I would be heart-broken too. It really tears something out of me when I've invested minutes upon minutes creating some catchy phraseology that describes a really unique point of comparison between, or among these comparables . . . . and then having to hear that your composition contains too many characters. Like you wrote 714 characters and we can only keep 450.

So then it's decision time. Having to choose who's to stay and who's to go. More time can be spent on that than was spent on the original draft. And it's tough, like deciding among your Off-Spring which ones need to be sent to the Orphanage. I so wish they'd cut the size of the field so you'd never create these nifty ideas . . . . never even bring them into this world.

I guess I'll just have to get over it.

I like the new restiction from one client to where I can't use "contingent or pending" comps. Let me see now......I have a choice of listings $50k to $100k above market and DOM's average 300 to 610 days. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.........makes sense to me......lol.

Brad, I don't think a QC'r should remove anything like that from an order. If I have to change anything it's things like wording choices such as for Fair Market laws...

i.e. - 'Prostitue approached me when entering the property' might be changed to 'unlawful solicitation provided by non-occupant at residence'

I should add though that most the clients I've worked for do believe that short sales and REO's in the current market climate are pretty much the same. (Just an FYI on a clients perspective).

J~

Is one of them still trying to require that the Currents have a list date of less than 180 days back ? I think that was Protek! That requirement made it almost impossible to find Comps.

I don't do work for them anymore; but I do recall having an argument where the Solds, like normal, had to have Closed within the past 180 days; but they may have been on the market for over a year. Their Cousins, the Currents who may have been on the Market for the same period of time, and under the same conditions, could not be among the Chosen! Only those listed for 180 days or less could be included.

Their QC was adamant that only Fresh Solds, and Fresh Listings, can be used to make a statement about where the market was at that point in time . . . . not any of those old salty time-tested Warriors with a DOM of a few hundred or even thousands of days.

And if a Current Comp had been re-listed, they wanted me to verify that at least 180 days had elapsed between the prior expiration and the re-listing. I think someone without any knowledge of how this market works had taken over their training program, and thought they could really make it so much better and scientific. I don't research the Listing History of the Subject as thoroughly as they started wanting me to research the Current Comps.

Subject Comment is insufficient as it contains less than 49 characters.

Ok, I will use bigger words. I hope you can read them.


Yes, I know it's an automated QC.

BPO Rejected.
Reason for BPO being rejected: " bank had property valued at $180k in 2008 with condition stated as good. Your value is 40K and condition is stated as poor, but photos look the same. (landscaping is 10 feet overgrown, siding is shot. All my comps are <$45k and within 1 mile)

Okay... This one is just ridiculous. Any QC'r who doesn't realize market trends have changed between 2008 and today shouldnt be allowed near an order...*sigh*

J~

J~

If this were the case, I could see the unemployment line getting longer......lol

So do you think it's standard for QC not to know what they are talking about then Candy?

J~

J~

No.......was just joking........We all have a job to do......working as a team seems to work best for me. I take the newbies with the old dogs..........I know most of my QC people.....When a new name pops up, it's safe to assume that they're working off a cheat sheet (ya gotta to start somewhere). In an earlier post I indicated that the client considered REO's and Short Sales one of the same. If that's the case, then state it in the order. It would sure save me a lot of time in searching for comps. Or, at least in a QC hit, state that in the first email. In my service area, that rule won't apply, in most cases. REO's, SS, and FMV will have 3 seperate values, and, will so state that in my report, if needed.

I'm lucky in one respect, as I have very few QC issues. My complaint is in the timing. I always seem to get hit when I have a ton of orders to complete. That means I have to pull off my orders and deal with the QC issue. All I ask is to be specific in the first QC email........It will save us both a lot of wasted time, as most of us aren't mind readers.

The QC'r that makes a mistake and admits it, has my greatest respect. None of us are perfect.......together, we work as a team. I attribute my low QC issues to that concept..

Darn.......this post turned into a rant......lol. J~, this post wasn't directed at you......more for QC in general....end of rant

Yeah well... We all know that when I QC I just look at the nutitional value on my breakfast, times it by pi and then divide it by your monthly market percentage and it should equal your value... who needs comps right?

I had a conversation with an agent the other day about this. Unfortuantly, there is no KBB on houses so QC's just trying to figure it out as much as you guys are. When we read through a report, we read it and have to ask 'If I was the client, would this make sense based on the data I've been provided?' If the answer is yes, good report. If not, go back and ask some questions and get more detail or changes made so it does make sense. Contrary to popular belief, there is no reward or benefit for sending an order back for corrections. It actually is a penalty in a way for a QC'r because the order is in their queue until it gets corrected.

But yes, I do understand the frustration over some of these things. I get it from the opposite side thats all. (Client and Agents vs QC)

J~

This may be a stupid question . . . . but I'll take the risk.

What's most important in drawing together your Comparables for a Multi-Family BPO ?

I just finished a BPO on a 1870 13 Room Two-Unit 3100SF in a Rural Setting on a ½ Acre Lot.

So, it was your basic 13/7/3½ old 1870 Building.

I had trouble finding 2 Unit Comps which were that big. Most 2 Units were a mere 1600 to 2000 SF.

Going up into the realm of 2800 to 3500 SF, I was getting 4 and 5 Units and larger.

So I stretched the proximity radius out to about 25 miles in order to reel in enough 2 Units that met the GLA criterion.

The QC people for this Firm are feeling that I should disregard the number of units, and focus on the GLA. So a 4 Unit or even a 5 or 6 Unit should be used provided that it is in the GLA range and that would be preferable to seeking out more distant 2 Units.

Other Firms have specified that the 2 Unit characteristic is more important than the proximity criterion.

So what's most important, Proximity or Unit Count . . . . or GLA ?

I rank them Age, Units, GLA, Proximity, Condition, Lot Size . . . .

See, I don't do many Multi-Units. Luckily, Vermont is not a place that people move to in order to just find themselves living in an apartment on the other side of a stud-wall from some strangers . . . . or living immediately below or above these folks who you don't know.

I will say this though; I know that 2000SF divvied up into 5 units commands a much higher Gross Rental Income than 2000SF comprised of a lousy 2 Units . . . . so if you were valuing these using an Income Approach, then the number of units would play a VERY BIG ROLE, and it would be a whole lot more important than proximity.

I did one similar yesterday, so it would be nice to hear the other side (J) on this topic. In my case it was a 4-unit in a rural area of 3100 sq ft built about 1900. So all but 1 of my comps were 4 units, 100 or so years old, 2500-3300 sq ft. But the proximity was up to about 20 miles. I used one 3 unit that was similar GLA...but that was in an urban area. Sometimes the comps you want to use just aren't there.

I always focus on number of units and not so much on sq ft. If I think the areas are similar - suburban with similar school districts - I am not that concerned with proximity. I think that if it is a multi family - getting the most accurate value for it has to do with the number of units - not how big the units are - within reason - nor do I worry that much about proximity as long as locations are similar in features - drug dealer ratios to murders - then your fine.

One of my clients doesn't care about the number of units. It's the most important feature in my market because CAP rates can approach 33% on a 4-plex, as opposed to 25% on a triplex and 20% on a duplex.

One client doesn't seem to care. Maybe some old crotchety broker told them in 1950 that GLA is the be-all-end-all to valuations. And damned be them young 'ens that say differently!