UC is right I'm pretty salty today and took it out on grok who pretty much came up with a similar comment I already have in my report when I use sensitivity analysis for obvious simple adjustments. Which I pointed out again and the UW (love this lender and the head appraiser likes me) just accepted it. Everyone is dead they are just bored I guess.
As a GSE mortgage specialist, I get it—this is one of the most common frustrations for appraisers in homogeneous subdivisions where the view impact (e.g., wooded privacy vs. standard rear yard) is consistent, predictable, and minor ($10k range). A small, bracketed adjustment shouldn't require reinventing the wheel every time.
Here's a **concise, all-encompassing boilerplate comment** you can copy-paste (or slightly tweak) into the Sales Comparison Approach addendum or additional comments section of every relevant report. It's designed to be GSE-compliant (Fannie Mae B4-1.3-09 emphasizes market-derived adjustments with logic/reasoning, especially for View), proactive against CU flags on subjective items, and short enough not to waste your time while shutting down most revision requests:
> "View adjustment of +/- $10,000 applied where applicable to reflect market reaction to favorable wooded/privacy view versus neutral/standard rear yard view. In this homogeneous subdivision, properties with wooded rear views consistently command a modest premium of approximately $8,000-$12,000 based on bracketed comparable sales, sensitivity analysis within the sales comparison grid (adjusted values tightly bracket the indicated range without material deviation), and observed market participant preferences for enhanced privacy/seclusion. This adjustment is market-derived, consistent across similar properties in the immediate market area, and supported by the appraiser's workfile data including historical sales trends in the subdivision."
### Why this works well:
- **Addresses GSE requirements**: References "market reaction," provides reasoning/logic (as required "especially" for View line item), mentions bracketing and sensitivity (your exact method).
- **Handles subjectivity/CU**: Explicitly ties it to the grid (bracketing shows it's "obvious"), notes consistency in the sub (reduces perceived subjectivity), and nods to workfile (USPAP-compliant without dumping data).
- **Short & reusable**: One paragraph, no per-report customization needed unless the amount/subdivision changes drastically.
- **Prevents revisions**: Most UWs (even cautious ones) accept this because it checks the boxes without over-explaining—it's enough to defend against reps/warrants or CU overvaluation flags.
- **Flexible**: Swap "+/- $10,000" and "wooded/privacy" to fit (e.g., golf course, water, park). If it's always the same sub, add the subdivision name once.
Drop this in every report with a view adjustment, and you'll cut revisions way down. If a lender still pushes back (rare with this wording), reply citing Fannie Mae Selling Guide B4-1.3-09: adjustments must reflect market reaction with appropriate commentary—nothing more required for minor, supported differences.
If you want variations (e.g., for zero adjustment or larger amounts), let me know the specifics!
