Avoiding Revisions Requests

[Tim Hicks (Texas)]

Of course, text addenda are going away in UAD 3.6. Commentary is not going away, just text addenda. There is plenty of room for comments within each section of the report. I think that this alone (eliminating the treasure hunt for commentary) will reduce revisions, and that is being confirmed by those already using 3.6.

I am wondering after full implementation how true this will be. Since I am still actively doing appraisals and I fit everything on the form in the right sections unless it is not your typical property, I constantly get revision requests that are already covered in the body of the report on the actual form. Usually something on the first line of the sales comparison comments or what is the "other" land use when the comment is less than an inch away. "I guess I missed that" is a common response or "please add additional commentary to help support my power." Heck, I just had an appraiser tell me the "Underwriter" wanted to know why interior pictures of the personal property RV were not included in the report. It was not part of the appraisal as it was where the owner parks their RV as it is personal property.

75% of the time I answer revision requests with a snip of the comment already covered on the 2.6 form in the proper section. You don't think the same will happen with 3.6?

You have lost touch if you think underwriting will not have revision requests ad nauseum on the 3.6.

 

[sputnam]

Until one has had the chance to review a lot of reports from all over the country, I think it is difficult to appreciate just how hard some reports are to read. I have cited this example before, but I have seen reports where the multi-page text addendum was written in all caps with no headings and even no line breaks. Imagine you are the reviewer trying to find a statement in that.

Many of the text addenda that I have seen are VERY hard to read; many follow no logical order. They just jump around from topic to topic, often having comments on teh same topic in two totally different sections of the addendum.

We did an experiment when I was in AMCland. We asked appraisers to use a text addendum in a standard format. There was a heading for each major section of the URAR -
SUBJECT
CONTRACT
NEIGHBORHOOD
etc.

Under each heading the appraiser would put any comments related to that section. If there we no additional comments, it would say, "No additional comments"

This meant that if a reviewer was looking for a comment, then the reviewer at least knew where to look for it.

Use of the format was entirely voluntary for the panel. Those who did use the format had a significantly lower revision rate.

Of course, text addenda are going away in UAD 3.6. Commentary is not going away, just text addenda. There is plenty of room for comments within each section of the report. I think that this alone (eliminating the treasure hunt for commentary) will reduce revisions, and that is being confirmed by those already using 3.6.

100% correct.

 

[TerryRohrer]

I am wondering after full implementation how true this will be. Since I am still actively doing appraisals and I fit everything on the form in the right sections unless it is not your typical property, I constantly get revision requests that are already covered in the body of the report on the actual form. Usually something on the first line of the sales comparison comments or what is the "other" land use when the comment is less than an inch away. "I guess I missed that" is a common response or "please add additional commentary to help support my power." Heck, I just had an appraiser tell me the "Underwriter" wanted to know why interior pictures of the personal property RV were not included in the report. It was not part of the appraisal as it was where the owner parks their RV as it is personal property.

75% of the time I answer revision requests with a snip of the comment already covered on the 2.6 form in the proper section. You don't think the same will happen with 3.6?

You have lost touch if you think underwriting will not have revision requests ad nauseum on the 3.6.

My standard response to these requests is, “Please read the report as submitted.” If they insist again, I respond that reading the report for them, or to them, is outside the scope of work. They tend to get it fairly quickly.

 

[chad hampton]

Let's all just quit the BS, there no way to avoid revision requests if you work for any of the breakfast club AMC's. I run about a 80% revision rate and it totally depends on which AMC the report goes to. Direct lenders, rarely any revisions - they are reviewed by actual appraisers. The GSE's favorite 5 employ street people (often from streets in India) and take pleasure in sending it back to make you work for free.

I have these revisions down to a science. 1-2 sentence rebuttals. Sometimes my response is less words than the revision request. I've started to enjoy responding if I'm being honest. I like having fun with them.

I do think if they are going to ask you to comment on 3 random sales, why don't they send them with the order? Lets get this **** out of the way up front.

 

[Dublin ohio]

I run about a 80% revision rate and it totally depends on which AMC the report goes to

Wow! My primary client which I have been with for 17 years (lender owned AMC) tracks revision rates. 30 reports over 60 days with a revision rate of .03 per report and most of them were brain farts such as checking owner occ when vacant.

 

[sputnam]

Wow! My primary client which I have been with for 17 years (lender owned AMC) tracks revision rates. 30 reports over 60 days with a revision rate of .03 per report and most of them were brain farts such as checking owner occ when vacant.

I think a lot of client's track revision rates. Every revision delays the loan decision. It costs the Client... or the AMC.. time and money. One way to try to deal with that is to prefer appraisers who have fewer revisions.

 

[chad hampton]

A lot of lenders aren't qualified to lend on all properties either. An appraisal is a tool to make a lending decision. Sometimes that decision is "no".

Errors/typos/etc are one thing. My mistake, I apologize and fix them immediately. But a lot of these requests come from a place where they are trying to turn something they don't like into something they can make work. That's the issue I have with the revision epidemic we have going on.

When I used to do work for landsafe and they had real reviewers in my state - they had 2 that covered the state They told me many times that they deal with 90% of the revision requests on their own and the appraiser never deals with them - they tell the production team the appraisal is as it's written and that's that. I don't feel the "reviewers" for these national AMCs do that. We get 100% of the **** the loan production team wants changed.

 

[sputnam]

A lot of lenders aren't qualified to lend on all properties either. An appraisal is a tool to make a lending decision. Sometimes that decision is "no".

Errors/typos/etc are one thing. My mistake, I apologize and fix them immediately. But a lot of these requests come from a place where they are trying to turn something they don't like into something they can make work. That's the issue I have with the revision epidemic we have going on.

When I used to do work for landsafe and they had real reviewers in my state - they had 2 that covered the state They told me many times that they deal with 90% of the revision requests on their own and the appraiser never deals with them - they tell the production team the appraisal is as it's written and that's that. I don't feel the "reviewers" for these national AMCs do that. We get 100% of the **** the loan production team wants changed.

Depends on the AMC. I've been an appraiser since 1985. My current role (mostly) is to review appraisal reports for a nationwide AMC. When there is an issue, the appraisal report goes back to the appraiser for revision. Value is never one of the requested revisions. Support for the reported opinion of value is sometimes. Typos that don't impact Client requirements (like an incorrect borrower's name or address) and don't impact the credibility of the appraisal report, never get mentioned.

The fact is, there are appraisers who do not deliver appraisal reports that meet even minimum standards. There are a lot who deliver reports that don't demonstrate best practices. It's never been okay to do less than is required by USPAP... but I see it every day.

 

[DWiley]

Depends on the AMC. I've been an appraiser since 1985. My current role (mostly) is to review appraisal reports for a nationwide AMC. When there is an issue, the appraisal report goes back to the appraiser for revision. Value is never one of the requested revisions. Support for the reported opinion of value is sometimes. Typos that don't impact Client requirements (like an incorrect borrower's name or address) and don't impact the credibility of the appraisal report, never get mentioned.

The fact is, there are appraisers who do not deliver appraisal reports that meet even minimum standards. There are a lot who deliver reports that don't demonstrate best practices. It's never been okay to do less than is required by USPAP... but I see it every day.

During my time in AMCland I found that a lot of revisions were the result of cloning old reports. When one works alone, with no one else to proof read the report, it is very easy to overlook cloning mistakes. That is why I recommend use of a good template rather than cloning of a prior report. And, there are certain sections of the report (e.g., reconciliation) that should never be boilerplate.

 

[J Grant]

Depends on the AMC. I've been an appraiser since 1985. My current role (mostly) is to review appraisal reports for a nationwide AMC. When there is an issue, the appraisal report goes back to the appraiser for revision. Value is never one of the requested revisions. Support for the reported opinion of value is sometimes. Typos that don't impact Client requirements (like an incorrect borrower's name or address) and don't impact the credibility of the appraisal report, never get mentioned.

The fact is, there are appraisers who do not deliver appraisal reports that meet even minimum standards. There are a lot who deliver reports that don't demonstrate best practices. It's never been okay to do less than is required by USPAP... but I see it every day.

If the AMC pay low fees and low wages they will get subpar results in a number of reports. Yet the AMC keeps using these appraisers that do not meet even minimum standards or demonstrate best practices -

u sh<