My posts on Scotland and Trinidad in September were critical of "chartered surveyors" who allowed false information to enter the valuation process with exculpatory phrases such as “the developer informs us that…” without bothering to verify such information, even if it seemed preposterous. I did not intend to suggest that chartered surveyors were worse than valuers elsewhere. The same problem exists in the appraiser/valuer profession throughout the world, including my home country of the USA.
Part of the problem is that “critical thinking” skills are not part of the valuer’s training in any nation where I have interacted with local valuers.
In the English-speaking world, valuers are trained using “business school” methods. Instructions in problem-solving start with set, unchallenged assumptions, and the question is never asked, “What if the information and assumptions are wrong?” or "What if the property owner is lying?" There is an intermediate step which is being neglected, the step that consists of verification, exemplified by such questions as "How do we know that the building measures 25,000 square feet?" Did we measure it? Did a government entity measure it? Or were we just "informed" by the owner?
Latin America and some other nations, valuers enter the profession through the field of architecture or engineering, and their more scientific education is even more dependent upon problem-solving that starts with set, unchallenged assumptions. I find many of these architects and engineers overly rely on the Cost Approach and also lack skill in discerning current market conditions (which need to be known in adjusting the Cost Approach for “external obsolescence”, the loss in value due to unfavorable market conditions or external adverse influences).
Twice in my career I worked in statistical modeling in the Information Technology industry, and one of the first tasks before developing a model was known as "data scrubbing" or "data cleansing" – the removal of erroneous information from a database which would serve as input for a statistical model (and an appraisal can be considered a crude statistical model). This was considered a necessary task before attempting to create an accurate statistical model. Otherwise, garbage in, garbage out. Statisticians get it; appraisers and valuers less so.
Imagine if all appraisers and valuers verified the information about the subject property that they relied on. The world would receive more accurate valuations. Instead, trainers of valuers indoctrinate their students into providing multiple “Assumptions and Limiting Conditions” that merely serve as disclaimers that complete due diligence was not performed, and then they have the nerve to call this "good appraising"! (Some U.S. appraisers even have the curious habit of rigorously verifying comparable sales while failing to verify the subject property's imminent sale.) Remember that "Assumptions and Limiting Conditions" serve to protect appraisers and valuers from liability and not to protect the client. Take the following example:
In the post on Scotland (http://www.internationalappraiser.com/2013/09/appraisal-of-former-naval-base-in.html), for instance, I spoke of a former munitions site appraised as the site of a new, 5-star hotel, with the valuer stating the assumption that no environmental contamination was present (almost never the case with a munitions site), even with abundant metal scrap visibly leaching oxides into the soil, underneath signs warning persons to keep out due to ongoing asbestos removal.
Making this assumption in the “Assumptions and Limiting Conditions” section of an appraisal is not good appraising; it is aiding and abetting fraud. Sure, a valuer is not professionally trained in measuring environmental contamination, but a valuer does not have to be an environmental expert to state the obvious in his or her report.
Not long ago I had a debate with another appraiser on an on-line appraisers' forum. I mentioned that I had one client who insisted that I inspect the roof on every building that I appraised for them. This other appraiser insisted that roof inspections were outside the scope of an appraiser’s duties and that it was even unethical to state my observations because it would infer that I was representing myself as a roofing expert. That had been what he was taught.
I remember a situation with a former Honeywell building in
in which missing or worn-out roof flashings resulted in rain and snow melt leaking down the exterior walls and destroying several hundred thousand dollars of computer equipment. Now which appraiser is more likely to get sued – the one who pointed out the obvious hazard, or the one who performed an incomplete property inspection and had the attitude of “That’s not my job”? Minnesota
The truly concerned appraiser or valuer (who cares about his clients) needs to think about whatever may affect the market value of the property. This includes being properly informed in matters of construction and design, demographic analysis, and microeconomic analysis of the equilibrium between supply and demand. Anything less makes the valuation a meaningless academic exercise and is an abdication of professional responsibility. It can also hurt the client.
This also answers a question I occasionally get asked, which is why is it that I get sent overseas to perform valuations where local appraisers are available? The answer is that I offer my clients extra due diligence that they have learned not to expect from other appraisers or valuers, who instead provide pages and pages of disclaimers and limiting conditions. When others say "That's not my job" I say "I will make it my job."
PS: For younger or foreign readers, the above illustration is of a character named "Sergeant Schultz", an incompetent prison guard played by John Banner in the 1960s television sitcom "Hogan's Heroes". His stock phrase was "I know nothing!" even though he sometimes knew that his prisoners were up to no good, but could be persuaded to look away by a piece of chocolate.