Using MLS Photos

[Peter LeQuire]

Which is why I do my comp inspections in tough neighborhoods before 10:00 AM.

 

[TRESinc]

Over the weekend , to comply with the insane rule of original photos, some BLM loser boxed me in on the street exit his car and question what i was doing in his hood. After some words, he wanted me to step out of the car. My friends Smith and Wesson told me they didn't think it was a good idea. Those who say comp photo isn't dangerous aren't shooting them.

and how many times in your illustrious career has that happened? i bet you can count on one hand with quite a few fingers to spare. do like the rest of us and schedule your "not so nice" area inspections in the morning. if i don't necessarily feel safe in a neighborhood i bring along a friend (human) and schedule the inspection for 8am. problem solved.


everyone in this thread seems to be concentrating on the 3rd point in the Fannie SOW. how about the second point, (2) inspect the neighborhood? that is part of my driving the comps process. kill two birds with one drive.

 

[Deleted member 130081]

There is always the time when you view the MLS, Sale photo and on the drive by you find additions & alterations, so the MLS photo provides a purpose for date of Sale reference. Also, driving the comps or the neighborhood (your preference) allows one to see changes within the area in which you work. Those changes are part of your geographic competency, would you agree?

Finally. Goodness. Thank you.

Well, I think your response in part, supports my point. You say "There is always the time..." referring to when you get to the comp to "personally inspect the comp from the street" as opposed to personally inspecting the comp from a computer, and you then find it was something that you did not expect. I find your wording suggests what I have said, that finding something other than was expected doesn't happen very often. If it did, you might have said something like "..the 1000's of times I drive by and find..." Just sayin. Maybe you worded that differently than you wanted/meant to, or maybe there is more truth to it than many on here care to admit, which is the root of my point(s).

I agree with the last part of your comment to a certain degree. Geographic competency is certainly an issue and driving out neighborhoods is certainly part of obtaining it (which I do every time I visit a subject property). It is not the only way to obtain geo competency though, especially when what we are analyzing is considered, which are sale prices vs property characteristics. I've been doing this for 10 years. Driving to the same neighborhoods over and over does not equate to an equal measure of additional geo competency for me. Or in other words, I don't realize twice as much about a neighborhood by driving it twice, or three times as much the third time, etc. It doesn't take long to be very redundant and as I have been saying all along, is a waste of valuable resources and further if we continue to assert to the client that their conjured scope of work in its entirety is in fact necessary when it is not, we not only serve to make more work for ourselves (and consumer) and more importantly, we mislead the client.

As for the rest of this thread...

Do I think there are times when driving a comp might be a benefit? Sure. Do I think there are some appraisers, due to the nature of the assignments they tend to accept and the nature of the markets they work in where driving comps might be a benefit and maybe even necessary? Sure, I suppose I can see that. Do I think driving out comps on each and every mortgage appraisal is an enormous benefit and necessary to the development/credibility of the report? Hell no, not even remotely close.

USPAP says the scope of work decision is up to the appraiser. If anyone on here does not understand why it is up to the appraiser and not the client, god help them - I certainly don't need a lecture on it. I also don't need a lecture, nor should anyone with a license, on the difference between the scope of work vs assignment conditions or the difference between the necessary scope of work and an agreed upon scope of work. As far as what this conversation is, has been or will be, I can say it is not a thread started in the newbie or urgent help sections of this forum. It started with the op talking about a letter they had sent to their client concerning taking "original" comp photos and went from there. There are now 30 pages of responses, I don't see why it would be such a tough thing to get on board with the conversation touching numerous topics by this point. Apparently it is. My bad.

So let me start over. I think, in my opinion, that driving out to a comparable property to take a photo from the street, which verifies to the client that I have in fact inspected the comparable property "from at least the street" is a waste of resources. I base that opinion on an analysis of the benefit gained vs the cost of the service. I further think that appraisers that blanket the requirement as necessary in all cases in their own scope of work decision, as our mortgage clients do in their scope of work requirements, to be a poorly formed conclusion that results in not only a waste of valuable resources, but also misleads the client into thinking they should keep requiring it too. Considering appraisal methodology is an ever-changing thing that is developed by appraisers (or is supposed to be anyways), to be followed as required by USPAP, I thought (and maybe I am very mistaken) that coming on to a forum such as this and discussing such matters might be a good idea. I feel this way about many aspects of our pre-printed mortgage forms that are in my opinion, much more significant than the stupid comp photo, for instance much of how we develop/report the sales comparison approach.

I think that just because in many cases a scope of work has been written and designed for us, that we still have an obligation, under USPAP unless I am mistaken, to reconcile all aspects of the reports we deliver so as not to be misleading. Not unlike how we are regularly quick to discredit the credibility of the ENTIRE cost approach in a market value appraisal of an older property, or the entire income approach due to a lack of available data. If we are able and obligated to form an opinion of the applicability, necessity and credibility of an entire approach on each and every appraisal, surely we can do the same for a scope of work requirement. How many times have all of us developed the cost approach in its entirety, solely because the client required it, only to write a statement in the report that we don't think its worth the paper its written on? Why on earth would we not also consider and report our conclusions of other things we do, solely because the client required it, in exactly the same way?

I wont mince words here. This industry, the clients, the appraisers, they frustrate me. Yes, I should probably do something else for a living. I wish I was in a better position to do so. Alas I am not, so I work to make the best of what I can. I take my work product very seriously. Unfortunately in this industry, I am judged by consensus rather than individually. Unfortunately in this industry, I am judged by the actions of others also within my industry, be it good or bad behavior/professionalism. For those reasons, it bothers me that so many cant seem to see past their own nose, even when our rulebook says that is exactly what we should be doing. Analyze, conclude, report - that is what we should be doing. Not obey, follow and copy - which is what I find too many do all too often. This petty issue of the comp photo is really just one very small illustration of that.

Enough. Talk about a waste of time.

 

[EddieB]

FCRecord, Too Long Didn't Read. Do what your signed cert said you did.

Enough. This discussion is a waste of time

 

[djd09]

i bet you can count on one hand with quite a few fingers to spare.

You want to bet?

 

[Deleted member 130081]

We keep coming back to this: the SOW - and the certification - in the GSE forms is not to "drive the comps"; it is to inspect the comps. The issue of complying with the SOW and certs is not one that lends itself to a "cost/benefit analysis": if that analysis convinces an appraiser that it isn't worth it to inspect them, don't accept assignments that require you do do so. Simple. Find clients that don't care whether you inspect the comparables.

YOU keep coming back to this, not me.

 

[Deleted member 130081]

FCRecord, Too Long Didn't Read. Do what your signed cert said you did.

Enough. This discussion is a waste of time

Never once said I don't do what signed off on.

 

[djd09]

Fannie forms, fannie rating system, fannie guidelines and we also sign a certification that says we are independent. what a joke

 

[Michigan CG]

I drove my comps for a report I am working on last night. My absolutely best comparable needs a new roof. You don't see that on the MLS photo.

 

[TRESinc]

Fannie forms, fannie rating system, fannie guidelines and we also sign a certification that says we are independent. what a joke

you are independent. you have the choice of whether to accept an order that will be subject to fannie standards. if you accept the order you comply with fannie standards. not a hard decision to make.