New FNMA ROV requirement

[J Grant]

Of course. But if you have actually reported your search/selection criteria in your report and then followed up with the comment that sales which don't fit those criteria cannot be considered as directly comparable as the sales you presented in your SC then you will have pre-loaded your response to the ROV. All it takes from there is a cut-n-paste of that section of the report along with the comment "these sales don't fit my search criteria and are not more similar than S#1- S#6".

You're basically providing your client with the means to say that you already explained why you didn't use outside comps, whereas if you don't summarize your criteria in your report then they have no way of saying that. Failing that, you have provided yourself with the opportunity to tell the complainants to RTFR because you already directly addressed the issue of comp selection being about "most similar".

If you pre-load your report with the explanation then vomiting it back up upon demand takes no more than 30 seconds at the most. Moreover, they can't spin this response to imply that you are ignoring their valid data or are attempting to cover up after the fact, because you started off being one step ahead of them to begin with.

The reason you're not changing your report is because you started off with most proximate, recent and similar. You don't even have the discretion to replace more similar with less similar. It's not that you won't lie for them, but that you can't lie for them.

It does not matter how much we explain - if a party does not like a value, they will send an ROV, and this new disclosure will triple it. They don't read the report half the time; they see the value is not what they want, so they run to Zillow and pull sales .
Since they do not read the report, they even send sales I have already used!!

I get very few ROVs because of client screening, but now that can change with this new normal.

 

[George Hatch]

I agree - there will be more of them. I just think that spending a couple minutes up front might reduce that number a bit and (more importantly) greatly expedite the handling of the others. You're not writing a new explanation; you're clipping the original explanation and referring them back to your original report.

 

[djd09]

the gse troll wants you to roll over like a lap dog...dividers like to divide, same story a different day

 

[George Hatch]

I want appraisers to win. I want them to outwit their critics, crush their hopes and dreams and bask in the lamentations of their women. IMO going proactive is an expression of appraiser aggression, not appraiser submission.

It's the same reason I advocate for staying one step ahead of the SJWs in our reports.

 

[djd09]

how many appraisers think they are winning...raise your hands...how disconnected can you be

 

[djd09]

anyways...the unethical stakeholders have options...like ordering a second appraisal f'ing cheap banksters

 

[sputnam]

So proceed accordingly. If you know the chances of getting an ROV are increasing then figure out strategies to cut them off before they even get going. Stop playing the odds.


Be more accurate with your subject descriptions so you don't have to hear how you didn't mention the fence in the rear yard or the recent water heater.

Solicit and offer to consider whatever sales they think are relevant. If they have a list in mind and it doesn't mesh with your own opinions then say so in your report and explain why their comps aren't comps.

Disclose the criteria and the search parameters and then comment "properties which don't fit these criteria cannot be considered more similar to the subject than the sales presented in the SC".

Try to get a feel for what they think you should be doing so you can address those ideas in your report.

This is somewhat of a game of wits. Be smarter than your opposition. Try to keep one step ahead of them.

You can't prevent someone from requesting an ROV. What you can do is make sure that you have been careful and thorough. If you don't have errors in process or math and you didn't miss any applicable sales, your ROV response is an expanded and polite version of.... No.

 

[Tom D]

Add the new minuita 1004, the fee increases we lost with inflation, some of yous never seeing so little work for a long time period to come. My prediction is rov is a minor thing in the overall dismal picture of our future. When the new form comes out, most of us who are past retirement will say no mas, no mas. I am thinking maybe 2 years, then i am totally out of here. Although, i have transitioned back into a past rehab/flip life to keep my head busy, seeing this current dead end profession.

 

[Amy Perkins]

fee $500, roc $300

 

[Tom D]

fee $500, roc $300

hahahahahha. A rov isn't additional work, it correcting your wrong value.