I am right, right?

[Tom4value]

Did an appraisal in May. Had to make significant positive market adjustments my data made it clear. They came back with CU findings that said I was too high. I responded with a detailed explanation of my data. They were impressed and accepted the report.

Fast forward to now. Their investor have problems with CU with my market adjustments, with CU. I responded and noted that it was the investor. I responded that my comments supported my findings and I wouldn’t change my report based on CU findings based that didn’t provide any data to support I was wrong.

I was right to even respond, right?

 

[glenn walker]

Don't know significant positive adjustments ? What kind of positive adjustments?
** need the whole scenario to be able to know what's really going on.

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

Did an appraisal in May. Had to make significant positive market adjustments my data made it clear. They came back with CU findings that said I was too high. I responded with a detailed explanation of my data. They were impressed and accepted the report.

Fast forward to now. Their investor have problems with CU with my market adjustments, with CU. I responded and noted that it was the investor. I responded that my comments supported my findings and I wouldn’t change my report based on CU findings based that didn’t provide any data to support I was wrong.

I was right to even respond, right?

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.

 

[Dublin ohio]

Did an appraisal in May. Had to make significant positive market adjustments my data made it clear. They came back with CU findings that said I was too high. I responded with a detailed explanation of my data. They were impressed and accepted the report.

Fast forward to now. Their investor have problems with CU with my market adjustments, with CU. I responded and noted that it was the investor. I responded that my comments supported my findings and I wouldn’t change my report based on CU findings based that didn’t provide any data to support I was wrong.

I was right to even respond, right?

That is the problem with CU, it's what your "peers" say. Just looked at an appraisal that had all of the nifty graphs like the one Fannie example. national, state and msa graphs, but not a single mention of the actual neighborhood. Did a quick matched pair in the neighborhood and it showed 9% increase for the particular neighborhood. Appraiser said stable

 

[glenn walker]

Again just the facts. What kind of positive adjustments, you said were significant ? Don't care about CU that's another issue and thread.

 

[Joe Flacco]

Show us the detailed explanation and the data for the significant market conditions adjustments.

 

[sputnam]

Did an appraisal in May. Had to make significant positive market adjustments my data made it clear. They came back with CU findings that said I was too high. I responded with a detailed explanation of my data. They were impressed and accepted the report.

Fast forward to now. Their investor have problems with CU with my market adjustments, with CU. I responded and noted that it was the investor. I responded that my comments supported my findings and I wouldn’t change my report based on CU findings based that didn’t provide any data to support I was wrong.

I was right to even respond, right?

I think you were 'right' to respond. It's not professional to ghost Clients or potential Clients... but, at the end of the day, it's a business decision. Full disclosure, I am very old school about how business should be conducted.

 

[J Grant]

Did an appraisal in May. Had to make significant positive market adjustments my data made it clear. They came back with CU findings that said I was too high. I responded with a detailed explanation of my data. They were impressed and accepted the report.

Fast forward to now. Their investor have problems with CU with my market adjustments, with CU. I responded and noted that it was the investor. I responded that my comments supported my findings and I wouldn’t change my report based on CU findings based that didn’t provide any data to support I was wrong.

I was right to even respond, right?

You should have had higher price sales as comps, but more importantly, superior or equal feature and location sales where you either made some downward adjustments or needed to make no positive adjustments. A report with all positive adjustments, which means it used inferior and or lower price comps, is a red flag.

You already responded but your response was you are not changing anything. Either they will accept the report or reject it. Even if accepted, any reviewer can challenge a report at any time. That is why bracketing the sales is far more bulletproof than comments.

There were no equivalent quality comps to use that did not need these positive upward adjustments?

 

[Zoe]

Yes, you need to respond. You still need to respond.

When you say market adjustments, do you mean all the adjustments or just market condition adjustments? There is a difference.

I am trying to zero in on which adjustments they have a problem with.

 

[glenn walker]

You should have had higher price sales as comps, but more importantly, superior or equal feature and location sales where you either made some downward adjustments or needed to make no positive adjustments. A report with all positive adjustments, which means it used inferior and or lower price comps, is a red flag.

You already responded but your response was you are not changing anything. Either they will accept the report or reject it. Even if accepted, any reviewer can challenge a report at any time. That is why bracketing the sales is far more bulletproof than comments.

There were no equivalent quality comps to use that did not need these positive upward adjustments?

Agree 100 %
On post funding Investor review's we offered the appraiser to clarify his position and support it.

Note : A Post Investors Review is when we funded the loan and sold the loan to a Wells Cargo Chaser or other larger entity including Fannie or Freddie.

If they return the appraisal saying their review show's it's value is not credible based on say Unsupported Positive Only Adjustments, unless mitigated we are going to have to buy back that loan and hold it and service it.

If the Appraiser States He won't address the issue by showing how and why these adjustments are correct then we were then dead in the water and owned loan.

I always told appraisers even if they are correct to address the issue and defend it and why they did it that way. If they blew us off it indicated they couldn't defend or support their adjustments or reasoning and they lost credibility. **I DOUBT THEY ASKED HIM to change his value but they asked if the value was supported without using significantly ++ high adjustments.