This is a pretty niffty detailed chart for finding time adjustments, we are done.

[alebrewer]

Posted today in a Facebook group:



View attachment 94989

yeah, DW can say this isn't required till he's blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that MANY lenders, AMC's - and appraisers think just that - that come February, you better have something like this in your report.

 

[Non Sequitur]

yeah, DW can say this isn't required till he's blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that MANY lenders, AMC's - and appraisers think just that - that come February, you better have something like this in your report.

Yep. And with the new UAD this type of monkey see-monkey do appraisal development and reporting will be the norm.

 

[alebrewer]

Yep. And with the new UAD this type of monkey see-monkey do appraisal development and reporting will be the norm.

I mean, at the end of the day, they're forcing appraisers to become data analysts - something they should have been all along. Prior to the 1004MC, 90%+ of the appraisals I reviewed had zero market analysis. And, I've no doubt the GSE studies on appraisers under adjusting for changing markets are accurate. So is it a bad thing that they're forcing appraisers to do what they should have been doing all along? No. But.... the problem, as I see it, is that they're forcing too much granularity into the market analysis and adjustments. As has been pointed out ad nauseum, market changes don't happen in a vacuum, and often (if not always) there is cross contamination of the independent variables. So that what they're actually going to get is appraisers who don't understand how to 'do' the analysis using a fancy tool developed by Spark or DataMaster or ACI to apply market adjustments that are not reflective of actual market changes.

Take the scenario where PPF is increasing, but mean/median price point is steady or declining. Is that an increasing, stable, or declining market? Or can you even tell by 'just' using those two data sets?

IMO, a better approach would have been to just strong arm the ASC to require an 8 hour market analysis class, but instead they issued this nifty graph, along with a bit of esoteric instruction, and expect to see better supported reports as a result. Gonna be a disaster.

 

[Sadie]

Not if they're waived!

Just have to wait for the inevitable REO/short sale market to kick in.

 

[Tom D]

So knowing that many of yous don't know what appraising was like long ago. My question?
What was wrong with the index card appraisal, or my 8 page appraisal.

Since appraisals have nothing to do with bad lending processes & stupid fed rates, which caused every market crash.

But i'm only kidding the perfectionists here. I love doing my 40 page reports. They are like works of art. Lenders have them hanging on the walls.

 

[NTX_Guy]

This is how I've looked at market adjustments since the 90s. There have always been places to get graphs like this or construct one on your own. My Board of Realtors published yearly median/average sale price graphs broken down by MLS area as far back as the 80s. They also published quarterly sales statics. They did the work - not me. I just had to ANALYZE that data/graph and see how it applied to my subject.

Nowadays, I'm pretty sure most of us can export/import raw MLS data into an Excel spreadsheet and run all sorts of analysis and get granular data like this in a few minutes, once you setup a template. This is our job - to analyze market data. How many times does USPAP use the word "analyze" in it?

Granted, this is easier in large population centers than in rural areas as the quantity of data. Statistics are only as good as the quantity and quality of the data available. However, the GSEs know that rural properties are a different beast and make allowances for the lack of quality data. This level of analysis is more geared towards where most appraisers are - in large population centers with hundreds to thousands of data points in any given period.

Markets practically never increase or decrease in a straight line so using such adjustments, while convenient, aren't really accurate. Given the vast amounts of data available to us nowadays, it's not unreasonable to expect better analysis from us.

The GSEs have algorithms and data to double check whether our adjustments look reasonable given the data they have. If you are making large market adjustments (or any adjustment for that matter) that fly in the face of their statistics, and you have no support or substantive analysis comments in your report, it's going to get flagged and scrutinized. But if you have a graph like this or other analysis that supports what you did in your report then it's going to be considered even if it doesn't line up with their data. In the end, WE have to support what we did. GSEs have support for why they are questioning it; you are supposed to have the data to support what you did.

If we don't want algorithms and CU taking over more of our jobs, or getting letter upon letter asking us to provide actual support for our adjustments - support that's supposed to already be in our work file - then start being the data analyst USPAP had always required us to be.

Our "experience" is only as good as our analysis capabilities. If you can't take data, crunch the numbers, and extract meaningful market data (or find a service that can do some of that for you), from which to support your adjustments/conclusions, then you are in the wrong profession.

All this does is require from us what USPAP always has - get data and analyze it. Technology is catching up with us and we have to adapt. Those who adapt will survive. Those who don't adapt, well....

 

[NTX_Guy]

Beginning in February 2025, appraisers will be required to provide support for time value adjustments for comparable sales (comps) and market conditions—and also include an illustration of the methodology used.

If we can have a program that says and does this and puts in the numbers, life gets easier. If you have to figure out yourself all this and write it, no extra pay for extra time spent. Also, this is showing you that fannie has the program to burn you. And of course, their avm will have this. Another domino falls to end of appraisers.

View attachment 94533

This is how I've looked at market adjustments since the 90s. There have always been places to get graphs like this or construct one on your own. My Board of Realtors published yearly median/average sale price graphs broken down by MLS area as far back as the 80s. They also published quarterly sales statics. They did the work - not me. I just had to ANALYZE that data/graph and see how it applied to my subject.

Nowadays, I'm pretty sure most of us can export/import raw MLS data into an Excel spreadsheet and run all sorts of analysis and get granular data like this in a few minutes, once you setup a template. This is our job - to analyze market data. How many times does USPAP use the word "analyze" in it?

Granted, this is easier in large population centers than in rural areas as the quantity of data. Statistics are only as good as the quantity and quality of the data available. However, the GSEs know that rural properties are a different beast and make allowances for the lack of quality data. This level of analysis is more geared towards where most appraisers are - in large population centers with hundreds to thousands of data points in any given period.

Markets practically never increase or decrease in a straight line so using such adjustments, while convenient, aren't really accurate. Given the vast amounts of data available to us nowadays, it's not unreasonable to expect better analysis from us.

The GSEs have algorithms and data to double check whether our adjustments look reasonable given the data they have. If you are making large market adjustments (or any adjustment for that matter) that fly in the face of their statistics, and you have no support or substantive analysis comments in your report, it's going to get flagged and scrutinized. But if you have a graph like this or other analysis that supports what you did in your report then it's going to be considered even if it doesn't line up with their data. In the end, WE have to support what we did. GSEs have support for why they are questioning it; you are supposed to have the data to support what you did.

If we don't want algorithms and CU taking over more of our jobs, or getting letter upon letter asking us to provide actual support for our adjustments - support that's supposed to already be in our work file - then start being the data analyst USPAP had always required us to be.

Our "experience" is only as good as our analysis capabilities. If you can't take data, crunch the numbers, and extract meaningful market data (or find a service that can do some of that for you), from which to support your adjustments/conclusions, then you are in the wrong profession.

All this does is require from us what USPAP always has - get data and analyze it. Technology is catching up with us and we have to adapt. Those who adapt will survive. Those who don't adapt, well....

 

[Fernando]

This is how I've looked at market adjustments since the 90s. There have always been places to get graphs like this or construct one on your own. My Board of Realtors published yearly median/average sale price graphs broken down by MLS area as far back as the 80s. They also published quarterly sales statics. They did the work - not me. I just had to ANALYZE that data/graph and see how it applied to my subject.

Nowadays, I'm pretty sure most of us can export/import raw MLS data into an Excel spreadsheet and run all sorts of analysis and get granular data like this in a few minutes, once you setup a template. This is our job - to analyze market data. How many times does USPAP use the word "analyze" in it?

Granted, this is easier in large population centers than in rural areas as the quantity of data. Statistics are only as good as the quantity and quality of the data available. However, the GSEs know that rural properties are a different beast and make allowances for the lack of quality data. This level of analysis is more geared towards where most appraisers are - in large population centers with hundreds to thousands of data points in any given period.

Markets practically never increase or decrease in a straight line so using such adjustments, while convenient, aren't really accurate. Given the vast amounts of data available to us nowadays, it's not unreasonable to expect better analysis from us.

The GSEs have algorithms and data to double check whether our adjustments look reasonable given the data they have. If you are making large market adjustments (or any adjustment for that matter) that fly in the face of their statistics, and you have no support or substantive analysis comments in your report, it's going to get flagged and scrutinized. But if you have a graph like this or other analysis that supports what you did in your report then it's going to be considered even if it doesn't line up with their data. In the end, WE have to support what we did. GSEs have support for why they are questioning it; you are supposed to have the data to support what you did.

If we don't want algorithms and CU taking over more of our jobs, or getting letter upon letter asking us to provide actual support for our adjustments - support that's supposed to already be in our work file - then start being the data analyst USPAP had always required us to be.

Our "experience" is only as good as our analysis capabilities. If you can't take data, crunch the numbers, and extract meaningful market data (or find a service that can do some of that for you), from which to support your adjustments/conclusions, then you are in the wrong profession.

All this does is require from us what USPAP always has - get data and analyze it. Technology is catching up with us and we have to adapt. Those who adapt will survive. Those who don't adapt, well....

I agree with you. Appraisers need to analyze the statistics pertinent to their subject. It's easy to grab data and graphs from MLSs and "justify" adjustments.
Appraisers and reviewers and Fannie need to look at the adjustments if really valid.

 

[TerryRohrer]

Appraisers need to analyze the statistics pertinent to their subject.

Why?

It's easy to grab data and graphs from MLSs and "justify" adjustments.
Appraisers and reviewers and Fannie need to look at the adjustments if really valid.

FNMA allows the use of their HPI tool to calculate market conditions adjustments and states that its use meets their requirements. No analysis needed whatsoever.

 

[Fernando]

I like this thread. Made me aware of time adjustment requiring proof on report. Too much hassle.
I thought it started this month but it's next month.
I did a large time adjustment and thought either I had to show proof .... or I can backdate my effective date.