Workfile

[sputnam]

This is exactly the point I am trying to make, the O.P. is a Certified General Appraiser, I am sure that they explained in the report what analysis they used, you do NOT know if the appraiser said something like, 'In ground pool adjusted at $45,000." and neither do I. This what I am trying to relay to you, you even posted it, "the appraiser must summarize the information analyzed" what some of these lender, AMC and Fannie/Freddie, etc. are now asking for a LOT, is NOT "summarize the information analyzed" they want an entire list of which sales were used in a paired sales analysis, a list of ALL of the sales you could have used for your paired sales and an explanation as to WHY you didn't use any of the other possible sales for you adjustment in your sales analysis. THAT'S the problem I have, as again, you ALREADY stated, "the appraiser must summarize the information analyzed and ther reasoning that supports the analyses, opinions, and conclusions." That doesn't mean you are supposed to write an entire novel in you report as you are supposed to "summarize the information analyzed", I already know, as you stated, that it's not the reviewers how to solve the issue and explain what to say, but it IS the reviewers job to understand WHAT kind of appraisal report that THEY are reviewing.

What used to be called Summary Appraisal Report, is now simply called, Appraisal Report, but everything the appraiser is supposed to do is still the same, here is one of the things that is expected in an "Appraisal Report"

"It summarizes the data and analysis used to arrive at the property's value, rather than providing a detailed, in-depth explanation."

What's happening now and one of the reason I will only be doing GSE work for a couple of more years, is that a LOT of entities now want it both ways, they want an "Appraisal Report" that has information of a Narrative Appraisal Report, sorry, but I am not doing that, I always have a VERY detailed work file, with all of my data I used for my adjustments and conclusions.

Sorry... but your assumption that the OP a Certified General Appraiser delivered a report that met all requirements is unsupported. He may have and the reviewer missed it. Or he may not have. The fact that someone is Certified General... or an MAI.. or whatever is evidence that they know what they are supposed to do. It is not evidence that they did it. If the OP did in fact include adequate coments in the appraisal report then, the first thing to do is point the reviewer to them. Best way, imo, to do that is to copy and past the relevant comments.. in bold... and resubmit the report. I also like to include something like "As stated on page 3 of the original report.... and then the copied comments".. but that's just me. I don't suffer fools easily.

No one is or has told the OP to write a novel. Most things can be adequately explained in a sentence or two. We do not know what is in the appraisal report. We know that the reviewer didn't think it was enough.

You are incorrect. A Summary Appraisal Report is not now simply called an Appraisal Report. In USPAP, an Appraisal Report may be in any format and can vary greatly in the level of detail that is required. That is determined by the level of detail required by the Client and Intended Users for the Intended Use of the appraisal. An Appraisal Report could be a summary report. It could be a self contained report. It could be a form. It could be a narrative. It could be an oral report. The term 'Summary Appraisal Report' no longer has any meaning in the context of USPAP.

 

[glenn walker]

I am being asked by a review appraiser to further explain an adjustment made in a report. I have replied that the supporting documentation is contained in my workfile and no further explanation is needed. I do not wish to be contentious but would like peer opinions.

Personally I would never open up that trap door because what your implying is you can show or explain how you derived the adjustment but won't explain how.

The truth is you have a work file but it probably has nothing in it to defend your adjustment. What if a State Board asked the same question or Fannie Mae ? Would your awnser be the same ?

My advice is if you can't explain it then write a simple response, that you believe an adjustment was reasonable and made to show there was a difference, but one that was subjective, and you elected to make a minimal adjustment to reflect the market's reaction.

Now if the reviewer insists on you proving it then - consider if it's removed will it change anything ? Hopefully it's not a Big % adjustment.

 

[ucbruin]

Personally I would never open up that trap door because what your implying is you can show or explain how you derived the adjustment but won't explain how.

The truth is you have a work file but it probably has nothing in it to defend your adjustment. What if a State Board asked the same question or Fannie Mae ? Would your awnser be the same ?

My advice is if you can't explain it then write a simple response, that you believe an adjustment was reasonable and made to show there was a difference, but one that was subjective, and you elected to make a minimal adjustment to reflect the market's reaction.

Now if the reviewer insists on you proving it then - consider if it's removed will it change anything ? Hopefully it's not a Big % adjustment.

Are you actually suggesting....
The Book....

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

No one is or has told the OP to write a novel.

Well... in 30 years we've gone from 10 page reports to 40 pages of piffle...are we any more accurate?

consider if it's removed will it change anything ?

I see so many reports in days past where removing half the 'adjustments' would result in no significant change in the resulting numbers nor would more adjustments "tighten up" the spread except almost certainly one adjustment will be made to an outlier that is pretty much a PFA adjustment - usually to "location" "view" or maybe "style".

If you are adjusting more factors than you have comps, then you likely are treading some very suspect paths statistically speaking.

 

[alebrewer]

Well... in 30 years we've gone from 10 page reports to 40 pages of piffle...are we any more accurate?

I think that's a resounding yes. If for no other reason than that we are forced to be more accurate due to the availability of data available to the users of our services. Before the internets, the users just had to take our word for something. Not so any longer.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

I think that's a resounding yes.

I am less confident than you on that issue. First off, the complexity and size of the typical home is far greater than in the past. Are we confident in making an adjustment for a gas log fireplace, remote controlled ceiling fans, granite countertops (who hasn't seen an adjustment for that?), or maybe crown molding, triple glaze windows, etc.

I doubt many appraisers can recognize a home designed for passive solar or super-energy efficient. Encapsulated crawl spaces? Geothermal heat pump vs solar panels, etc.

Using 3-6 comps does not provide sufficient comps to extract verifiable and justifiable adjustments. And who has time to do MLR on every $295 assignment? Certainly, the client expects a report turn time of no more than 2 days and thinks you have all this data at your fingertips and read it all from @ucbruin 's "Book of Adjustments" and that book also includes the calculations to support the adjustment already built in.

Next the issue for us rural appraisers is data. Mere sales are problematic. Finding 3 sales in some place like Craig County, Oklahoma or Newton County, Arkansas, let alone 3 sales remotely similar in age, style and site size...well, you know the problem. Less is more. A minimum number of adjustments is likely as statistically meaningful and accurate as making an adjustment for every minute detail.

I still remember the days when FHA reviewers were preaching to us in FHA classes, that in the grid to put inferior, equal, or superior when making adjustments.

 

[alebrewer]

I am less confident than you on that issue. First off, the complexity and size of the typical home is far greater than in the past. Are we confident in making an adjustment for a gas log fireplace, remote controlled ceiling fans, granite countertops (who hasn't seen an adjustment for that?), or maybe crown molding, triple glaze windows, etc.

I doubt many appraisers can recognize a home designed for passive solar or super-energy efficient. Encapsulated crawl spaces? Geothermal heat pump vs solar panels, etc.

Using 3-6 comps does not provide sufficient comps to extract verifiable and justifiable adjustments. And who has time to do MLR on every $295 assignment? Certainly, the client expects a report turn time of no more than 2 days and thinks you have all this data at your fingertips and read it all from @ucbruin 's "Book of Adjustments" and that book also includes the calculations to support the adjustment already built in.

Next the issue for us rural appraisers is data. Mere sales are problematic. Finding 3 sales in some place like Craig County, Oklahoma or Newton County, Arkansas, let alone 3 sales remotely similar in age, style and site size...well, you know the problem. Less is more. A minimum number of adjustments is likely as statistically meaningful and accurate as making an adjustment for every minute detail.

I still remember the days when FHA reviewers were preaching to us in FHA classes, that in the grid to put inferior, equal, or superior when making adjustments.

Of course there will always be the extremities and outliers that make good fodder for conversation, but the reality is that the data available to the users of our services is quite sufficient to verify - or refute - probably 98% of what an appraiser asserts.

 

[OSU Beavers]

So why don't you just copy and paste the relevant portion of your workfile and send it to the 'review appraiser' (I don't believe its really a 'review appraiser.')

I had a state investigator once say, "the comp picture shows flowers and its December." I told her the photo was taken about a week after the sale. Then she maintained that I should have 'retaken' the photo. I politely told her that didn't make sense, since a house could have changed after the date of sale. At one point she said, 'workfiles should be 50-pages.' So I proceed to assemble a basic 70-page workfile and when I'd get a 'review' question, I just copy and paste the relevant section.

Well I guess that we now all have to pay $70 per month for one of those fancy garbage-in = garbage-out services to fill our work file with pages of charts and graphs so we can justify the adjustment that we reasonably came up with using our 30+ years of experience.

 

[sputnam]

Well... in 30 years we've gone from 10 page reports to 40 pages of piffle...are we any more accurate?

There is some truth in that... but, take a close look sometime. A lot of the of the increase in pages can be attributed to appraisers saying the same things twice or three times and to the inclusion of additional exhibits.

 

[Tom D]

This is from the fannie news letter 03/2025. Kinda says what summarize is:

“Time adjustments, or the lack thereof, must be supported by evidence. Use of home price indices (HPIs) to support time adjustments is consistent with our policy. The adjustment rates can also be determined through statistical analysis, modeling, paired sales, or other commonly accepted methods. The appraisal report must, at a minimum, summarize the supporting evidence and include a description of the data sources, tool(s), and technique(s) used.” (Selling Guide B4-1.3-09, Adjustment to Comparable Sales.