UAD Rating Prior Comps

[Deleted member 134708]

I've been lucky so far and used a ton of prior comps all having the same rating I would have used in todays report. That's good as the C and Q definitions are absolute, but...

I have a prior comp that I need to use, it was from when UAD was fairly new. It's not the same transaction/sale but same property. There has been no major change with it since to justify. The rating that I no longer agree with is my old quality rating. I used a Q4 when it's really a Q3. My subject and all other comps are Q3.

Question: How does everyone go about this?

Do you keep the original Q4 and explain "to keep consistent no adjustment applied to the Q4 comp as used prior....Adjustments are made on a relative basis v. UAD ratings are on an absolute basis.....no adjustment applied?

Or do you suck it up and make it a Q3 and note: comp x rated a Q3. Prior used as Q4. This was wrong interpretation of the absolute UAD definition.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

UAD quality uses the same approach used in identifying the condition of the property and is also applicable to identifying the quality of construction. The selected rating must reflect a holistic view of the quality of construction.

Components can change over time. The design of construction and materials used is fixed. What can change is the appeal of that design or components. If a remodel is done that upgrades the material or design (functional changes), then the quality level may change.

If nothing changed, you are stuck. I don't know what would be acceptable as commentary to explain why you used Q4 back then and now it is Q3.

 

[Dan Umstead]

Use the correct UAD descriptor and explain in the addendum the difference from a previous appraisal. You are allowed to make errors, as you are human. USPAP does not hold you to perfection.

 

[Deleted member 134708]

Only thing that has changed is my progression over time as an appraiser and my interpretation of UAD definitions. Property has not changed.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Assuming your peers used Q3 back then and now, yes confess your mistake.

OTOH - if your peers are using Q4 ... draw a bullseye on your back.

 

[tamiecape]

Leave the rating the same but go ahead and make the needed adjustment then explain in the addendum why this comp has the same rating but warrants an adjustment. If you change the rating you are most likely going to be flagged for changing it. It's the same as back in the day when we used avg+ or avg-. Its a C4+!

 

[J Grant]

write new information is now available about the comp ( more interior photos for example), therefore the rating is now C3 .

 

[CindyR]

Good grief I can not believe that you would include commentary in a current appraisal about a data element in a prior appraisal for a different property. If someone challenges you about the discrepancy you could certainly provide a valid explanation but I see no relevance whatsoever to the current assignment. Consider the slippery slope here - over time we will all make errors and there will be numerous good and valid reasons for data discrepancies. The sheer volume of tracking all these data elements and explaining them for ever and ever is an exercise in futility.

 

[Digger88]

Good grief I can not believe that you would include commentary in a current appraisal about a data element in a prior appraisal for a different property. If someone challenges you about the discrepancy you could certainly provide a valid explanation but I see no relevance whatsoever to the current assignment. Consider the slippery slope here - over time we will all make errors and there will be numerous good and valid reasons for data discrepancies. The sheer volume of tracking all these data elements and explaining them for ever and ever is an exercise in futility.

except i was absolutely dinged by CU for this same(ish) thing. at some point in the future someone who doesnt keep track of this garbage will get the dreaded termination letter for future FNMA reports.

 

[Deleted member 134708]

I have 3 options:

1) report it as a Q3 and get dinged by CU.

2) ignore it as a comp even though it is a very good replacement property (possibly misleading/other probs)

3) report as Q4 and write up an explanation talking about "consistency, ratings, tracking...Can be interpreted as a Q3 or Q4, kept as prior rating...adjustments are on a relative basis whereas Q ratings are on an absolute basis...no adjustment necessary as in relatively same quality. (who knows what problems this brings up.)


So pretty much any outcome not looking good.