Revision Request

[DWiley]

It says
Consider additional, appropriate property information, including the consideration of additional comparable properties.

If you think that submitting sales just because of their higher price to get the appraiser to raise their opinion of MV to hit a target is appropriate and not a pressure for value, then you should have no worry when appraisers start reporting you for value pressure. You may not like how they're going to rule on your twist of the ROV exception.

Too funny. How about this, if you want to debate/discuss a topic, stick to what I actually say rather than putting words in my mouth and then explaining how something I have never said is wrong

 

[residentialguy]

It says
Consider additional, appropriate property information, including the consideration of additional comparable properties.

If you think that submitting sales just because of their higher price to get the appraiser to raise their opinion of MV to hit a target is appropriate and not a pressure for value, then you should have no worry when appraisers start reporting you for value pressure. You may not like how they're going to rule on your twist of the ROV exception.

Too funny. How about this, if you want to debate/discuss a topic, stick to what I actually say rather than putting words in my mouth and then explaining how something I have never said is wrong

Well, let's clear this up: Are you or are you not saying that it's ok to send over comps that a HO or agent sends you that falls into that category? If you're saying that's not ok, then we're on the same page.
Which is it???

 

[George Hatch]

 

[DTB]

Yes. In that situation, the appraiser would be hung by their board.

I don't endorse what ResGuy does for lender work (and he knows that). I don't endorse it because:
1. It is my opinion that ROVs are part of the assignment-expectations
2. It is my opinion that one cannot enforce it on the client if the client didn't pre-agree
3. It may be a violation for sure (my opinion) if addressing ROVs is in the master engagement agreement
4. And, you raise the scenario where I believe an appraiser would be hung if a complaint were filed

Naturally, ROV requests have their limits. The process I use (identifying my competitive market set and the criteria I use to select comparables) will filter out any non-comparables (assuming I've collected all my comparables from the identified market area).
I'll give any lending client one bite at the apple without much ado. I don't get a lot of ROVs (I can think of only one in the last 4 years; and it caused me to change my opinion). More bites, then I'm going to tell them it is becoming unreasonable and their data is not superior to what was considered in the report.

Why is it that you can decide when enough is enough, but Res can't?

 

[hastalavista]

Why is it that you can decide when enough is enough, but Res can't?

I don't think I've said that.
Res doesn't have a problem with ROVs. Res has a problem with ROVs when he determines they are not appropriate and wants to charge for that.
I think charging for an ROV (for lender work) creates risks for the reasons I've outlined. Therefore, I don't endorse that practice.

Rather than charging for ROVs, that charge is built into my base fee. Also, as I said, I don't get a lot of ROV requests (that doesn't mean my work is necessarily any better than another's... maybe I'm just lucky) so this isn't a big issue for me. However, I added that if it were an issue, I'd raise my fee or dump the client (likely, the later).

 

[DTB]

I don't think I've said that.
Res doesn't have a problem with ROVs. Res has a problem with ROVs when he determines they are not appropriate and wants to charge for that.
I think charging for an ROV (for lender work) creates risks for the reasons I've outlined. Therefore, I don't endorse that practice.

Rather than charging for ROVs, that charge is built into my base fee. Also, as I said, I don't get a lot of ROV requests (that doesn't mean my work is necessarily any better than another's... maybe I'm just lucky) so this isn't a big issue for me. However, I added that if it were an issue, I'd raise my fee or dump the client (likely, the later).

He doesn't tolerate one bite of the apple with inappropriate sales offered as comps.

Your position seems to be that the client gets one free bite. If more nips are taken then you draw the line due to the fact that the data is inferior to what is in your original report.

I was more in the Res camp, when active. I NEVER had anyone provide a superior comp after the fact. Sometimes I would need assistance from other appraisers and or agents to help me find some decent comps but never after my report was completed.

 

[hastalavista]

I was more in the Res camp, when active. I NEVER had anyone provide a superior comp after the fact. Sometimes I would need assistance from other appraisers and or agents to help me find some decent comps but never after my report was completed.

Well, your record is perfect (congrats; I say that sincerely) mine has at least one blemish as far as a comp that I should have caught and missed. To this day I cannot figure out how it was missed since, embarrassingly, it was in the subject's development. Since I save my comp searches (digitally), and my search parameters, when it was brought to my attention it wasn't in the first run but magically showed up in the second run. This was about 10-years ago.
As to the reconsideration within the last 4-years, that wasn't new data; I was asked to reconsider something in the report and its impact on value. I did; it moved the needle slightly up (still within the adjusted range). I considered that request reasonable.

Your position seems to be that the client gets one free bite. If more nips are taken then you draw the line due to the fact that the data is inferior to what is in your original report.

(my bold).
No. The request isn't a free bite; I've already baked that contingency into my fee.
My position is that ROVs are an expectation for mortgage lending. The USPAP issue wasn't so much of a concern (unless it is in the engagement agreement for that assignment), but I believe Danny has brought up valid points which has added that concern to my radar.
My "one bite" is that I don't have a problem if a lender-client asks once. I've already explained how I handle those requests... which works fine for me but ResGuy thinks it is insufficient. I'll live with that.
If I had multiple requests, I'd have a problem, and at some point I'd say enough is enough. I haven't run into that yet, so on that score, my record is perfect like yours.

 

[residentialguy]

Well, let's clear this up: Are you or are you not saying that it's ok to send over comps that a HO or agent sends you that falls into that category? If you're saying that's not ok, then we're on the same page.
Which is it???

@DWiley
In case you missed this: Do you think D-F intent is to give an exception to the law for value pressure in regards to ROVs? Is it ok to send over comps because they're higher price to try to get the appraiser to raise the Market Value?

 

[residentialguy]

I think the USPAP issues regarding Ethics is a bit muddy... although I'd be a fool to argue things USPAP with Danny!

Take this> □

 

[djd09]

ROV is not a safe and sound process. Too many interested parties with biased opinions.