4.2 Standard 3: Expressing an Independent Opinion of Value

4.2 Standard 3: Expressing an Independent Opinion of Value

One of the most nuanced aspects of USPAP Standard 3 involves the distinction between evaluating the quality of an appraisal report and expressing an independent opinion of value. Appraisal reviewers are frequently asked by clients not only to judge whether an appraisal report is compliant and well-supported, but also whether the reported value conclusion is accurate.

---

Quality Review vs. Value Opinion: The Fundamental Distinction

Under USPAP, a reviewer can complete an appraisal review assignment under two distinct frameworks:

1. Pure Quality/Compliance Review: The reviewer evaluates the completeness, accuracy, relevance, and reasonableness of the report under review without expressing any opinion regarding the value of the subject property. The reviewer might conclude: "The appraisal report complies with USPAP, uses appropriate methodology, and presents logical reasoning supported by market data."
2. Review with an Independent Value Opinion: The reviewer evaluates the report and also expresses an independent opinion of value. Under USPAP, concurring with, agreeing with, or setting a different value estimate constitutes expressing an independent opinion of value.

The Common Exam Trap: Concurrence is a Value Opinion!

A frequent misconception among appraisal students is that agreeing with the original appraiser's value does not constitute developing a value opinion. USPAP is explicit on this point: if a reviewer states, "I concur with the appraiser's value conclusion of $1,200,000," the reviewer has adopted that figure as their own independent value opinion. The reviewer is now legally and ethically accountable under USPAP for developing that value opinion in compliance with the appropriate appraisal development standard.

---

Additional Requirements When Expressing a Value Opinion

When a reviewer's scope of work includes expressing an independent opinion of value, they must comply with two sets of standards:

• Standard 3: For developing the appraisal review.
• Applicable Valuation Standard: For developing the independent value opinion (Standard 1 for real property, Standard 7 for personal property, or Standard 9 for business appraisal).

Incorporating Reviewed Work by Reference

Reviewers are not required to duplicate every step of the appraisal process from scratch when developing their own value opinion. USPAP allows reviewers to incorporate credible portions of the work under review by reference or addition.

For example, if the property description, neighborhood analysis, and physical data in the original report are accurate and credible, the reviewer may incorporate those elements by reference. However, the reviewer must:

• Clearly state which parts of the original report are incorporated and relied upon.
• Use extraordinary assumptions regarding the accuracy of incorporated data that the reviewer did not independently verify.
• Develop independent analyses and market data for any parts of the original report that are found to be inaccurate, incomplete, or uncredible.

---

Supporting Differences in Value Opinion

If the reviewer disagrees with the value conclusion in the work under review, the reviewer must not simply dismiss the original appraiser's number. The reviewer must:

1. State the reasons for disagreement based on defects, flawed logic, or improper data in the original report.
2. Present additional, independent market evidence (such as alternative comparable sales, verified lease rates, or corrected capitalization rates) supporting the reviewer's value opinion.
3. Clearly explain the analytical process and reasoning that leads to the reviewer's final value conclusion.

---

Effective Date Considerations for Review Value Opinions

When expressing an independent value opinion, the reviewer must clearly establish and disclose the effective date of their value opinion:

• Retrospective Value Opinion: The reviewer's opinion of value is established as of the same effective date as the original appraisal. This is the most common approach in review assignments, requiring the reviewer to evaluate value using only data available up to that historical effective date.
• Current Value Opinion: The reviewer establishes an opinion of value as of a current date. This requires the reviewer to account for market changes, property condition updates, and new market transactions occurring between the original appraisal date and the current review date.

Mixing these dates or failing to state the effective date of the reviewer's value opinion violates Standards Rule 3-2 and creates a misleading report.