I am right, right?

[Zoe]

Yes. I explained in detail using the 1004MC addendum as "visual". I explained the percent increases of the three monthly groups (0-3 months, 3-6 months 7-12 months) I also explained the weakness of just using the median prices and that I used matched pairs from similar properties that sold different time frames and reconciled the variances. Not only was I more thorough than most appraisers but I was more thorough on this appraisal than most of my others. It just outlines the problem with relying on CU.

I can be way worse and say CU is stealing intellectual property data they should be paying for. But I see you know your market. That matters to me.

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

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.

What's the contractual relationship between a mortgage lender and investors? Does an investor typically have relationships with multiple lenders? If lenders are required to conduct internal quality control, and also required to buy back a failed loan that later is demonstrated to be based upon a faulty appraisal, who is responsible for failed loans based on AVM's or waivers????

 

[DWiley]

Throwing in a 4000 sf house in this example just because it has a pool is not bracketing; it is idiocy.

It may be, but it is also quite common. I have seen countless examples of that type of "bracketing"

 

[J Grant]

It may be, but it is also quite common. I have seen countless examples of that type of "bracketing"

I did a lot of reviewing back in the day and did not see too many appraisals bracketed with such a ridiculous choice of sale comp. What I saw was the reverses - pushed values from lack of bracketing, or ignoring the data found price difference between superior location comps and a subject with either no adjustment made or a minor token adjustment made.

Imo, appraisers guilty of either as a deliberate pattern should be weeded out.

 

[CGinMN]

More data in the report, if given the proper amount of weight (including none) is not bad. Appraisals must be sufficient to enable the intended users to understand the appraisal. The intended user generally isn’t an appraiser, and they’re not an expert in quantitative comparison in every market they review. Sometimes they just need to see something analyzed that's overall superior to get comfortable. Sometimes in an ROV you throw the borrower’s sales on the grid to show them, despite these not being among the most similar sales, they don’t help your cause just because they have a higher price. Sometime when you have a pushy agent who knows the value isn’t there, you get their sales up front so you can analyze them in the report to pre-empt an ROV. This is the real world appraisers deal with every day. As long as it’s given proper weight, I really don’t see the issue.

 

[Mark K]

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

Not always. Somebody always has the 1) largest house, 2) smallest house, 3) largest/best lot, 4) largest/most outbuildings, 5) the strangest design (dome home, log cabin, earth sheltered house, mobile home attached to a stick built home), etc.. I've appraised enough of those types of SFR to know that bracketing is not always possible.

As an excellent reviewer once told me "If you don't have good comps, tell me a good story". Explain thoroughly why you did what you did. Might take some extensive narrative but if adequately explained, there shouldn't be an issue.

 

[Dublin ohio]

Not always. Somebody always has the 1) largest house, 2) smallest house, 3) largest/best lot, 4) largest/most outbuildings, 5) the strangest design (dome home, log cabin, earth sheltered house, mobile home attached to a stick built home), etc.. I've appraised enough of those types of SFR to know that bracketing is not always possible.

As an excellent reviewer once told me "If you don't have good comps, tell me a good story". Explain thoroughly why you did what you did. Might take some extensive narrative but if adequately explained, there shouldn't be an issue.

I'm finishing up one now 2 miles from my house that is a real pia. No real "good" comps within the past 2 years. Land to value is 45%. But that is common in this neighborhood until you get into the very high range of prices. I have 4 sales that are relatively comparable and 3 of them are in the same boat. Only the highest priced one , $959K is below 40%. many sales in the neighborhood are as high as 60% but are up to 65% less in GLA then my 3200 sf subject. Most would think that these would be tear downs, but it doesn't happen very often. I am going to have to write a small book

 

[NC Appraising]

Let's be honest here. Which produces a more credible appraisal and value:

1. Using a non comparable or a less comparable sale with that feature.

Or

2. Making an across the board adjustment that was market derived by match pairing, etc.

I would take #2 80% of the time.

The problem with #1 is this new cool term grid analysis or sensitivity analysis. Some appraisers are actually using the non comparable or the less comparable to make the adjustment via grid/sensitivity analysis. That is the problem.


Now if you want to use a non comparable to bracket (sorry in most cases not a hill worth dying on....the lenders are just trying to get it through) just put it as the last sale, State no weight was given and was only used for bracketing purposes. Derive the adjustment from the market via direct sales, match pairing, etc.

 

[Zoe]

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?

When you say market. Always focus on subject real property rights market. That is where CU can get in trouble. If you are very skilled in subject property location and market. You are better than anybody on appraisal.

In more simple terms, CU can use things that are not even similar to the subject property real property rights.

 

[Zoe]

Think of generic vs specific and you will catch my drift. Focus on subject real property rights. Be specific.