Collateral Underwriter

[DTB]

Lenders with their own review departments will spend time reviewing the CU findings against the appraisal report. Many times, if CU flags the report as a higher-risk loan, upon review, the issues disappear. When the reviewer cannot clear the item him/herself, it will then be sent to the appraiser for a response.

However, many smaller lenders (and some larger ones) don't have a "review department" per se. In that case, it may be an underwriter who is making the decision to send the issues back to the appraiser. This isn't a function (necessarily) of an inept lender; it is a function of their structure. If there isn't a review appraiser available to review the report, then the likely result is a request gets sent to the appraiser direct. This has caused a lot of frustration; especially for appraisers who deal with an AMC that has both types of lender-clients: One lender may just ask a specific question because they've already filtered through the CU & appraisal; another lender may not have that ability and just send off the issues to the appraiser to address.

A lender without the capacity to review appraisals internally has made a business decision. The appraisers dealing with a lender outsourcing these functions needs to charge more as a business decision. No free lunch for those lenders.

This is necessary due to the explanation in the passage below.










The discussion (and, in some cases, support) is critical to the lender. If the reports simply state things, that's about as good as the CU (which simply prints out a number or a suggested adjustment). Reports that provide a summary of the problem, analysis of the issues, support for the adjustments, and a reconciliation of why they picked the value they picked have the information needed to refute the risk-flag from the get-go. Nevertheless, remember, if the lender does not have the bandwidth to digest that, they may default to a request-to-address CU issues anyway (even if it is in the report).










Based on the presentations, there is no way a CU risk-flag can hold water against an adequately written and supported appraisal. There is just no way. And, while I don't want to put words in any of the presenters in my sessions, that is my take-away of how they felt as well.

Those who have the gold make the rules, I wouldn't be so sure of these assumptions represented to you.


.

Overall great info Denis, thanks.

 

[DTB]

Here is an example of some of the AMC reviewers you will be dealing with.

https://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/rej/5276133951.html



















Based on the presentations, there is no way a CU risk-flag can hold water against an adequately written and supported appraisal. There is just no way. And, while I don't want to put words in any of the presenters in my sessions, that is my take-away of how they felt as well.

Those who have the gold make the rules, I wouldn't be so sure of these assumptions represented to you.


.[/QUOTE]

Overall great info Denis, thanks.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

7. A big flag is conflicting "C" and "Q" ratings.
This will result in a "hit" almost every time. There is no getting around this, like it or not. Inconsistent ratings will trigger an alert. If there is a reason for the difference and it is known, then it should be explained in the report (remodeled, or the place has been damaged since the last time the appraiser used it, etc.).

Does this mean if the appraiser previously used a sale for analysis in a UAD report, and the C/Q rating is different in a current UAD appraisal report, the appraiser should explain in the current report why C/Q information is different in a prior report?

Obviously, this can happen, especially in areas with no centralized listing databases such as MLS.

 

[timd354]

Does this mean if the appraiser previously used a sale for analysis in a UAD report, and the C/Q rating is different in a current UAD appraisal report, the appraiser should explain in the current report why C/Q information is different in a prior report?

Obviously, this can happen, especially in areas with no centralized listing databases such as MLS.

Yes, an appraiser should include an explanation if his C and/or Q ratings for a property have changed from a prior report. Otherwise, the intended user of the report is going to have concerns that the appraiser may have manipulated the ratings.

 

[hastalavista]

Does this mean if the appraiser previously used a sale for analysis in a UAD report, and the C/Q rating is different in a current UAD appraisal report, the appraiser should explain in the current report why C/Q information is different in a prior report?

Obviously, this can happen, especially in areas with no centralized listing databases such as MLS.

As Tim mentioned, yes, an explanation why there is a change is the expectation and would address the conflict.
If the report doesn't include one going-into submission, then it will be required afterward.

 

[bnmappraisal]

Here is an example of some of the AMC reviewers you will be dealing with.

https://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/rej/5276133951.html

at least they "require" this:
"You will be required to pass the Appraisal Institutes 75 hours of Appraiser Trainee courses within the first 3 months of employment."