In a way Brad you're right. For instance prior reports. Yes I know the prior was 5 months ago, I know the market is declining, I see the prior was probably off the mark when they submitted the last report after viewing the currents information. However, I still per several clients have to kick back the current order and address why I have a large variance.

In a lot of ways it's like math class back in school. It's not good enough to show the answer, you have to also give the original equation, and then write out how the answer was determined to get the good grade.

Just instead of x+y=z it's now 'Prior - Current=Variance + Reason behind variance = happy client'

J~

Thanks for the explaination J~

Not to get off track, but your post reminded me of those times when in school I had to figure out what time the two trains meet when leaving from different times and also from different locations. My smart-alecky comment then and now is, "In this day and age, why don't they fly?"

My smart-alecky reply would be 'Because you can take liquids on a train and aren't subject to a strip search after a 3 hour wait to board.'

J~

Requesting corrections / replacement comps or detailed comments when it's obvious QC has NOT read my comments. PLEASE read comments before rejecting back to me! Everything you ask is already there!

Just got this from CC.
The Clarification Request is:
" Thanks for the report!
There is a prior report on the subject property that indicates a significantly different price conclusion. The prior report used comps such as (5 XXX Dr ) and (37 YYY St ) to derive a subject price conclusion.
When looking at both reports it appears that the price conclusions are both supported by the data provided. Please provide some details on possible qualitative elements that affect the subject's price, and how the prior comps compare to the subject based on the following features: condition, location, views, upgrades, amenities, appeal/ quality of construction, etc. Since both reports appear to be supported based on the quantitative data, it may be one of more of these less measurable characteristics that are having a dramatic effect on value. The above properties may not be in the MLS, so please also check public records and/or online sources.
Please understand that we are not questioning your expertise or the accuracy of your report. We simply must do our due diligence when large variances exist between the current and prior reports. We value your feedback regarding the above comps so we can provide our mutual customer the best explanation of the factors that are creating the wide variance.
Thanks for your help!
They did not tell me the other value so how can I explain the difference. I didn't know they knew big words like quantitative.

Turns out the 2 comps they wanted me to look at were in a neighboring city from subject with lower values. One was an REO, the other a short sale. I let them know.

Always remember that your BPO is only as good as a "prior" with some mills. The prior may have been done by some noob that may of had no clue in what they were doing. If QC approved that BPO at that time, your report will be compared to it.

Like with the IRS, you are therefore guilty until proven innocent.

From RRR. REO Comps and REO listings only if REOs are in our subject's market.

Very confounding. What if there are 20 suitable comps in the subject market. If 3 of them are REO should I use them?

First of all, that is a horrible sentence - call their English teacher. Clear as looking through a tupperware lid. Of course they are in the subject's market - or they wouldn't have come up as comps. So, since they came up, yes you can use them - at least according to that sentence. What they meant to say was - only use the reo comps (sold) and reo listings if they are "driving" the market. I might be tempted to have some fun with the company and QC them for a "further explaination".

QC tells me that I have used comps that are inferior because of the small GLA. They suggest that I use one that is 2416 sq ft, which is much smaller than the comps I used. For some reason they do not respond when I tell them this...

Has anybody noticed that eML is requiring we don't use any listing comps currently under contract? Is it just me or are others seeing the same trend? I'm getting this requeat with each order. At first, I thought it was just one client...not true. I've been averaging over $50k above market values and over 300 days on market. They've been killin' me.....any comments?

Been that way for awhile now. Only EML, can use lists under contract with other mills.

CC has one client that has the same requirement...and only one....not every order as with eML.

easy to get around, as long as you document why it was necessary to use a the list under contract they will accept it. I just had one order just pass QC that had a pending on it.