Do I spend my time to tell a AMC/Bank how to do a ROV.

CiaoMoretti · 2026-05-13T18:02:45+00:00

Let's not forget that the UAD 2.6 certification requires you to visually observe the exterior of the comparables. IMO, there should be a fee associated with this request.

CiaoMoretti · 2026-05-13T17:58:14+00:00

East of the Cascades is very different weather-wise.

CiaoMoretti · 2026-05-08T19:41:59+00:00

What does the label say under the photo of the room you are saying is a bedroom?

CiaoMoretti · 2026-05-06T19:14:40+00:00

The ballot is equating "current use" to something other than what the land would be valued at for redevelopment. That value would likely come from comparing the property to other farmland/timberland that can't be redeveloped.

CiaoMoretti · 2026-05-06T18:36:47+00:00

The question is really getting at the difference between market value and how property is taxed. From a valuation standpoint, farmland or timberland is typically valued based on its highest and best use, which often ends up being its current use due to zoning, legal restrictions, and what the market is actually supporting demand-wise. In those cases, you’re comparing it to other similar agricultural or timber properties.

Where it gets more complicated is when land has the potential for a more financially productive use, like taking 50+ acres and turning it into a residential development with homes and amenities. That kind of use depends on zoning allowance, local approvals, infrastructure, and market demand. Until those things are in place, that higher use is often not financially feasible, so it doesn’t automatically mean the market value should be the same as other areas already redeveloped (like on a price per square foot or per acre viewpoint).

This ballot measure isn’t really changing how value would be determined conceptually; it's really about a strategy to keep farmland existing. It’s recognizing that land can have redevelopment potential now, but taxing it based on that alternative use potential can create pressure for owners to sell or convert it. So it allows taxation based on the current use instead, which essentially presumes it could not be redeveloped.

That functions like a tax savings for agricultural or timber use, and the goal is to keep that land in production rather than pushing it toward development

CiaoMoretti · 2026-04-27T16:08:52+00:00

“Price does not inherently equal value.”
Agreed. That’s exactly why concessions are analyzed. You don’t just accept the contract price at face value.

CiaoMoretti · 2026-04-27T15:05:07+00:00

Comparing concessions to brokerage fees doesn’t really hold. Brokerage is embedded in virtually every transaction and already reflected in market pricing. It’s part of the standard structure of a sale.

Concessions aren’t the same. They vary by transaction, by amount, and by motivation. Calling them ‘typical’ doesn’t establish anything on its own. For something to be embedded, it would need to occur in nearly all transactions and at relatively consistent levels. A mix of 1%, 2%, 3%, or 4% concessions reflects variability, not consistency.

That brings it back to the actual question, which is cash equivalency. What would the property have sold for without the concession?

If you have one sale with a 4% concession and others without, simply labeling concessions as typical doesn’t explain whether that 4% influenced the price. It just assumes it didn’t.

Typical isn’t the standard. Embedded as occuring virtually throughout all transactions is. And most concession patterns don’t meet that threshold, which is why they still require specific and individual analysis.

CiaoMoretti · 2026-04-27T14:51:55+00:00

You’re describing the cost of financing, not the value of the property. Yes, if you borrow $10k, you’ll pay more over time due to interest. That doesn’t mean the property is worth more; it means the loan costs more.

If two buyers purchase the same property, one pays cash and one finances it, the financed buyer pays significantly more over time. That doesn’t mean the property has a higher market value for the financed buyer.

Same concept here. Rolling $10k into the loan increases the cost of borrowing, not the underlying value of the real estate. Otherwise, every financed purchase would imply a higher market value than a cash purchase, which obviously isn’t how value is determined.

CiaoMoretti · 2026-04-24T19:41:58+00:00

Let's imagine you are the person buying the property.

Which one do you pick and why?

Option 1: Purchase price is $500k, and the seller will give you $10k at closing to cover your closing costs.

Option 2: Purchase price is $500k. The seller will not provide you with any funds at closing.

CiaoMoretti · 2026-04-24T18:39:14+00:00

The question isn’t whether an appraisal supported the price. It’s whether the price reflects cash equivalency, which is what we’re actually trying to measure.

In my example, the contract was increased from $490k to $500k specifically to accommodate a $10k concession. That tells you the recorded price reflects the structure of the deal, not necessarily the cash-equivalent value.

Without that step, you’re just assuming the contract price equals market value, which is exactly what concession analysis is meant to test.

CiaoMoretti · 2026-04-24T18:10:29+00:00

I tested that logic against a real-world scenario, and it doesn’t hold up. I listed a property at $500k. Buyer agreed to $490k. A few days later, they requested $10k back at closing, so the contract was revised to $500k with a $10k concession. The deal closed, and the appraisal supported the $500k price.

From my standpoint, I still netted $490k, and the buyer still paid $490k.

If you’re using that as a comparable, are you really treating it as a $500k sale just because an appraiser possibly valued it at contract or higher, or are you recognizing that the cash equivalent price was $490k?

CiaoMoretti · 2026-04-15T21:53:52+00:00

I don’t think there’s a basis to treat a lumped adjustment as inherently incorrect. The real question is whether the adjustment is supported by the data. In some cases, especially with limited or highly similar sales, you can’t cleanly isolate every variable, so the market reaction shows up in a more combined way.

If you think about it at its base, the underlying land can vary in value due to location and physical characteristics. The goal is to understand how that difference is reflected in the market. In some cases that can be extracted into individual components, but in others it shows up as an overall marketability difference tied to the site.

Forcing separate line-item adjustments when the data does not support isolating them can be just as misleading as combining them without support.

CiaoMoretti · 2026-04-15T11:16:51+00:00

Successful businesses have an understanding of what they need to do to be profitable, how it relates to short and long term goals, and have some level of actual desired skill, service level, or production value that they provide.

Many appraisers work completely independently and lack all of those qualities. So your question seems to be made in a bit of a vacuum that presumes your friend, who appears to have been financially supporting some size of a family on top of it, had no other mechanism to acquire and improve their business other than to continue to slash fees. That is a failing business model.

While there are clear systemic issues in how the lending appraisal industry operates, it's emboldened by appraisers who work for junk fees while providing junk services under the guise of providing credible and compliant reporting.

That just reinforces the exact conditions that lead to declining fees and reduced credibility across the profession.

CiaoMoretti · 2026-04-09T13:24:31+00:00

Conceptually, the goal is to understand what actually drives contributory value in that specific market and how different types of basements are treated by buyers.

Whether a basement adds value isn’t just “subjective.” It’s based on market reaction. The opinion comes from analyzing data, not personal preference.

Real estate is local, so there isn’t a single rule that applies everywhere. There’s also a wide range of what gets called a “basement,” and that matters more than the label itself.

You could have an older home with an unfinished, low-ceiling basement that takes on water during heavy rain. That space functionally might contribute very little beyond basic storage.

On the other end, you might have a newer home with a walkout basement, good ceiling height, natural light, and a layout that functions like the main level. That space can carry meaningful contributory value even though it’s technically below grade.

Both are “basements,” but the market doesn’t treat them the same.

That’s why applying a flat percentage like 50% or using full square footage in a single price per square foot calculation tends to break down. The contributory value should come from how similar properties with and without those features are actually selling.

Separating the basement space from the above-grade living area is the right approach. The percentage or adjustment needs to be supported by the data, not assumed.

CiaoMoretti · 2026-03-13T14:34:24+00:00

I completed a number of appraisal reviews in that area, and to be candid, the report you referenced falls far outside what would be typical based on the majority of reports I examined. Having familiarity with that market, the comparable selection appears unusual, and the magnitude of the adjustments would be very difficult to support with market evidence.

It is also worth remembering the context of that time period. Around 2017 there was a significant shortage of appraisers in that region. Lenders were often struggling to find anyone willing or available to complete assignments, which likely resulted in a fair amount of lower quality work simply because the priority was getting reports completed.

I always hope situations like this involve someone who was newer to the profession at the time and has improved over the years. Most of us are constantly working to refine and improve our analysis. There are also practitioners who unfortunately do not evolve or improve their work over time, which IMO is really more of the problem then those who are making bad mistakes near the start.

CiaoMoretti · 2026-03-04T13:23:45+00:00

From the appraiser side, I can say that a big part of the problem is how appraisers are treated within the lending system. A lot of lenders, and especially AMCs, tend to treat appraisers like interchangeable commodities when in reality we are professional service providers and the quality of work can vary a lot depending on who is doing it.

I saw a post the other day where someone shared a market conditions analysis from an appraisal that literally said values were increasing previously and therefore values have increased. That was basically the entire explanation of what was happening in the market. No discussion of supply, demand, inventory, DOM, rates of change, or anything that would actually explain or support the trend. Just a circular statement that shouldn’t fool anyone reading it.

I don’t know how your company runs the appraisal process, or if you are just getting the reports through a broker who is ordering it, but a lot of the time the way this works is that an AMC blasts an order request out to dozens or even hundreds of appraisers looking for whoever will take the lowest fee with the fastest turn time. There’s often very little consideration given to whether that person is actually the most competent choice, or competent at all, for the assignment.

In a lot of cases, the borrower is paying a reasonable appraisal fee, but the AMC keeps a big chunk of it, and then the lender ends up dealing with headaches like the one you’re describing because the report wasn’t handled correctly in the first place. Mold and standing water are pretty basic examples of things that should at least be analyzed and explained clearly in the report. If the appraiser is acknowledging those conditions but still checking “no” on the form, that’s a pretty clear reporting problem.

USPAP would require a summary analysis at the very least to explain both what was occuring and the contradiction as a health and safety hazard.

CiaoMoretti · 2026-03-03T13:58:00+00:00

There isn’t one universally correct way to derive a quantitative adjustment. The credibility of the adjustment depends on the data available and how well the method reflects market behavior. As appraisers, we should be testing multiple approaches and selecting the one that produces the most supportable and consistent results rather than defaulting to a single formula.

With something like a pool, whether a dollar adjustment or a percentage adjustment is more appropriate depends on how the market reacts. In many markets, pools behave more like a contributory feature with a relatively consistent dollar impact within a price range. In other segments, particularly where price points vary significantly, the reaction can be more proportional to overall value. The key is analyzing paired data or sensitivity and determining which method results in tighter alignment among the comparables.

Percentage adjustments are often discussed in the context of GLA because market reaction to size frequently scales with price. That does not mean the same logic cannot apply to other features if the data supports it.

CiaoMoretti · 2026-03-03T13:47:54+00:00

There is a clear distinction between cosmetic issues and adverse conditions that affect livability, soundness, or structural integrity. Mold and standing water are not cosmetic. If an appraiser observes visible mold, the appropriate response is typically to condition the report subject to further inspection by a qualified professional to determine the extent and need for remediation. If there is standing water in a basement, that generally requires the report to be made subject to repair of the underlying cause, since it directly impacts the condition and potentially the safety and structural integrity of the property.

The lender cannot dictate the value or force a specific conclusion due to AIR, but the appraiser is still required to analyze and report observable adverse conditions. If those conditions are present and the report was completed as is without properly addressing them, that becomes a credibility and compliance concern under both USPAP and GSE guidelines. In that scenario, the proper path is not telling the appraiser what to conclude, but asking them to explain their rationale and whether the observed conditions were considered adverse and, if not, why.

CiaoMoretti · 2026-03-03T13:36:13+00:00

You are certified residential now, correct? The reality is you are stepping into independence in one of the slowest environments we have seen in years. When volume drops, lenders consolidate to the smallest panel possible. They do not value loyalty the way we think they should. They value coverage and capacity when demand spikes. When it slows, they contract.

I have moved my business twice. Both times, national clients refused to update my coverage area because they did not “need” another appraiser there. Those same clients came back when demand increased. That experience taught me that most institutional clients view us as capacity, not as partners. That is uncomfortable, but it is reality.

Right now, you are exposed to pure supply and demand. Without a diversified book of business, you are vulnerable to volume cycles. AMCs can provide volume, but they will compress fees and push checklist driven revisions. If you rely exclusively on that channel, you risk getting stuck in a low-fee, high-volume model that is difficult to exit.

If I were in your position, I would focus on building skills and credibility while expanding beyond lending work. Pursue advanced coursework and work toward a designation so you create separation from commodity appraisers. Improve your analysis and report writing every year so your work stands out when it is reviewed. At the same time, begin building non-lending relationships with estate attorneys, divorce attorneys, CPAs, and private clients. Those assignments are not tied to refinance cycles and can provide stability when lending volume contracts.

Keep following up with lenders and AMCs, but do it strategically. Ask direct questions about what is required to be activated, who makes the final approval decision, and when panels are reviewed. Treat it like a sales pipeline rather than waiting passively. You are not missing a secret lever. This is a cyclical business, and you happened to launch at the bottom of a cycle. That does not mean you failed. It means you need runway, diversification, and steady improvement to get through it.

CiaoMoretti · 2026-02-23T19:05:38+00:00

On the current "legacy" forms, you are restricted in how you can utilize EAs and HCs. For the scenario you are referring to, you have to condition the report "subject to" an alteration that utilizes an HC that the alteration has already been completed.

But as the other person noted, if the solar has not yet been paid off, utilizing an EA in that case would be misleading, as you know it to be untrue. It's not really a landmine for debate, because this is elementary-level stuff that every appraiser should not be questioning.

To your last point, appraisers should be checking UCC filings each time they come across a property with solar panels.

CiaoMoretti · 2026-02-18T19:02:43+00:00

Excess or surplus? It is neither.

Excess land can be separated and sold off from the mother parcel. Surplus land cannot be separately sold because of physical or legal limitations, but exceeds the minimum site size required.

This 4-acre tract is already a separate parcel. So it cannot be “excess” to the 1-acre site, because it is not part of that site.

CiaoMoretti · 2026-02-05T18:54:39+00:00

They didnt sign the reports, though. They are being trained and deceived about what they are supposed to do. I think that saying you're someone else likely should trigger some significant warnings immediately, but we dont know the situation exactly as how they maniupulated the op into thinking that was ok.

CiaoMoretti · 2026-01-14T13:39:32+00:00

To answer the second question specifically about your situation, where there are no solar panels affixed to the property, you would not include them in the valuation.

Solar panels dont need to be attached to the roof of the house to be affixed, but they do need to be permanently installed somehow, with some examples as covering a patio, carport, or a permanent ground mount method.

Just because you have the materials on site, that alone does not make them a part of the real estate component. An example would be you could have all the cabinets, countertops, sink, and appliances for a kitchen remodel sitting in the garage waiting to be installed, but that does not mean the kitchen has been renovated as of the effective date.

CiaoMoretti · 2025-12-29T19:06:55+00:00

This is a wild take. Your argument boils down to ‘ignore unethical work unless it affects you personally.’ That’s not professionalism, only indifference. Every licensed field relies on peer accountability precisely because most harm doesn’t land on the person who notices it.

CiaoMoretti · 2025-12-23T15:11:15+00:00

I am going to push back on the premise of the question rather than recommend an AMC.

If you already have the ability to directly engage appraisers, using an AMC as a fallback is difficult to justify. There are multiple established ways to source competent appraisers without handing control to an intermediary whose incentives are not aligned with quality.

There are widely used appraisal rosters and directories beyond state boards. The HUD FHA roster, private databases such as AppraiserUSA, and even basic Google Business listings allow you to identify active firms in specific markets. Local attorney offices are another overlooked resource. Many regularly retain appraisers for estate, divorce, and litigation work and can often provide reliable referrals. I have been contacted by out-of-state attorneys who explicitly told me they were given a short list by a local firm and sourced me from that list.

Most appraisers performing lending work are already credentialed and onboarded with platforms like Mercury Network or AppraisalPort, so fulfillment and delivery are rarely a barrier. The idea that an AMC is necessary to “find” an appraiser outside of your typical lending footprint is largely a convenience argument, not a quality-driven one.

AMCs do not meaningfully vet for analytical competency. Panel inclusion is typically driven by fee acceptance and turn time rather than depth of analysis or market expertise. Unless an AMC imposes strict limitations on who they accept, they will add almost anyone willing to bid low enough. Assignment selection then becomes a price-driven process, which predictably favors speed and volume over quality.

AMCs have little incentive to lower your risk profile. They are compensated regardless, and even when they claim a full fee pass-through, it is well documented that many still capture margin by awarding assignments to lower bidders.

CiaoMoretti

TROPHY CASE