Sales Grid Adjustment Comments

[Meandering]

So.... size matters?

Depends

 

[djd09]

Utils don't matter when your goal is to make appraisers look stupid.
Garages don't matter,
excess and surplus land,
condition, quality, location, view,

Out buildings, bathroom count.

Just throw it all into one pot. Mix it around. Pick the median. Crack on the appraisers. Not the lenders and AMCs that enforced the percentage guidelines.

 

[Meandering]

Out buildings, bathroom count.

Just throw it all into one pot. Mix it around. Pick the median. Crack on the appraisers. Not the lenders and AMCs that enforced the percentage guidelines.

You should note that all the things Fannie wants addressed for adjustments,
Fannie pre-printed on your forms,
Yet only writes reports about GLA adjustments,
as though GLA adjustments exist in a vacuum without any relation to all the other items they coded into the UAD and put on the form.

Why bother with 2gd6dr when only GLA matters to the sale price?

.

 

[djd09]

What about the separate line adjustments? In ground pool?

Did they ever think that the appraisers were selecting the correct comparable sales and the guidelines wouldn't be exceeded? Fannie should retract and apologize to appraisers.

 

[timd354]

Naw . I am the only one providing any link. Fannie said "artificially low". Based on what? good try.

You don't even understand what is stated in the link that you posted or the context of the bits and pieces of Fannie's statement that you actually bothered to read.]. The whole purpose of that document is to explain why Fannie decide to get rid of the 15% neet/25% gross adjustment guideline which they did because their analysis of many appraisals indicated that some appraisers were using adjustments that were too low and which did not reflect market reaction in order to try make their gross adjustments fit in the 15%/25% guideline box. They utilized the example of GLA adjustments to make their point as they likely determined based on their analysis that this is where much of the manipulation of adjustments in order to fit within the 15%/25% adjustment box occurred.

Nowhere in the document does Fannie try to instruct appraisers on what the adjustments should be other than to state that the adjustments should reflect market reaction (duh!)

This is why Fannie makes the following statement within the linked document:

The analysis results reflected in the charts provide strong evidence that adjustments have been made to fit within guidelines that were not intended to be rules, but instead a trigger for commentary and rationale. While the best comps remain those that warrant lower adjustments – if those adjustments are based on market reaction and well-supported – the removal of the net and gross adjustment guidelines appropriately shifts focus to supporting market-based adjustments regardless of the amount of the adjustment either as a single line item or in total.

Thus, there is no conspiracy by Fannie to force appraisers to fit adjustments within the Fannie box, rather Fannie removed the 15%/25% guidelines precisely so that appraisers would not feel pressured to change their adjustments to fit within these now-removed guidelines and instead focus on making market based adjustments that are well supported.

Only in your deranged world of conspiracy theories is this a negative thing for appraisers

 

[djd09]

What conspiracy? The one that appraisers kept the GLA adjustments "artificially low" just to stay in a guidelines. What would be fannies adjustment to make that claim. Another back seat driver.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

and that is something that was probably fairly easy to measure

...and was no where near the RCN of the condo

 

[djd09]

If you were exceeding the suggested guidelines it meant that you were not picking the right comparable sales or you have an unique property. So their 95% assessment should be correct and proves the appraisers are doing their job.

I will just man up to the fact the fannie needs to blame others for their shortcomings. True leaders do not point fingers.

 

[timd354]

What conspiracy? The one that appraisers kept the GLA adjustments "artificially low" just to stay in a guidelines. What would be fannies adjustment to make that claim. Another back seat driver.

Fannie did not keep appraiser's adjustments low to stay within the 15%/25% guidelines even if that meant the adjustments did not reflect market reaction. Appraisers did that on their own and/or were encouraged or pressured by clueless lenders and underwriters who did not understand that the 15%/25% adjustment guidelines were not meant to be a hard guideline but only required the appraiser to provide an explanation. Please do not try to pretend that did not happen on a regular and ongoing basis with many appraisers.

 

[Meandering]

Thus, there is no conspiracy by Fannie to force appraisers to fit adjustments within the Fannie box, rather Fannie removed the 15%/25% guidelines precisely so that appraisers would not feel pressured to change their adjustments to fit within these now-removed guidelines and instead focus on making market based adjustments that are well supported.

And while this may be true,

At some point, Fannie has to recognize that when the Lenders, and AMCs and Loan Officers interject their own "assignment conditions" requirements, and that appraisers have no where to report to Fannie requirements beyond what Fannie says.

Wouldn't the world of residential appraising be so lovely as to only have to follow GSE, USPAP, FHA and VA rules, without an "interested party" bs in the middle.

Appraisers can only dream.

.