My First Collateral Underwriter Revisions

[hglenbetts]

This appraiser is unable to opine on why other appraisers fail to make adjustments similar to those supplied here, without performing an appraisal review on that work provided by others. Please send your engagement and fee structure for appraisal reviews for my consideration.
Respectfully...

 

[Michigan CG]

They want appraisers to explain their work and if needed to show their work. I am not sure what is wrong with that other than the fees they might be offering.

 

[Riick]

QUESTION: Is the following sufficient?

• The GLA of comparables was adjusted at $XX per sq.ft., which minimizes differences due to size.

Or do I need to say: Adjustment of $xx (+$5) gives a larger difference of $x,zzz - while using an adjustment of $xx (-$5) per foot also shows a larger difference.

Where does that stop, do I say that I used "paired sales" to arrive at a X% per year adjustment for perceived differences in effective age.
Then go on to explicate on effective age? Then explain the concept of bone-marrow depreciation, subjectivity, personal psychology, and and and and
I already wrote one Demo report, and I can write a few more, if need be, but need $$ compensation at a nice rate to do so.

.

 

[KenAZ]

Easy Fix . . . According to Bob Murphy, we should just double our GLA adjustments.

 

[J Grant]

For example, I got my (first) CU message yesterday on an appraisal, and this was it; exact language:

"Appraiser's net adjustments are materially different from peer and model adjustments"

Very cryptic ! The message did not state that my net adjustments were higher, lower, better or worse. It just stated," materially different" Since I did not see the AVM model, nor the peer adjustments...errr... different from what?

I re explained my adjustments, and wrote that since I was not provided with the model to review, I could not comment on how or why my net adjustments differed from it. I assume the explanation I provided was acceptable as have not heard back since submitted. ( yesterday)

 

[Riick]

"Appraiser's net adjustments are materially different from peer and model adjustments"

SO ? Why did you respond at all ??
That message was a statement, not a question.
No question asked, no response needed.
Were you feeling guilty for getting a CU "callout" ?

 

[J Grant]

We respond as a client service. Our clients have to re submit the appraisal to Fannie with the issue addressed with a comment from appraiser

 

[Lee Lansford]

If the data in CU were available to appraisers as the appraisers were working on a particular assignment--I'll wager what the majority of appraisers would do with that information (as in "not willing to make waves").

 

[Deleted member 128537]

I do appraisals in a rural area. So there really is no real easy way to do paired analysis except over the long run to see what makes sense. Most appraisers around here make GLA adjustments anywhere from $15 to $75sf depending upon the quality, condition, and location of the home. I have talked to one appraiser and he makes adjustments of $35sf GLA on homes that I make $40sf adjustments. Whose right? I think it would be difficult if not impossible to prove. But does $35sf pass the reasonable test? Does $40sf pass the reasonable test? Sure. In statistics there is always a margin of error. When doing polls they always say +/- a certain percentage. So is the UC going to quibble about this crap? This is going to make our jobs just miserable.

 

[ucbruin]

I do appraisals in a rural area. So there really is no real easy way to do paired analysis except over the long run to see what makes sense. Most appraisers around here make GLA adjustments anywhere from $15 to $75sf depending upon the quality, condition, and location of the home. I have talked to one appraiser and he makes adjustments of $35sf GLA on homes that I make $40sf adjustments. Whose right? I think it would be difficult if not impossible to prove. But does $35sf pass the reasonable test? Does $40sf pass the reasonable test? Sure. In statistics there is always a margin of error. When doing polls they always say +/- a certain percentage. So is the UC going to quibble about this crap? This is going to make our jobs just miserable.

Using your SF adjustment example: I would imagine CU will have a range for SF. XX to XXXX for similar type properties. And should an appraise us X or XXXXX then a flag may kick in. And maybe same for other adjustments.