My First Collateral Underwriter Revisions

[Deleted member 128537]

I

Using your SF adjustment example: I would imagine CU will have a range for SF. XX to XXXX for similar type properties. And should an appraise us X or XXXXX then a flag may kick in. And maybe same for other adjustments.

I would hope so. But wouldn't it be interesting to know exactly what that range is? Do we have to some how try and read the mind of an AVM or what other appraisers are doing? Now I often talk to my colleagues and we compare adjustments. We are pretty close on many things. I'm a bit higher on garage adjustments, and I'm a bit lower on bathroom adjustments. But in both cases it passes the reasonable test. But will the UC think those are reasonable? Who knows. They won't tell us!

 

[Deleted member 128537]

I

Using your SF adjustment example: I would imagine CU will have a range for SF. XX to XXXX for similar type properties. And should an appraise us X or XXXXX then a flag may kick in. And maybe same for other adjustments.

I just do not understand why we need to be in the dark about how other appraisers are viewing homes etc. What are they afraid of? That we will use the data to run our own AVM? To come up with our own statistical models? etc.

 

[ucbruin]

I would hope so. But wouldn't it be interesting to know exactly what that range is? Do we have to some how try and read the mind of an AVM or what other appraisers are doing? Now I often talk to my colleagues and we compare adjustments. We are pretty close on many things. I'm a bit higher on garage adjustments, and I'm a bit lower on bathroom adjustments. But in both cases it passes the reasonable test. But will the UC think those are reasonable? Who knows. They won't tell us!

I believe you make a great point in regards to your experience with other appraisers and their adjustments. It's been my experience too, that we may vary to some degree but usually not by much.

 

[Riick]

We respond as a client service.
Our clients have to re submit the appraisal to Fannie with the issue addressed with a comment from appraiser

Issue... what is the issue ?

If I read correctly, your opinion differed from one or more other appraisers opinions (& the sacred model's opinion!) and that is an issue?
Sorry, but the very idea pisses me off.

This is akin to POLITICALLY CORRECT appraising - You and I must not have differing opinions about something.
In my book, facts remain facts, but the inferences, conclusions, and decisions made as a result can differ.
I think $25,000 for car A is a great deal, you think it's junk, and much prefer car B at $29,000 - or smaller car C at $21,000 - who is right?
Physicians for many many years thought stomach ulcers were due to internal processes.
One Physician said caused by bacteria. The others laughed. Now known that Ulcers are curable via antibiotics.
My point is obvious, but today, you are discouraged from thinking about why discussion, differing points of view, different politics, different whatever is BENIFICIAL.
=30

 

[abrainc]

I received my first one Friday. I got flagged because my lot size for the subject did not match the CU's. My lot size was determined from the county appraisers data and GIS map and was correct. None the less, I had to input comments explaining why my lot size was correct as well as adding in "proof" so I copy and pasted the county's GIS map which showed the lot size. So basically the CU's data is incorrect and Im the one being flagged???

 

[residentialguy]

I just received the following correction request from a client I barely ever get corrections from. The following says "***COLLATERAL UNDERWRITER REVISIONS***

Message - Comparable 2 (Collateral Underwriter)
The GLA adjustment for comparable #2 is smaller than peer and model adjustments.

Message - Comparable 3 (Collateral Underwriter)
The GLA adjustment for comparable #3 is smaller than peer and model adjustments. "

REPLY
Those aren't Peers, they're Skippys. Now that you have proof that they have bogus adjustments, as seen by my supported adjustments in the additional comments of the report (that the CU can't read), fire them! What are you waiting for? Next time, don't ask for my approval.

 

[J Grant]

I received my first one Friday. I got flagged because my lot size for the subject did not match the CU's. My lot size was determined from the county appraisers data and GIS map and was correct. None the less, I had to input comments explaining why my lot size was correct as well as adding in "proof" so I copy and pasted the county's GIS map which showed the lot size. So basically the CU's data is incorrect and Im the one being flagged???

Maybe there is some positive to this? If the CU data was comprised of three wrong lot sizes from three appraisals done by skippy or sloppy, and now you provide support your lot size was correct , then those other appraisals can be questioned/compared to yours.

Who knows...

 

[residentialguy]

Maybe there is some positive to this? If the CU data was comprised of three wrong lot sizes from three appraisals done by skippy or sloppy, and now you provide support your lot size was correct , then those other appraisals can be questioned/compared to yours.

Who knows...

There's being optimistic and there's dreaming. That comment, unfortunately, falls under the latter.

 

[gilhooee]

I had a similar situation over the weekend. I was a little caught off guard; however I am not submissive to new regulations and verbiage introduced in revision requests. I responded with the following statement.

"GLA adjustments were determined through paired sales analysis, while considering all other factors that affect value. This includes location, condition, room count, lot size, quality of construction, view, garage storage, basement SF and finished basement SF, location, heating and cooling, energy efficient items, functional utility, and additional ammenities. $30 per SF adjustments for GLA was determined to be a fair market adjustment for homes in this market area. It is unknown how peer and model adjustments were derived, or whether all marketable factors were considered when determining these adjustments. The variance from lowest and greatest adjusted sales prices for comparable sales in this report is 4.4%."

 

[residentialguy]

Did these "peers" show support their adjustments? My adjustments were clearly supported and explained on my report. What part didn't you understand? Wait...you did read the report, didn't you?