I am right, right?

[glenn walker]

It just sounds like the investor wants to blame the appraiser because the market is softening. Maybe the investor listed the subject property slightly above the OP's OA value and is not getting any bites.

Again, we don't know the whole story.

The investors can reject the purchase of the loan based on what their guidelines are and the lender may have approved it and funded it without reviewing it or something else. It's rare we had maybe
1 out of 1, 000 that got pushed back.

WE DON'T KNOW THE STORY all we got from the OP was he used "significant positive adjustments " to get the value and he told lender that he's standing on it and refused to change it.

Anything else is Pure Conjecture but like I stated it's rare the Investor rejects the appraisal as nobody wins.

 

[HVNY]

And when there is no sales to bracket?

Always sales to bracket - go further out and further back until you get one.

 

[TerryRohrer]

Always sales to bracket - go further out and further back until you get one.

Irrelevant information simply to appease some fool doesn't belong in an appraisal report. Bracketing price has become a "thing" because appraisers can't or won't competently develop and convey their opinions. Just throw another irrelevant sale in.

 

[gregb]

Bracketing might be best practices in some markets, not applicable to rural markets with a paucity of market data.

 

[DWiley]

Irrelevant information simply to appease some fool doesn't belong in an appraisal report. Bracketing price has become a "thing" because appraisers can't or won't competently develop and convey their opinions. Just throw another irrelevant sale in.

I wish I could like this 100 times. Theoretically, bracketing is done to support adjustments via sensitivity analysis, but that theoretical "support" is worthless if the additional sale is so dissimilar in other ways that it isn't really even a comparable.

If the subject is a 2,000 SF, 3 BR home with a pool, throwing in a 4,000 SF sale just because it has a pool and pretending that lends support for the pool adjustment is just a fallacy.

 

[Surf Cat]

I wish I could like this 100 times. Theoretically, bracketing is done to support adjustments via sensitivity analysis, but that theoretical "support" is worthless if the additional sale is so dissimilar in other ways that it isn't really even a comparable.

Those are the sales I used to get for ROV's from AMC's even though I was bracketed in the report LOL

 

[gregb]

Those are the sales I used to get for ROV's from AMC's even though I was bracketed in the report LOL

You should see the VA Tidewater "comparables" provided by realtors.

 

[Fernando]

Collateral Underwriter. a Fannie Mae thing. I know that and I haven't done secondary market in15 years nearly.

You're a good guy, unlike Zoe always wanting money.
Now I know what the thread is about.

 

[J Grant]

I wish I could like this 100 times. Theoretically, bracketing is done to support adjustments via sensitivity analysis, but that theoretical "support" is worthless if the additional sale is so dissimilar in other ways that it isn't really even a comparable.

If the subject is a 2,000 SF, 3 BR home with a pool, throwing in a 4,000 SF sale just because it has a pool and pretending that lends support for the pool adjustment is just a fallacy.

I agree - good bracketing is not throwing in irrelevant sales as that poster alleged, or using sales with huge differences that are so dissimilar they need gigantic adjustments just because the sale brackes one feature.

But well-selected sales comps that bracket are bulletproof - the comps with similar/equivalent features or that bracket up or down for a feature or defect present fact price proof that the market pays more for X positive feature and less for Y adverse defect.
Putting in the effort to bracket also serves to determine whether a subject is an over improvement or super adequacy (or under improvement ) . If the subject is 4000 sf and the max size of other houses in an area is 2700 sf and nothing over 2700 sf sold in over three years, it might be a clue ( for example )

One can search outside the area of course, but that can be misleading at times wrt is X feature market is accepted in the subject area -

 

[Tom4value]

Just curious: so the lending client conditioned the report based upon CU factors; you responded; and then the investor came back at you with the same/similar conditions?? Did investor communicate with you via the lender, or independently? And, were the CU factors described verbatim or did the client paraphrase the factors? [I'm just trying to understand the scenario because I received numerous conditions but I don't remember any that described specific CU factors.] THANKS.

I responded to the client's underwriter via a revised report and they accepted it. When they went to sell to the investor, their underwriting had a problem via CU findings. My client gave me their findings/complaints but I only responded to my client. The investor saw my response via the revised report. No details from investor. Only, "CU findings suggest adjustments of $zzz". I responded that I stick to my data and will not change report to fit CU findings, especially since they gave me no other data that refuted my findings.