@Chris Clothier your pull quote is exactly how a good reporter incites the audience.
"A study by a company that analyzes appraisals to reduce lender risk found that 39 percent of more than 300,000 appraisals contained property quality or condition ratings that conflicted with previous ratings of the same property."
The system is flawed for these types of inconsistencies throughout the appraisal industry and even down to the individual appraiser himself.
Appraisers use a system called UAD (uniform appraisal dataset). It's one of the great "benefits" of Dodd Frank. This is a 1-6 rating system for quality and condition. A C1 for condition would be new construction. A C6 is a tear down. A Q1 for quality is the top quality custom built residences. A Q6 is like a cabin in the woods. The problem is each increment has about a paragraph of explanation with a lot of room for subjectivity. A 4 in one appraiser's mind may be a 5 in another.
I had a conversation with an appraiser friend of mine who does a lot of volume. He's been talked to by the state recently because his comparable were rated as a 4 or 5 in one report and then that same comp is rated as a 5 or 4 in a separate report.
There's too much subjectivity in "rating" the condition or quality of a home and that gets even more "gray" when factoring in the fact that comps are being "compared" to the subject.
So if your subject is a 4/5, but closer to a 4 and you use comps that are all 4/5 and call them all 4 because the subject was called a 4. Then in a separate report down the road the subject is a 4/5, but called a 5 because it leans closer to a 5. Then you use some of those same comps that are 4/5, but call the same comp as a 5 when comparing it to subject #2, even though you called it a 4 when comparing to subject #1.....it now becomes a huge red flag in these measuring systems that lenders are using. In reality it's a comp that is better than a 5, but worse than a 4, just like the subject was in both cases. However, the final call on the subject gave influence to the final call on the comp. It may look and feel good in appraisal #1 in a vacuum. It may look and feel good in appraisal #2 in a vacuum. But when you put those two appraisals together glitches start to happen.
In reality we all know properties can have aspects of a 4 and of a 5, but at the end of the day you have to call it a 4 or a 5. Well, real estate doesn't work how computers say it should work and how automated value machines need it to work.
I hope this makes sense. Under standing the disconnect between appraisers, realtors and the reality of the market place gets me all riled up sometimes.