Every time I read a post complaining about how a client/UW wants more sales I always wonder about the neighborhood description. If there are a limited number of sales in an area the appraiser should be writing a more comprehensive neighborhood and market conditions section of the report.
Some of the markets I have seen described in this forum I would assume would come with a 2 or 3 page neighborhood and market condition. If that was done the appraiser could then just respond by saying “read the addendum” If there are a limited number of sales give the number of sales and write about EVERY ONE of them. Clearly the reader is not being convinced by the report that the appraiser has fully and completely researched the market.
Strong report (persuasive) writing skills are just as important as good research skills.
You don't really need a great deal of narrative to address what you are talking about here. I just adopt what the VA asks for in addition to what the URAR form has "room" for, across all my appraisals and everything seems to work out. The VA wants comments specifically addressing list-to-sale price ratios, value trends, and marketing time trends per each neighborhood (for the subject), and always have. By the time you put some basic info and boilerplate "on the form" and add in any relevant data about the above into the extended comments page (3) or an addendum if it is a sticky neighborhood, then you get a good picture of what is going on without turning the "summary" URAR form into a residential narrative report.
With the evening news convincing everyone in the country that the whole country is declining, I also like to add info on any REO activity in the neighborhood and why the subject was or was not compared to REO sales (which I do if they are the predominant activity), as well as any new construction occurring and any vacant lots left to build on, etc. If there is a noticeable amount of REO activity, but it is not negatively affecting value, I say that too. Around here, that is usually the case, REOs are bought, rehabilitated and often resold at or near market value within just a few months. THOSE are comps I will use to show what post-auction REOs are doing - usually in support of the arms length sales I have slotted in as comps 1-3 or 1-4.
None of this adds any great time expense to the appraisal reporting, and has kept the call-backs to my office to a minimum for years.
As to those that list the 16 comps they "didn't use" and why they didn't use them, I think that is a bit much. You should be making comments as to why the 3-6-9 comps you submitted where the best already, so I don't think the redundancy of explaining in-depth why you didn't use the other 16 is really warranted in most residential lending cases. But that's a SOW decision, let your own conscious be your guide. You know, something like "There were 22 closed sales similar to the subject in the subdivision. The 6 submitted sales were the most similar in overall style, condition (or upkeep, renovation, etc) and appeal, GLA and age, and proximity available for comparison to the subject at the date of appraisal."
There are exceptions, of course, as always. Usually in neighborhoods where you can have model matched homes, with differing lot or "view" values, like say lake front vs non-lake front, golf course lot vs. interior/non-golf course lot, or varying lot sizes/values in "large lot" subdivisions where you can have the same home on 1 acre, 5 acres or 10 acres. etc. THEN I may very well address why I didn't use some of the available sales...or why I did even tho they resulted in higher adjustment percentages. IOW, I am already explaining to the reader/user why I consider the comps I've used to be apples like the subject is an apple, as opposed to explaining why it is that the subject is an apple and the comps I didn't use were oranges. Such redundancy, to me, can often arouse more suspicion than it abates.
