This is the fifth in a series on the URAR from the course "Inside & Outside the Boxes: Developing and Communicating the URAR. Each week I'll be covering different topics related to residential appraisal development and reporting. - Patrick Egger
Top-down perspective - The first in the "Outside the Boxes" series was "Definition of the Problem." There was a reason for that. Do we think about "definition of the problem" from the client's perspective? What do clients need (beyond value to do the deal) and what can we provide to satisfy that need?
While appraisal forms present the basics on the subject and neighborhood, they are woefully inadequate for anything other than a basic house in a balanced market. Difficult properties, fluctuating market conditions and FNMA guidelines require the appraiser, to go beyond any limitations of the forms, with additional comments and exhibits being used if they are needed to adequately describe the subject property, document the analysis and valuation process, or support the appraiser's conclusions."
Is that what the reader needs, ten additional pages to read and somehow figure out what it means and how it applies to the subject property?
Certainly various issues require expanded comments, however imagine a processor or underwriter, with limited or no appraisal training, attempting to scan the report and validate that all requirements of the secondary market, especially those for difficult housing markets, have been addressed.
While we're trying to cover the bases, are we leading the reader to the same conclusions we came to or are we actually making it more difficult for the reader? Should we be addressing the client's needs in a different way?