All the appraisal reports i have reviewed recently all came in at the purchase price, but the report lacks credibility when there are so many minor errors such as a high-rise condo building having masonite wood siding and composition roof shingles. And because sales volume have slowed significantly, many appraisers use the verbiage that the comps provided are the best available in order to justify using a 3-bedroom apartment to value a 2-bedroom apartment unit due to lack of recent sales within the past 90 days as required by the lenders.
The Lenders seem to love these reports for 3 reasons: 1) cheap appraisal fee with fast turn time, 2) value is never an issue, 3) these cheap appraisals are fluffy 45-page reports filled with superfluous info such as the history and nuances of the neighborhood that has nothing to do with supporting the appraisal value, but is thick and impressive to "justify value", that has no substance at all.
No matter how sloppy and careless the appraisal, the value is supportable, but not within the report. It is very time consuming and becoming not feasible to do review work if the reviewer must re-write the report to justify and support the value in the report.
I agree that fast /cheap/hit value or hit SC to churn reports can be a menace, but the AMC's and their allied lenders are very much to blame for this , because they decide who gets the work.
That said, we review the report in front of us, and we can not know the total time and effort spent, regardless of the dates on the report. And it is not relevant to the review anyway
I see a contradiction in the above:
the value is supportable, but not within the report. It What does that mean??? When we review, (are these desk or field reviews, does it ask did you agree or not agree with the value, or is it just a QC housekeeping review?), normally when we review and value is part of the review, we answer a series of questions such as were the comps the most similar, were adjustments supported etc, THEN we are asked, as the last question, did you agree or disagree with the value. So either the value was supported within the report, or it was not.
Therefore I don't understand this statement about the value is supportable, but not within the report. It is not our job to
re -write the report to justify and support the value in the report.
I do not understand what you are doing. You decide, for a reason unexplained here, that the value is "supportable", but not supported in the appraisal report, so
you rewrite their report to justify and support the value? That is not what a review is supposed to be doing. If the value was not supported within the appraisal report, then why are you agreeing with it ?
If you agree with the value (why?) then what was wrong with the report, outside of some minor errors? It just does not make any sense.