I agree with you. You have to produce a product that is useable.
It is a VERY rare occurance for an underwriter to have a question about one of my reports. A couple of my clients have told me that they LOVE my reports because they sail through underwriting. The difference is that they have the full story on the property, so they can appropriately classify the risk.
Those "guidelines" that the LOs are constantly pressuring us to make the square peg fit into are risk assessment tools. The property is typically not disqualified from obtaining a loan - like the wheadling LOs tell us. The secondary market just pays less for mortgages on properties that are less than ideal for resale. They must offset the higher holding costs for "rural" versus "suburban or urban" homes, or "earth berm" versus conventional construction, or areas with a 15% vacancy rate versus areas with a 2% vacancy rate, or average marketing time of 200 days versus 60 days. This negatively impacts the Borkers income! That's why they pressure us and lie to us to get us to modify our adjectives and neutralize our adjustments and classifications.
Our job is to provide the data that let's the PROVIDER OF THE FUNDS appropriately adjust their fees - by telling them the whole truth, and knowing what the whole truth as reasonably discoverable.
My point was that though you don't always get what you pay for when you pay top dollar, you DO always get what you pay for when you pay bottom dollar.
The fast and cheap convince themselves that the research is unnecessary, and sweating the details is unwanted - as evidenced by the pressure to lower fees and speed up the process. Consequently, they tell themselves that they must get more efficient in order to compete (rather than just saying no to ridiculous fees & turn times), so they set about to become ultra efficient. Their neighborhood grid and comments are WAG, and NEVER indicate higher than 5% vacancy rate or 6 month marketing time. The reports are defaults with average, average, average and middle of the graph checkmarks all over them. Type in the address and legal, do the laser drawing, fill in how many bedrooms and baths on which floor, plug in 3 comps with a tiny adjustment here and there and VOILA! you've done an appraisal. Sign and hit send.
After all, the mortgage industry continues to tell us that they do not want to pay for the research to ascertain the whole story; nor do they want to allow the time for appropriate research and analysis. Because they get appraisers to work that cheap and fast, they think the rest of us are overcharging and lazy.
The mortgage industry isn't forcing lower fees - APPRAISERS ARE!
They lower the fees that the lenders expect to pay by accepting lower fees :? :!:
USPAP and State Licensing tells us one story, our clients tell us another. The bottom line is that we will be held responsible for USPAP and Licensing standards - regardless of what the snake oil salesperson says.
(Since we're responsible for it - do it, and charge for it :!: )
PS - Just to support my opinion about the fast and cheap. I did a desk review last week on an appraisal turned out by an appraisal mill using local trainees in distant locations. The trainee was named in the report, and he lives less than 2 miles from the subject - he could at least do thorough research once a year for his neighborhood template! He reported local MLS #s as his resource - which I verified as accurate - a selected them appropriately close in proximity. The area has good availability of data via internet, and the MLS system is the best one that I've seen for market trend analysis. It is very easy to provide accurate data for the neighborhood grid. The report was tepid, minimal description, soared past guidelines. At first glance, it looked good.
So what does his grid look like? Every check mark in the middle - including marketing time of 3 to 6 months. There has been no year, in the 10 that are easily searchable on the MLS, that average marketing time in this neighborhood had risen to 60 days. (okay - I'm picking nits - I didn't even mention that in the review, or other inaccuracies that misreporting did not impact value - and in this case, does not impact risk assessment).
How does he describe the subject? Average, average, average.
How does he describe the comparables? Average, average, average. Minimal adjustments made - none for condition.
What's the problem? The MLS listings of each of the comparables state that they are "completely remodelled", specifying new siding, roof, windows, furnace, electric updated, kitchen & bath cabinets & fixures, new floor coverings throughout, etc, etc. This is far from average! Our subject report simply states "bath remodelled" - in the additional features comment(?) - and a neutral defaulted average, average, average statement in the condition of improvements comment. Comparables in close proximity that do not list substantial remodelling sell for 35% to 40% less than the remodelled properties.
Now, what's right - his value conclusion using no condition adjustments against substantially remodelled comparables? or his defaulted description of average?
That's what you get from the fast and cheap. He's somewhere within 40% of accurate. But boy is he efficient :!:
