Collateral Underwriter (CU)

[djd09]

How does CU pick comps? I think i got one peek at the mighty oz results. Not 100% but pretty sure. They cut off the page though. I believe they gave me a good score like 4.9 out of 5.0. They didn't leave me with much room for improvement.

 

[NewbieFromTX]

How does CU pick comps? I think i got one peek at the mighty oz results. Not 100% but pretty sure. They cut off the page though. I believe they gave me a good score like 4.9 out of 5.0. They didn't leave me with much room for improvement.

I got a call just today from a reviewer from a certain bank. He advised that he reviews risk scores that are 4 and above because the banks policy is to review 4 and above, my report scored a 4. 1 is the best, 3.9 is acceptable, 4 and above will get "the list" of other comps that the software pulls for you, so 4 and above is not what you want. My property was a rural property with acreage, and all my comps were similar GLA, style, age, etc, however CU's list had comps inside city limits, no acreage. He told me my comps were good, and that they were #8, #10 and #12 on CU's list, but suggested that I add the ones that CU provided. As long as someone will call us to discuss the results, I am OK with being "graded", however I don't feel that all reviewers will be this nice. He also said that once the report goes through FNMA and is graded (i.e. 4), that grade stays with us, and we don't want a bunch of "4's". He also said another appraiser got a 4, made the revisions that CU suggested, and the score was raised to a 2-something. He gave me the opportunity to make changes and resubmit to him; I hope that's the case across the board. This was my first call today for a revision due to CU, I hope I don't get many more.

 

[Dublin ohio]

How does CU pick comps? I think i got one peek at the mighty oz results. Not 100% but pretty sure. They cut off the page though. I believe they gave me a good score like 4.9 out of 5.0. They didn't leave me with much room for improvement.

Was that 4.9 out of 5 the CU risk score? If it was you better check the CU risk score ratings before you pat yourself on the back.

 

[djd09]

other comps that the software pulls for you

And how does this "software" select search criteria?

 

[Tom D]

i'm in the city so everything is real close, have had no CU experience. thanks for the story. just another reason to keep me in a bad mood about this business. if CU is checking the comps so good, why not have us do the inspection & let CU picks out the comps, and we can finish the appraisal. we do the $15 home inspection, suggest some sales ($15 pay). CU finalizes the comp choices, we then do the, $15 an hour, adjustments, then CU finishes the value. we're home free of appraisal aggravation, and we got $45 dollars gas money. anyone think my threads of CU appraisals not being far away being such a far notion. don't ask how CU does anything, it's beyond your scope of work.

 

[TRESinc]

How does CU pick comps? I think i got one peek at the mighty oz results. Not 100% but pretty sure. They cut off the page though. I believe they gave me a good score like 4.9 out of 5.0. They didn't leave me with much room for improvement.

4.9 is the second worst score you could possibly achieve. based on that you have lots of room for improvement.

I got a call just today from a reviewer from a certain bank. He advised that he reviews risk scores that are 4 and above because the banks policy is to review 4 and above, my report scored a 4. 1 is the best, 3.9 is acceptable, 4 and above will get "the list" of other comps that the software pulls for you, so 4 and above is not what you want. My property was a rural property with acreage, and all my comps were similar GLA, style, age, etc, however CU's list had comps inside city limits, no acreage. He told me my comps were good, and that they were #8, #10 and #12 on CU's list, but suggested that I add the ones that CU provided. As long as someone will call us to discuss the results, I am OK with being "graded", however I don't feel that all reviewers will be this nice. He also said that once the report goes through FNMA and is graded (i.e. 4), that grade stays with us, and we don't want a bunch of "4's". He also said another appraiser got a 4, made the revisions that CU suggested, and the score was raised to a 2-something. He gave me the opportunity to make changes and resubmit to him; I hope that's the case across the board. This was my first call today for a revision due to CU, I hope I don't get many more.

that is the same method one of my clients uses. 4.0 and higher triggers a full review by the lender. they then suggest some potential changes (almost exclusively for corrections needed, not a difference in opinion) and give the appraiser a chance to make them and see what the CU score is after. to date they have never sent over any of the CU "comps" and i have only had 1 report score 4.0 or higher. i lost one full point because the subject was proposed construction and CU automatically adds 1 point if anything other then "as-is" is marked on the report. i had one typo and the rest of the CU items were garbage (materially different condition adjustment to a comp [which is expected when comparing it to a different subject], net adjustment was materially different than the model [was told that the majority of model adjustments were worthless], etc) and the lender told me that. i fixed my typo and my score dropped below 4 and all was right in the world again.

 

[BarrySW1963]

I got a call just today from a reviewer from a certain bank. He advised that he reviews risk scores that are 4 and above because the banks policy is to review 4 and above, my report scored a 4. 1 is the best, 3.9 is acceptable, 4 and above will get "the list" of other comps that the software pulls for you, so 4 and above is not what you want. My property was a rural property with acreage, and all my comps were similar GLA, style, age, etc, however CU's list had comps inside city limits, no acreage. He told me my comps were good, and that they were #8, #10 and #12 on CU's list, but suggested that I add the ones that CU provided. As long as someone will call us to discuss the results, I am OK with being "graded", however I don't feel that all reviewers will be this nice. He also said that once the report goes through FNMA and is graded (i.e. 4), that grade stays with us, and we don't want a bunch of "4's". He also said another appraiser got a 4, made the revisions that CU suggested, and the score was raised to a 2-something. He gave me the opportunity to make changes and resubmit to him; I hope that's the case across the board. This was my first call today for a revision due to CU, I hope I don't get many more.

And this is exactly why we're not taking most complex assignments. CU barfs, and the appraiser gets a score that hurts them in the long run.

 

[alex gilbert]

... the appraiser gets a score that hurts them in the long run.

Don't confuse a CU appraisal risk rating with a client's score that is used to grade an appraiser. Not one lender or AMC that I've spoken with (an admittedly small sample size) uses the CU number in their appraiser rating system. The internal appraiser 'score' is usually based on things like quality as determined by review, turntime, number of reports that require revision and timeliness in responding to revision requests. I won't argue if these are all good quality measures, but the point is that I don't know anyone who considers the CU risk rating when scoring overall appraiser quality.

 

[Tom D]

i want to say one more thing. the black power 1970 movement had it right. i would like to adapt their slogan. burn baby, burn. burn the whole damn system down.

 

[BarrySW1963]

Don't confuse a CU appraisal risk rating with a client's score that is used to grade an appraiser. Not one lender or AMC that I've spoken with (an admittedly small sample size) uses the CU number in their appraiser rating system. The internal appraiser 'score' is usually based on things like quality as determined by review, turntime, number of reports that require revision and timeliness in responding to revision requests. I won't argue if these are all good quality measures, but the point is that I don't know anyone who considers the CU risk rating when scoring overall appraiser quality.

FNMA is keeping score.

AMC scoring systems all suck.

One complex assignment that CU barfed all over prompted a reallllly long and beneficial discussion with the chief appraiser for the AMC for a super major lender. I think he had far more skepticism when I was done with him about CU than when we started the conversation. Basically, how can CU properly model the data in the absence of data? And then spit out reams of "differs from models blah blah" in the absence of data? Anyhow, one day we might get a better peak under the hood.