Reconsideration of Value: How to respond?

[Mike Garrett RAA]

The VA allows for us to charge for reconsiderations too. If we erred than no but if we are right we can charge for the time involved.

 

[residentialguy]

This is why, in my opinion, we are starting to see more of the requirement to show ALL of the comps in the market that we didn't use in the SCA grid. We are being asked to nail our coffin shut after we get in. I believe that this requirement crosses the report from a summary to a self-contained report. I'll do a self-contained report but not at the C&R of a summary. I like the suggestion that any ROV comps that are being sent over have an explanation of why they should be considered or used. :new_2gunsfiring_v1:

Amen, DJ. I completely agree. I don't list everything I searched for - that's ridiculus! I don't list any except what is seen in the SCA.
I have 2-3 paragraphs devouted to explaining my search. They aren't getting "a list"

 

[Delta85]

The idea that we should list and comment on every sale in a 1 mile radius within 6 months or whatever is ridiculous and a waste of time. If this was a client/AMC requirement stipulated before I accepted you can bet your bottom dollar there would be an additional fee requested and if denied, the assignment declined.

It's my job to offer my opinion of value and offer similar comparables I feel best represent and support that opinion. The report is a good 20+ pages of commentary, data, maps, sketches, and other attachments. There is no need to detail why the 3000 sq. ft. 10 year old Colonial that sold last month was not mentioned or considered in the report when the subject is a 960 sq. ft. 50 year old ranch.

 

[hastalavista]

I believe that this requirement crosses the report from a summary to a self-contained report.

I don't think that alone creates a self-contained report, but I am not arguing with your sentiment that it seems excessive to list all sales and comment on each one.

On the other hand, I may look at 10-potential properties that I think are the best comps; of those 10, I may end up ultimately using 3-5.
Do I comment on all 10? Not usually (in fact, almost never, but not "never").
Will I comment on those that, on paper, appear to be a really good fit but due to something I discovered during my research resulted in its rejection from inclusion in the grid? Absolutely.

Doing the above is consistent with a summary report.
IMO, it is also consistent with the expectations of the user, and is what my peers would do.

The above might take 1-2 minutes per sale I comment on; I've already done the research and know why I'm not using it. It takes just a minute or two to tell that to the client. I think this is reasonable and prudent. Commenting on all sales is not necessary for the client to judge the report's credibility (IMO).

BTW, I don't know if this is standard on all 1004MC analyses or not: I happen to use Bradford and I pay for their 1004MC module. That provides a list of all the properties considered in the 1004mc analysis as part of the report. I know some of the MLS systems in my market also have the option to use their tool gather the information; it also prints out all the sales considered in the analysis.

Certainly such a list would be all the relevant sales data from within the subject's competitive market that were considered, no?

 

[LACKLAND27]

Love it! :icon_lol:

He has it right you know? Will put a stop to further, "and what about this sale or this listing?".

And most likely put a stop to any new orders from this client ever again.

I recommend you respond with the comments from your original post and add that your findings concur with your original value.

 

[residentialguy]

Dennis, you're locking yourself in by saying "these 10 are comps". I can see it in court now..."so you didn't think this similar house was comparable?" I'd like to show the court the similar house that Dennis the so-called professional appraiser didn't even consider comparable.

 

[Calvin the Airedale]

It's not unreasonable for a lender to ask for more information or present other sales for review. It's good will for them with Realtors and borrowers.

The cost of performing such services (for appraisers) should be built into the fees. My fees are higher for my most annoying clients.

OTOH, answering such reviews shouldn't take too long if one has done their homework correctly in the first place.

Lackland has some good advice, follow it.

 

[residentialguy]

[/font][/color]

And most likely put a stop to any new orders from this client ever again.

I recommend you respond with the comments from your original post and add that your findings concur with your original value.

You don't need to say it....I suggest you put a similar statement in every appraisal and then reference it if a Recon of Value ever pops up. I state it in every one of my reports and guess what? ...I never get one. Coincidence? Don't think so. I just tweaked it to include a summary by client and charge a fee like Delta suggested.

Oh, btw...never lost a client. I am probably one of the highest charging fee appraisers in the area, completion is 2 weeks or more, and I'm busier than ever. Your statement that you will never get another order is unfounded. You guys really need to stop bending over for the AMC parasites.

 

[hastalavista]

Dennis, you're locking yourself in by saying "these 10 are comps".

That is not what I said. I said (my bold and underscore for emphasis):

On the other hand, I may look at 10-potential properties that I think are the best comps; of those 10, I may end up ultimately using 3-5.
Do I comment on all 10? Not usually (in fact, almost never, but not "never").
Will I comment on those that, on paper, appear to be a really good fit but due to something I discovered during my research resulted in its rejection from inclusion in the grid? Absolutely.

So I'll re-state it for you:
I (in this example) have 10-sales that I think are my best comps. I may not use all of them in the grid. In fact, after doing my research, some that look real similar on paper turn out to be no-good. These are the ones that I am likely to comment on: (a) why I originally thought they were good, and (b) why I ultimately rejected them. By including this comment, I am telling the reader [but obviously I failed to communicate to you, Res ] that these properties are not comparable.

BTW, it is very common in many types of appraisal assignments to discuss (and list) properties that were considered, and refine that list down to a smaller subset that is actually used in the analysis grid. I do this a lot in commercial work and litigation work. It actually heads-off the type of question you suggest.

 

[Delta85]

It's not unreasonable for a lender to ask for more information or present other sales for review. It's good will for them with Realtors and borrowers.

The cost of performing such services (for appraisers) should be built into the fees. My fees are higher for my most annoying clients.

OTOH, answering such reviews shouldn't take too long if one has done their homework correctly in the first place.

Lackland has some good advice, follow it.

Disagree. There is no reason I should research a 3000 sq. ft. Colonial if I am appraising a 960 sq. ft. ranch. So when I get this sale listed in a ROV just the time it takes to reopen a report, type a responce, close and sign and then redeliver the report should be payable in terms of additional fees.

Also, I've been sent sales that actually never closed. So after chasing that wild goose by searching MLS every which by but loose and speaking with town officials I've now wasted precious moments of my work day.