How do You Handle Revision Requests that aren't Necessary?

[ZZGAMAZZ]

After the question it says 'if no, describe' I put my analysis there even though I answered yes. It only spills over to the additional comments when the zoning is atypical.

But don't reporting reqs require the appraise to analyze and to report rather than just to report if HBU is not the current improvements--although that perspective admittedly seems to contradict the basic format of the question.

 

[JeffSH]

But don't reporting reqs require the appraise to analyze and to report rather than just to report if HBU is not the current improvements--although that perspective admittedly seems to contradict the basic format of the question.

USPAP isn't specific. You just have to do more than check the box. It's brief, but I think I cover the bases. Maybe not. I'm using the 4 tests of HBU, I'm just not directly referencing them. If the zoning is weird, then I explain in detail in a text addendum.

 

[Deleted member 157170]

I will highlight the section they are asking about that was in the original report (if it’s I. The addenda), and simply write “the appraiser has highlighted the comment requested by the reviewer that was available in the original report so they can find it”. If it’s not in the addenda I will point out that it was in the original report and that it was a reviewer error. Usually stop receiving unnecessary revisions shortly after. My assumption is that AMCs don’t like their clients seeing that their reviewers aren’t very good and will shape up quickly to prevent it from happening.

 

[Dublin ohio]

My point about different types of appraisal software pertains to the confusing job it must be to look for a specific type of data when the information is reported in different formats depending upon the appraisal software.

Not sure what you mean by different "formats". A 1004 is a 1004. 6 pages. From that point on. A photo page is a photo page, a map page is a map page, a comment addendum is a comment addendum. How you arrange the various addenda is up to you.

 

[Dublin ohio]

But don't reporting reqs require the appraise to analyze and to report rather than just to report if HBU is not the current improvements--although that perspective admittedly seems to contradict the basic format of the question.

Reporting requirements are summarize.

 

[Mike Ault]

I just had a reviewer force me to put my HBU analysis in the additional comments section. I guess it's a lender requirement? "Given the single family zoning and condition of the improvements, the current use (single family residential) is the highest and best use." That's all I use. Fits in the space after the checkbox.

When reviewers try and "force me" to do something I don't want to do I "force them" to justify their actions. They will have to give me something in writing that "proves" I owe them service above and beyond published GSE guidelines. When they come back and say "client overlay" I refer them back to their letter of engagement which invariably makes no mention of it. My problem is solved at that point, and it becomes their problem. My favorite one is "bracketing of adjusted and unadjusted sales price of the subject with comparables". Especially when you're doing an appraisal on the worst REO in a small town. I have fun with them on those, i.e. "Why don't you go purchase something in that town, let a gang use it for a meth shooting gallery for six months, and then try & sell it? That way we might have something worse than your assignment."

 

[rhaltunen]

Over the past two weeks, I've been getting multiple revision requests from the same AMC/client. Everything the reviewer asks for has already been covered in the original reports. Examples of such requests are they ask for an aerial view of the subject when there is already one in the report. Another example is commenting on the use of a comp that is more than one mile from the subject or more than six months old when the comment is already in the report. I could go on and on but all of their requests are similar to these. For the first two revisions, I just commented in the revision where they could find the info they were looking for. After that, I decided I wasn't going to waste any more of my time and just emailed the AMC and told them everything the reviewer is asking for is already in the report. I'm not sure if it's the AMC or the client who is making such requests. I've never had this issue with this AMC or client before. Not sure what's going on. What would you folks do in this situation?

Update: I contacted the borrower (who was hot to trot to get his project underway) and let him know how/why his loan was being held up. Two days later, the revision request disappeared. Go figure...

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

Not sure what you mean by different "formats". A 1004 is a 1004. 6 pages. From that point on. A photo page is a photo page, a map page is a map page, a comment addendum is a comment addendum. How you arrange the various addenda is up to you.

few occasions when I've been provided with a non-ACI format to look over, I find the other software versions to be very confusing.

 

[DWiley]

Not sure what you mean by different "formats". A 1004 is a 1004. 6 pages. From that point on. A photo page is a photo page, a map page is a map page, a comment addendum is a comment addendum. How you arrange the various addenda is up to you.

Yes, the basic form is the same, but how the various software vendors, and various appraisers, format (or do not format) text addendum pages makes reading many appraisal reports akin to a giant Easter egg hunt.

In most forms software, if the comments in a section will not fit on the form, then the software automatically creates a text addendum page. But how that addendum page is presented varies. Some software organizes comments so that the items appear in the same order they appear in the form. Some software puts the comments in the order that they are typed. And, some appraisers do not use the auto text addendum feature and create their own, often without labels, and often covering the same topic in multiple locations. The most difficult to read are those with the "walls of text" (love that description that someone else used) with not a single line break or section header.

I have seen reports with the "prior services" comment in three different places in the same report. And, in some of those reports the comments contradict each other. (e.g. page 3 of the URAR says no prior services, but a blurb on page 15 in a text addendum says the appraiser did provide prior services).

I 100% agree that reviewers should read the report. But, I also think that many who write those reports could do a better job of making them easier to read.

 

[George Hatch]

Forms with comment fields that are far too small to provide even a simple summary are how we got to the multi-page narrative addenda. The problem with narrative formats in general is that they're unstructured and non-standard in terms of where people handle these different issues.

If the base forms were even a couple pages longer then most appraisals would fit on them without needing any narrative addenda. For example, the MC analysis or its equivalent belongs in the main form, prior to the SC. Just doubling the size of the existing comment fields throughout the report would cut down on the unstructured narrative addenda. It would also cut way down on the redundancies when your dealing with everything related to the site in the Site Analysis and not splitting the location of that information into 2 sections in the report.

The AI forms are an example of this. An appraiser can say pretty much anything they need to say for most appraisal problems on that form without having to default to an addendum. Only the more complicated problems would need more explanation.

A longer base form might *seem* like adding to the appraiser's workload but IRL there's no difference between a base form + extra comps page + 2-3 pages of narrative vs a base form of 8 or 9 pages. Plus, the reader can read the entire report from front to back instead of repeatedly switching between the form and addenda.