Collateral Underwriter (CU)

[normando]

The criticism do give me a second look at my appraiser and reconsider if I need to do any changes. With so many details in the report, I do find the results as a review on my report to correct any typo mistakes.
I've been making typo mistakes more than in the past. My mind and my eyes are not as sharp and I miss and type wrong things. Recently I mistyped one wrong digit on an address of a comp. Good thing it was caught.

 

[TRESinc]

It states something like your condition adjustment is higher or lower from other appraisers. Or I have an location adjustment whereas other appraisers do not.

ya, same thing i get. it doesn't tell you what others actually did, just where you are in relation to the peer/model.

 

[BarrySW1963]

What I think is absurd is when CU says you don't match "peer and model adjustments", on a refi for something that has a 10 year old mortgage on it and no HELOC. Unless the HO has been willy nilly applying for refinances, with the reports going into CU without loans ever closing, then how many other reports can there be that have the subject as the subject (since it wouldn't be a comp if it hasn't sold in 10 years)?

 

[Dublin ohio]

[QUOTE="BarrySW1963, post: 2688368, member: 131611" then how many other reports can there be that have the subject as the subject (since it wouldn't be a comp if it hasn't sold in 10 years)?[/QUOTE]

That has nothing to do with the peer and model adjustments. You are providing the subject information within your report. The peer and model adjustments are based on sales data from within your subject's neighborhood. If the majority of your peers are adjusting $30sf for GLA and you only adjust $10sf then you do not match what your peers are doing. Pretty simple concept

 

[djd09]

I guess all the ratings mean nothing until you get the official letter saying you are on the 100% review list.

 

[BarrySW1963]

That has nothing to do with the peer and model adjustments. You are providing the subject information within your report. The peer and model adjustments are based on sales data from within your subject's neighborhood. If the majority of your peers are adjusting $30sf for GLA and you only adjust $10sf then you do not match what your peers are doing. Pretty simple concept

I suspect the adjustments fall out along a normal distribution.

 

[djd09]

I suspect the adjustments fall out along a normal distribution.

If your adjustment is $30 per sq ft and the other unknown appraisers adjustments are $29, $34, $27, $40, they may consider this materially different.

 

[Riick]

If your adjustment is $30 per sq ft and the other unknown appraisers adjustments are $29, $34, $27, $40, they may consider this materially different.

I refuse to comment on "material differences" when I don't know WTF the differences are.
If, As, and When they tell me what I'm being compared against, then we can talk.

Otherwise this sort of crop is like Franz Kafka's "The Trial" - Story of a man arrested and prosecuted by a remote, inaccessible authority, with the nature of his crime revealed neither to him nor to the reader.

 

[BarrySW1963]

If your adjustment is $30 per sq ft and the other unknown appraisers adjustments are $29, $34, $27, $40, they may consider this materially different.

Should they?

I'd really like to see a heat map on that, even for just one big, reasonably homogeneous PUD that CU has a lot of data on. I'd like to see both the raw numbers, and how CU determined which ones were "right", or "reasonable", and what they consider to be an acceptable spread.

Do they have a way to downgrade the reliability of the data coming in from skippies? Does it recognize adjustments that are coming from Big Books of Adjustments (BBofA), vs. those actually extracted by some repeatable/supportable methodology. Does the guy that appraises the most homes in a PUD influence CU's opinion of other appraiser's work, even if the prolific guy isn't necessarily the best guy?

 

[djd09]

Does the guy that appraises the most homes in a PUD influence CU's opinion of other appraiser's work, even if the prolific guy isn't necessarily the best guy?

That is an interesting concept. Can a minority high volume appraisers dictate the machine in certain areas.

Are they not breaking their own intend use of the appraisal by using it as a review tool instead of "the intended use of this report is for the client/lender to evaluate the property that is the subject of this appraisal for a mortgage finance transaction."?