How are you handling "support your adjustments" revision requests?

[Digger88]

Actually JG came up with this a long while ago I may have added on to it or used it in its entirety for the simple stuff

 

[Tom4value]

I rarely get these requests and I never get requests to explain every single adjustment. I be proactive on adjustments (or lack of) that may be an issue. For instance, an across the board pool adjustment. I state that I used sales dissimilar to the subject and compare them to each other with sale with a pool. I show recipes. I state the properties, sp, dates and different figures to reconcile the adjustment. Just saying you did it without actual properties screams BS.

If I don’t adjust comps for something that might look like it should, I explain why. “Comp 1 is roughly the same distance from an active r.r. Track. In comparison with the other two comparables, it appears that the tracks had no affect on sales price. Therefore, no adjustment to the comps is warranted.”

I tell in my report that other adjustments are derived from group data analysis, something I update when things are slow. The key is being proactive and explaining the FIRST TIME. Once their BS light is turned on, it is 10x harder to turn it off.

Charts in a report I keep to a minimum. I have talked about this before. Giving raw data only gives ammo for a reader to make their own conclusions. They are paying for my conclusions, my analysis, presented in a summary form in the report. If they still question me, I have the data in my work file I can use to refine my explanation.

 

[sputnam]

Boilerplate comments are not the answer. Just write one or two sentences about what you did to determine each adjustment.

 

[Tom D]

Boilerplate comments are not the answer. Just write one or two sentences about what you did to determine each adjustment.

I think they want to see some numbers, somewhere, with blanket comments. But, don't give them the secrete adjustment list.

 

[ilsindaco2628]

Won't be long (or maybe they already do it) until they want proof for $0 adjustments. Prove that they are sufficiently similar that they require no adjustments.

I already get that regularly.

Subject lot size 6,500 SF. Comps range 4,500-8,000 sf

I will get a revision asking for an explanation on lack of site size adjustments. So much fun.

 

[J Grant]

I already get that regularly.

Subject lot size 6,500 SF. Comps range 4,500-8,000 sf

I will get a revision asking for an explanation on lack of site size adjustments. So much fun.

I know, right...but we should provide an explanation on the front end to avoid a revision request. State that after applying all other adjustments, no measurable $ for sf adjustment was found for lot size variances ( if that is true )

 

[L J Fell]

Getting more of these lately where the reviewer wants paired sales or regression support for basically every line item on the grid. Time/date, fine. But when they want me to prove my GLA rate with a paired sales analysis on a report I'm getting paid $500 for, it feels like the math doesn't work.

For those of you getting these regularly, are you building up a library of paired sales you can pull from? Or are you doing fresh analysis every time and just eating the hours?

I've been on both sides of this before being forced into retirement. I spent 15 years as a fee appraiser, then another 7 as the lead review appraiser at an AMC. In my time reviewing appraisals, I often got requests from lenders to have the fee appraiser support adjustments. Some things made sense, like a 5-acre lot in an area of predominantly 1-acre parcels. But for what you are describing, I handled things differently. I'd tell the lender that what they're looking for is well outside the scope of the assignment they contracted for. I'd tell them I'd ask the appraiser what they'd charge to upgrade the assignment to a full narrative appraisal. Loan officers HATED me, but the risk managers and corporate VPs backed me up far more often than not. All of that to say, take what I communicated to the lenders, and tell that to the AMC. If you do good work and generally work well with them to dot the i's and cross the t's for their underwriters, they should back you up. Your extra time is worth the money.

 

[Cob]

I already get that regularly.

Subject lot size 6,500 SF. Comps range 4,500-8,000 sf

I will get a revision asking for an explanation on lack of site size adjustments. So much fun.

Like a potential buyer is going to say, "We're buying this house because the lot is 6,900 SF and the othe property was only 6,700 SF." Some of the requests are so silly.

 

[Digger88]

How do you explain your adjustments for exterior amenities which may differ in size to other similarly constructed amenities

yeah, I chuckle everytime

*Buyer- why is their a SmlDk adjustment?

-Your neighbor has a LrgDk, obviously

 

[sputnam]

Getting more of these lately where the reviewer wants paired sales or regression support for basically every line item on the grid. Time/date, fine. But when they want me to prove my GLA rate with a paired sales analysis on a report I'm getting paid $500 for, it feels like the math doesn't work.

For those of you getting these regularly, are you building up a library of paired sales you can pull from? Or are you doing fresh analysis every time and just eating the hours?

Are you asking about methods of complying with revision requests? Or about proving after action revisions that you didn't agree to at the time you accepted the assignment? The appraiser sets the Scope of Work. The appraiser determines the level of detail necessary to meet the needs of the Intended Users and Intended Use. That is supposed to be considered before accepting the assignment. If it's not in the letter of engagement... or told you on the phone, by email, or something... then they pay. USPAP requires, at minimum, that we summarize the support and rationale for conclusions and opinions... to describe what sort of analysis was done. For example, unless agreed to before the order is accepted... you are not required to include a land sales grid to support your site value. Of course, you can if you choose to. For me.. it's extra time and that means extra fee. All that is required again, at minimum, is usually saying something like... 'The opinion of site value was determined using allocation.' or whatever you actually did.

From a business standpoint... if you want to do business with Clients who change the game after the report is delivered... you certainly can do so. I don't.