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

[Digger88]

Getting more of these lately where the reviewer wants paired sales or regression support for basically every line item on the grid.

got this exact stip from a new UW at a long term client like this is a manual robo (ask appraiser) comment they make. I sent the following and he closed the file

Sensitivity analysis (a standard, GSE-accepted Sales Comparison Adjustment Method documented in the report) was used (and its definition can be found under MARKET DATA/ADJUSMENT METHODS AT END OF REPORT) because it identifies the adjustments that produce the smallest range of adjusted sales prices. Quality adjustments specifically account for the subject’s all-brick (4 sides) construction versus brick-front/vinyl or all-vinyl. Minor lot-size differences received a $0 adjustment because no market-based evidence exists to support an adjustment for such small variances.

While bracketing is optimal and was utilized wherever possible, it is not a GSE or USPAP requirement for every data field. The report also notes that the appraiser had to go outside one mile to bracket certain aspects of the subject property, and the use of those comps does not render the opinion unreliable. Full adjustment rationale definitions and supporting market data are provided in the ‘MARKET DATA’ section at the end of the report.

Paired-sales analysis was not the primary method used, so no additional paired-sale data is provided (sensitivity analysis was employed instead).

 

[sputnam]

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

Some do... but unless they told youwhat they needed before you accepted the assignment, you have no obligation to do that. Of course, if you don't just comply, you will have to deal with a lot of hassle from them and probably lose the Client. At that point, it's a business decision.

We have seen something similar in the past. Anyone remember 'Comps must be within 1 mile'? There never was a USPAP or GSE requirement that your comparables be within one mile of the subject. Yet, many Lender reviewers and/or underwriters tried to tell us there was.

 

[Salty]

I generate fresh adjustments most of the time - unless I am appraising a property in an area where I generated the adjustment within the last 3-months. I typically use matched pairs if I have a minimum of 2 sets and preferably more in my work file. I use grouped data sets frequently as well. Sometimes I use excel for regression only as an additional support tool. I never use those push-button adjustment software apps/tools. I like my adjustments to be as specific as possible for the immediate neighborhood whenever possible. I always include an "adjustment sheet" with my report showing my work and how I derived each significant adjustment. If I am not able to credible derive an adjustment I simply state I considered it on a qualitative basis. I rarely adjust for site size unless it has the ability to be subdivided. I take the time to support my REL with fresh support. I rarely get push back. But - full disclosure this is just a side gig for me these days. I found easier ways to make significantly more money.

All of this takes a TON of time. Its why I am not able to do non cookie cutter AMC work as the fees don't compensate me properly and I have learned to stop researching and quoting because that is time wasted since I rarely get the order because AMC work handcuffs me to the lowest bidders in my market.

 

[sputnam]

I generate fresh adjustments most of the time - unless I am appraising a property in an area where I generated the adjustment within the last 3-months. I typically use matched pairs if I have a minimum of 2 sets and preferably more in my work file. I use grouped data sets frequently as well. Sometimes I use excel for regression only as an additional support tool. I never use those push-button adjustment software apps/tools. I like my adjustments to be as specific as possible for the immediate neighborhood whenever possible. I always include an "adjustment sheet" with my report showing my work and how I derived each significant adjustment. If I am not able to credible derive an adjustment I simply state I considered it on a qualitative basis. I rarely adjust for site size unless it has the ability to be subdivided. I take the time to support my REL with fresh support. I rarely get push back. But - full disclosure this is just a side gig for me these days. I found easier ways to make significantly more money.

All of this takes a TON of time. Its why I am not able to do non cookie cutter AMC work as the fees don't compensate me properly and I have learned to stop researching and quoting because that is time wasted since I rarely get the order because AMC work handcuffs me to the lowest bidders in my market.

Exactly how it is supposed to be done. Different properties are different. Different neighborhoods are different. Even if you're in the same neighborhood and it's a model match dwelling, the market changes. Part of being appraiser is knowing when it's supportable to use the adjustments that you extracted last week. How much detail you include in the appraisal report is a decision based on the requirements of the Intended User and the Intended Use of the appraisal.

Some appraiser only seem to know one or two... maybe three... methods for extracting and supporting adjustments. There are more than thirty recognized and accepted techniques. No need to use them all every time. That decision should be based on the quantity and quality of the market data that's relevant to the assignment.

 

[Mile High Trout]

You avoid the whole thing with a more comprehensive static pre written into letter which specifically speaks to underwriters.

Best of ability estimates. Then write long winded manual narratives and you never get requests like this in the first place.

Competency is proven in many different ways. If clients hassle you, drop them and find better ones. Don't like to work with people whom automatically have no confidence and question everything, for vendors they select. Screw that, life is too short.

Using all the advanced software to extract adjustments and setting all the peramiters is nonsense. Buyers nor sellers behave that way and use such tools. Home purchases are a human and often emotional based effort where people weight the various forms of value. They don't get out regression charts.

Keep your net/gross indicators in range, bracket everything, and show your MLS research narrowed down. When you narrow the market research and select carefully well aligned comps in a manual method approach, everything is closer together from the start and therefore requires fewer market adjustments.

Proportional distributed allotment. Pieces of the pie. If your peak market indicator is 100k, and your minimum is 1k, you'd need 100k total applied adjust if you compared homes on the extreme opposite range. But if you're picking similar comps, everything will be in the same general price/value bracket, and now you only need a quarter to a fifth or even a tenth of the previous distributed allotment of the proportional range difference. Easy. Keep the math easy and underwriters are far less likely to challenge you. Showing one line overview MLS data is far more effective, cost efficient, and time efficient than using all the advanced tech. Just always save the MLS overview during research to the workfile and keep that in the report. It's all simply too easy because it's so straight forward, honest, and transparent.

Otherwise you're constantly making up tall tales about how your great and mighty intellectual capacity and use of advanced otherworldly technology is what makes you better, at analyzing every day human based home purchase behavior. That's not a commonly held belief among common workers like underwriters, reviewers, agents, etc. Stay on the same level, you'll get far less push back. Keep everything as simple as possible, then type a lot of explanations about the details in. Makes the reports easy to read, straightforward, etc. If they want to take all that MLS data and apply their fancy tech to it, be my guest, I'm not wasting my time with those approaches.

 

[Mile High Trout]

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

View attachment 108507

Yeah, keep it simple; XL lux deck / inferior sml / +15k That's what a deck like that at that home quality scale costs in the real world, approximately fifteen thousand, so that's the adjustment.

Always relative to the subject. This is why comps sharing and MLS auto fill does not work all that well either. Inferior/superior/ quality match, similar, model match. Descriptions like lux! Wow! Vgd++, weak appeal, investor only, run down, fix fix, dated, updated, vgd remod. Hrdwds!, basic vinyl, etc. Abbreviations people can understand. Never make them use the abbreviation add ons which list everything and you have to enter your own lines so they can understand.

Type the grid in manually, it's way easier.

I'll spend hours extra if needed via manual process on the front end to avoid the headache that comes with constant back and forth clarification and revision. Back end revision disrupts everything from deadlines to workflow rythm, my very sanity itself.

I've been deleting about 15 years worth of stale workfile data from my primary PC, need to free up hard drive space for computation power and speed. I'm reviewing old clients, back to the AMC days. Some of these companies..... I'd have revised not once, twice, three times, sometimes four and five total final reports present.

To present day; most of the work I turn in now, I only turn in one single time. Way easier.

 

[TerryRohrer]

You avoid the whole thing with a more comprehensive static pre written into letter which specifically speaks to underwriters.

Best of ability estimates. Then write long winded manual narratives and you never get requests like this in the first place.

Competency is proven in many different ways. If clients hassle you, drop them and find better ones. Don't like to work with people whom automatically have no confidence and question everything, for vendors they select. Screw that, life is too short.

Using all the advanced software to extract adjustments and setting all the peramiters is nonsense. Buyers nor sellers behave that way and use such tools. Home purchases are a human and often emotional based effort where people weight the various forms of value. They don't get out regression charts.

Keep your net/gross indicators in range, bracket everything, and show your MLS research narrowed down. When you narrow the market research and select carefully well aligned comps in a manual method approach, everything is closer together from the start and therefore requires fewer market adjustments.

Proportional distributed allotment. Pieces of the pie. If your peak market indicator is 100k, and your minimum is 1k, you'd need 100k total applied adjust if you compared homes on the extreme opposite range. But if you're picking similar comps, everything will be in the same general price/value bracket, and now you only need a quarter to a fifth or even a tenth of the previous distributed allotment of the proportional range difference. Easy. Keep the math easy and underwriters are far less likely to challenge you. Showing one line overview MLS data is far more effective, cost efficient, and time efficient than using all the advanced tech. Just always save the MLS overview during research to the workfile and keep that in the report. It's all simply too easy because it's so straight forward, honest, and transparent.

Otherwise you're constantly making up tall tales about how your great and mighty intellectual capacity and use of advanced otherworldly technology is what makes you better, at analyzing every day human based home purchase behavior. That's not a commonly held belief among common workers like underwriters, reviewers, agents, etc. Stay on the same level, you'll get far less push back. Keep everything as simple as possible, then type a lot of explanations about the details in. Makes the reports easy to read, straightforward, etc. If they want to take all that MLS data and apply their fancy tech to it, be my guest, I'm not wasting my time with those approaches.

Your capacity to bury a page in BS is without equal. I suspect you might occasionally have something worth reading if you focused on being coherent. In this relatively short screed, there must a dozen fabricated terms and concepts without merit, buried in a diatribe of drivel. I assume, in a nutshell, you meant to say, "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull$%^&". WC Fields would be proud of you; I think you have mastered the approach to saying nothing using as many words as is humanly possible.

 

[Mile High Trout]

Your capacity to bury a page in BS is without equal. I suspect you might occasionally have something worth reading if you focused on being coherent. In this relatively short screed, there must a dozen fabricated terms and concepts without merit, buried in a diatribe of drivel. I assume, in a nutshell, you meant to say, "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull$%^&". WC Fields would be proud of you; I think you have mastered the approach to saying nothing using as many words as is humanly possible.

Not a big fan of literacy? I understand why this is difficult for some people. Let's try again because I'm here to help.

Proportional distributed allotment. It's real. It works. It's simple. Transparent. Honest. The closer you are in comps selection, the fewer adjustments need applied.

By posting the MLS overview within the report, you have accomplished multiple tasks in the most simplistic manner possible. Everything worth considering, has been considered. There is the proof and the actual specific addresses for review and confidence building purposes.

Explain in regular understandable english, the basic approach to sorting MLS data to get a more accurate narrowly defined final data set together. Describe in simple terms the supply demand balance, strength or weakness of the market. Cover the standard talking points of absorption time, buyer acceptance, concessions expectations, list to sale ratios, average marketing time expectations, buyer resistance, increasing or declining trends, etc, etc. Run a simple paragraph stating what every adjustment was, ppsf $X, bed $X, Bath $Y, uad bas at X/Y, & y/y/y/y room count, land at x% of scaled up ppsf as indicated in cost approach, garage at $X per slot, drive at $Y.

You don't need the fancy tech or to buy additional software to get the job done with minimal resistance. This is why I get first in line placement with panel approval and the other guys wait. All I have to do is show up and apply. I don't really do that anymore because I don't want the work. But the method works, is tried and true. Decades without a single claim or state complaint. Not one single time. Proving the defensibility and adherence to minimum standards through the entire range of clients, underwriters, reviewers, agents, individuals, all work types.

Real estate is a human endeavor. So be human. It's not rocket science and you don't need to be a math genius to be a great residential property appraiser. If you can talk the language of real estate. You can type the language of real estate.

What exactly about these simple basic valuation concepts and approaches are you struggling with?

 

[alebrewer]

Who bumps a 5 month old thread??

 

[Mile High Trout]

Who bumps a 5 month old thread??

So slow around here. The topic is interesting. It's a constant consideration for appraisers.

Was there something more important happening in this section?