Revision Requests -having To Explain Peer Appraiser's Data In My Reports?

[Terrel L. Shields]

got a revision request (from a new client), because their usual appraiser uses larger GLA adjustments than I do

Revise as follows

"I have revised this report as follows. The client has attempted to influence the appraiser by making the above request. We have examined and confirmed our data and concluded that the "usual" appraiser is wrong."​

 

[SinoBear]

I agree....

But playing devil's advocate here.....

Doesn't it seem "logical" that having the same data set, adjustments made by different appraisers would be nearly exact to one another?????

At least in the mind's of the general public.....

I can agree with that. However they want me state that a peer appraiser 'uses larger GLA adjustments in my area' with really no specifics as to what types of homes or neighborhoods this appraiser uses larger adjustments in. My area is a mid to large sized city and they may not even be comparing apples to apples here, because this particular house is a small mid century home in the older, established part of town. There are plenty of newer subdivisions, and areas with high quality homes 'in my area' that I would surely utilize higher GLA adjustments.

 

[SinoBear]

I agree....

But playing devil's advocate here.....

Doesn't it seem "logical" that having the same data set, adjustments made by different appraisers would be nearly exact to one another?????

At least in the mind's of the general public.....

I can agree with that. However they want me state that a peer appraiser 'uses larger GLA adjustments in my area' with really no specifics as to what types of homes or neighborhoods this appraiser uses larger adjustments in. My area is a mid to large sized city and they may not even be comparing apples to apples here, because this particular house is a small mid century home in the older, established part of town. There are plenty of newer subdivisions, and areas with high quality homes 'in my area' that I would surely utilize higher GLA adjustments.

Revise as follows

"I have revised this report as follows. The client has attempted to influence the appraiser by making the above request. We have examined and confirmed our data and concluded that the "usual" appraiser is wrong."​

EXACTLY!!! Hahaha. I was so tempted to write something like that

 

[TRESinc]

it sounds to me like they are paraphrasing the CU risk review they get once the report has been submitted to the UCDP. i have attached a partial screen shot from one that a client once accidentally sent to me about 9 months ago (they are not allowed to do so by fannie rules) for comparison.



i think what is being referred to in this thread as the "other" or "usual" appraiser is a rehash of the "peer" comment from the CU report.


on a side note the above is a great example of how messed up the CU risk review can be at times. in this situation unless my "peers" were appraising the same subject as i was at the same time using the same comps of course the condition adjustment would be smaller, and the odds of that happening are so slim they could slide under an elephant's foot in mud.

 

[Digger88]

Okay so revision requests have been getting worse over the years, and have been annoying but I’ve accepted that it’s just a part of the job now that AMC’s need their job security.

Anyhow in the past few weeks I’ve had some downright ridiculous requests. Such as “another appraiser used the same comparable XYZ and had a different GLA.” Okay fine I can see why they are questioning it, so I explained how and why my calculations are felt to be correct. So THEN they want me to state that in the report…that another appraiser had a different calculation and why mine is felt to be correct.

Again today I got a revision request (from a new client), because their usual appraiser uses larger GLA adjustments than I do ‘for my area’ (how much a difference I have no idea). Without losing my **** I explained that there is no one size fits all GLA adjustment ‘for my area’ various things such as neighborhood, style, quality, condition, age, size, etc. of the home will determine the proper GLA adjustment, which I already explained in the report how my adjustments were abstracted.
However they still want me to state in the report that a peer appraiser would typically use a larger GLA adjustment, but I chose not to…blah, blah, blah. I can’t even wrap my head around this one, I have not yet made the “revision.” Also this particular report had 5 good, recent comps with low net/gross adjustments; and only 2 of them needed a GLA adjustment for differences less than 200 Sq.Ft. So even if I had used 'larger' adjustments it would have not changed the outcome, and those 2 sales adjusted values would be out of sync.

It is one thing to add additional comments and explanations on MY work, but to have to compare my work with another appraiser’s based on vague information the client supposedly obtained is taking it too far.

so you only adjust for GLA greater than 200sf? and btw, if i got that stip i couldn't get the words, gfy, out of my mouth fast enough. PRAISE be the VA panel where this silliness is non existent.

 

[Sandra Koutsopoulos]

'Your honor, the anonymous criminal (who you have not identified) robbed that 7-11 because he was having a bad day and wanted to punish the clerk by taking money out of the til to go on a bender with his red-headed girlfriend who has an affinity for alligators.'

You know, how do we know what someone's motivation or thought processes are? For sure, our guessing of what someone else, who we don't even know, was thinking and how their thought processes worked in a particular instance, would most definitely not stand up in a court of law, and would at best be considered hearsay, speculation, fantasy etc. I will defend my rationale for every adjustment I make, but will not spend a second of my time explaining what somebody else did... or why. Rather than expecting us to defend our adjustments vs a 'mystery appraiser', they would learn a lot more by asking THAT appraiser to explain his adjustments, and me to provide my rationale for MY adjustments. I'm not paid to reconcile somebody else's work with mine, I'm paid to provide a well thought out opinion of value.

I had a case a couple weeks ago where the reviewer stated that 4 of my comps had been used elsewhere, and had noted that each had no view, so I was wrong for stating they had a view. I asked them to look at my photos with the hills or mountains in the pictures, and also sent over the MLS sheets which clearly stated those comps had mountain or hill views. And I told them I had seen the views with my very own two eyes. And finally, I told them that the view information for all 4 of these comps in all the other appraisals was WRONG! Bite me!

 

[Noreen]

I suspect the one with differences in GLA calculations on the same comp may be been a Fannie CU because the request came several weeks later (and was probably flagged by the UAD dataset), I am not sure though. But the one where another appraiser uses larger adjustments than I do is a client only request.

This sounds very FNMA... I word my response " this appraiser cannot speak to what another appraiser thinks"... this appraiser adjusted ( and then go one to reiterate how I came up with the data and the outcome ). PLUS no subject is the same as another therefore the market reaction would/ should be different for every comparable property when being compared to recent sales .

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Did it ever dawn on anyone that you can adjust on the basis of room count and probably come out with a similar number? There is no mandate to make a GLA adjustment

 

[KYLECODY]

I've noticed a big uptick in initial "quality control" commentary that is asked for and one of my few "good" clients must have had some sort of team meeting/company mandate about indirectly trying to put a little more pressure on appraisers when the value is below the contract price. Several value reconsideration requests lately.

I have a very large bank, non AMC, whose reviewer recently tried to talk me into lot size adjustments for 5,000 versus 6,000 SF, because it hit some magical 20% button(came in 4k below contract and they said that could "make it up"). Not going to be a measurable market reaction for that in this market. Yesterday the same bank came back on another deal, very small home with terrible comp selection, telling me that I should use two area comps that are 50% larger than the subject and adjust down because they have a 2 car garage like the subject and the 2 car garage must be the driving feature of the home...2 of the 5 comps had the garage and the ones with carports were adjusted for...Smoke and mirrors is where they are basing their arguments on, smoke and mirrors.

 

[J Grant]

That is crossing the line when a client tells you which comps to use especially superior ones that are less similar to subject. Whether direct lender or not, sleazy is as sleazy does.

CU/Fannie feedback is not value driven, it is driven by computer picking up on variances among appraisals over ( one presumes) a certain threshold when used same data or comps. I am not impressed by it ... we're stuck with it .