When I'm given an assignment, before I even accept it, I perform a preliminary search of the subject, its MLS and PR data, and any potential comps to help determine my bid or to counter on the offered fee. I retain this search and if I accept the assignment, I then call up the comps in the MLS and send verification emails to both sides of the transaction.
My response rate is 70% to 80%, much higher than if I call and leave messages in the agents' voice mail (50%). It is also much faster. One in 10 agents will call me back in response to the email but most answer the same 6 to 10 questions I pose of every agent just py hitting the reply button and typing in their answers.
I email requests for verification before I set the appointment. I set appointments two days or more out so by the time I look at the subject, most of my verifications are back. Those that have not been so verified, I stop and knock on the door to speak with the buyer. Someone is usually only home half the time but from a given field of comps (between 6 & 10) I have a 90% response rate in total.
The failure to obtain verification does not preclude the use of a comp but depending upon how it fits with the other sales, I may give it less weight.
I am much more successful in obtaining info via email than by phone. Doing it this way gives me a paper trail to establish my actions in performance of my SOW.
One can get by for years without ever verifying comps as is obvious from the discussion in the other thread. I suspect plenty on this forum don't verify ever, and even more who never make their way to this forum.
The question to ask is "if one can skate by without verifying, why do it?" Afterall, verification takes time, given the fees and turn time requirements for most mortgage work, I well understand why so many people give it a pass.
The reason you verify, however, is because it is part of your ethical and legal obligation per, USPAP Standards Rule 1-4, and per the pre-printed SOW work in most FNMA forms. You are required to do it!
Secondly, aside from what the above sources require, verification adds credibility to your data, to your analysis, and to your final conclusions of value. Basing an opinion on verified data is the difference between basing an opinion on facts versus hearsay. That's the effect verification has on the witness stand, and it has the same effect in the minds of most informed appraisal users. (Notice I say "informed", which precludes most AMC employees.)
There are plenty of appraisal users that do not understand the significance of verification to the credibility of the reports they order. The lack of verfication often isn't established until something has gone south in their loan portfolio which causes close scrutiny of the entire underwriting package. These are the users that rely on AMC services but also many others.
There are also many, perhaps a majority, of appraisers who possess the same ignorance regarding verification. In the FWIW department, it has always been this way as far as I can tell.
I can observe that those who regularly verify data conduct business differently than most. Their volume of work is generally lower, and takes longer to turn. Their clients don't seem to mind, however as they value quality more than expedience. They often have reputations for producing buttoned down reports. Their fees are at the higher end of the range for their work product.
