of humor is like a woman without sex. It may be full of wonder, or mystery, or agony and pain, but what’s the point really?

I have decided to take my daily rants and in express them here for all to see, appreciate, or disagree. My wife, family and close friends will no doubt be so pleased that they do not have to continually deal with my inner monologue as it spills back to the blog rather than being freely shared with anyone, in my community who will still listen.

In my position as a review appraiser I speak to appraisers across the country and have recently had the unique opportunity to speak to several “second generation” appraisers like myself. This has been refreshing and left me with a sense of hope and a new-found appreciation for the profession. Of course, for those who know me, I will never really lose my sardonic or sarcastic  approach towards this profession, but it has been refreshing to have a bit of life brought back into my inner monologue.

For instance, I was recently asked to mediate several situations where the client, who will always and forever remain nameless in my rants, believed the report appraiser to be uncooperative and almost incompetent in their presentation of their reports. The appraiser on the other hand was never really privy to the lender‘s attitude but was forced to try to understand the continual barrage of questions that would be brought to them daily, in some instances.

At first blush, I received the request from my manager to mediate this with a degree of frustration to think “What has happened to professional trust?” and “Why, the incredibility rude word starting with the sixth letter of the alphabet, am I even still working for this company that would ask to me mediate in situations like these?” Then I had an epiphany, which for a good Jewish boy is a bit odd to start with, but it was indeed a sudden realization that over took my thinking without reasonable proof, thus I don’t know what else to call it, but I digress. I realized that my current boss was the very reason that I even entertained working for the company that I choose. This man is also a second generation appraiser who very much understands the whole equation. He had selected me to mediate this dispute because he was looking for me to be prompt, professional, and objective. Not allowing either side to debase their arguments with petty dogma that has found its way into the lending community with regard to real estate appraisers.

Of course there are certain levels of detail that would be inappropriate to be revealed in this particular forum, but suffice it to say, at the end of the day, both the lender and the appraisers found a mutual respect for one another and the appraisal reports were accepted and funded without further hassle to the report appraiser.

I believe that many “old timers” like myself have to a very significant degree have lost sight of the actual reasons they choose this particular profession, or rather they found themselves “drafted” into the profession. The underlying reason is a drive to present a fair, balanced, opinion without favor or bias to any side of the transaction. Whether it is a legal, financial, or civil matter every transaction needs those who can separate themselves from each side and remain objective and present an impartial opinion that is based upon an analysis of the marketplace itself.

Lenders are not maniacal institutions that are hell-bent on the destruction of the “American Way”, for the most part. In turn real estate appraisers are not individuals who failed at every other attempt to make money so they settled for “pulling tape”, “crunching numbers”, and killing every possible deal so that lenders will not be saddled with collateral that the borrow can not afford.

The truth is that both, real estate appraisers and mortgage lenders, serve a much-needed role;  when they operate in a manner that is consistent with their design and function. When they do not operate in this way, it is at that time that mediators like myself and my boss are very much-needed to try to help each side “play fair”.

I want to encourage anyone still reading my blog, to “fight the good fight” there are literally millions of consumers who really do not understand the dynamics of what I have just said. It is for them “the public” that we continue to hold steadfast to our ethics and beliefs that have shaped the larger whole of the appraisal profession.

Hope to see you around the water cooler!

Uncle Zev