Virgina REAB and Portal Petition

[Michigan CG]

Are you referring to "Head Surfer" by his real name?

Everybody is a comedian.

But I guess I am guilty as charged.

 

[Fred]

Everybody is a comedian.

But I guess I am guilty as charged.

Actually, it's just a continuation of the thread - applying a uniform standard uniformly.

It's knowing what rules mean, knowing what it means to have rules. and knowing how much discipline and dedication it takes to maintain rules; that underpin my deep appreciation of anarchy.

 

[Couch Potato]

Potato, it is impossible to know why certain members use screen names, so since it was brought to my attention I thought it prudent to mark out the name just in case the poster didn't want his name used. Just trying to do the right thing.

It is impossible to know why someone does something unless one asks. It may very well be the person is very pleased you did it, but why not contact that individual to ask rather than doing the bidding of some busybody sticking their nose in where it doesn't belong?

For future reference, don't be concerned over my name getting occasional use. I only switched to a screen name to stop my posts from coming up higher in the list of a google search than my business web site.

 

[woodyva]

And what do you see as a conflict, Woody? The client is running automated QC reviews using programmed rule sets. The use underwriters to do the same thing now, just not automatically.

Humbly, I have to say that no computer can do the job a human being can, at least at this point in time. Computers can be set up to find empty boxes that need to be marked, and can see if values are within tolerance for acceptability. It may be fine for cursory QC but nothing more. It can't review a complicated type file. Things are advertised as appraisal reviews.

The limited ability of this system is obvious, yet it is sold as the be all and end all of appraisal technology for lenders. This system limits the ability of the appraiser to communicate. It limits the client from receiving a report that is rich in both content, and intended to be a concise summary report. It is supposed to remove human interaction because the mortgage industary still fails to hire, train and support personnel.

Appraisers and our contribution to the valuation process has been stigmatized and pigeon holed. We have been dictated to by the lenders that are in the know, and by companies like FNC, and by groups of our peers to follow a role that has become more increasingly that of data gatherers, and not appraisers. The limited way we are asked to fill out these reports results in our data being resduced to things that have to follow within tolerance settings.

I know everyone here that appraises has run into, almost on a daily basis, the need to explain things that can not be simply left as a numercial value, or simply good/avg/poor. I know someone will point out that you can still write comments in the narrative portions of the report. The point here is that we need people to receive and read (and undertsand what they read) reports in the content rich way many of us take hours to prepare. Rick Borgess (I am summarizing) an instructor that I respect on several levels , comments that the art of the appraisal lies within the narrative and how the report is communicated. I agree with that, and depise any system that results in the removal of the human element in what we do. Efficently is possible with humans preapring, receiving and reviewing reports.

We have spent more than 15 years with licensing, and with the AQB 2008 standards in effect, I do hope that the idiots in this industry are found out and removed, or quit. My head still shakes at the thought that no significant licensing has been implemented at the processor, underwriter, and originating levels within the mortgage business. No one should be reading a report without a minimum and documented understanding of the report and the basic mechanics of what is in an appraisal report. For God's sake, these are the same people who are assisting American Families leverage their biggest assets.

I know this reply is long and semi-off topic, but really, it all comes down to this: PDF is an acceptable format. I care less what people do to my report after I deliver it. I know enough about the conversion results to trust them. No matter what anyone says, many appraisers are not at the level of understanding they need to be with conversion software. I read questions everyday, and have spoken with many appraisers through my work with the Labs project. I can attest to you in all honesty that many appraisers are in fact not savvy at all with the technology curve. That is not a stab at them at all, but many folks claim that we are as a a whole ahead of the curve as appraisers. Keeping it simple, and using PDF as the common document type for submission makes it easy, at least for the time being. I truly believe that portals and conversion software should be required to approved by every state board in the country for it to be used by appraisers in the individual states. Since lending use is the predominant residential work done, I don't see why each state can not have minimum requirements for appraisers to be allowed to use them.

PDF converters work, annd work well. The claim has been made to me that the reason FNC will not allow this to happen is that the clients want it submitted in a converted format for the sake of the upcharge fees if FNC was to convert the file. I welcome any lender to show up on the 23rd and agree to that. No one will, because the next thing the lender would need to answer in a public forum is why the lender wants reports in a format akin to an abridged novel on CD read by Forest Gump, when they could have a first edition novel. If FNC truly cared about the report, they would allow us to submit the report in PDF and then convert a copy for themselves, and forward the Original PDF to the client. The converted copy can be run through every QC Program they have. The client can then read the appraisal report and use the QC report(s) to formulate their opinions of the report, and use it for supplementary QC.

These companies have the convertors already. They add no more cost to the process as they are being used for data conversion anyways, but that is a conveinant excuse to suggest. Everyone can be happy and get what they want of both sides would step back and see that. The biggest problem with PDF conversion is not the cost, but the liability. FNC et all, can not fathom shouldering the responisbility of converting reports. They see a place to exploit money from the process, and like all industries that follow the Wal Mart model, it is not about anything besides maximizing capital with no regard for the collateral damage these comapnies do to the small bsuinesses and the naive public.

Switching Gears:
For anyone else on this thread to raise questions about Pat Turner's involvement as part of the Board is simply someone trying to slander a good person's name. I have been at all the meetings with the State, and God willing, I will be at the next one. Mr. Turner has been nothing if not polite and exteremely welcoming to Neil Olson and anyone else that some would perceive to have differing opinions than Mr. Turner. Becuase he heads the commitee looking into this matter, does not mean he will steer anything. There are several other poeople involved with the process as part of the board and the directors, that will clearly make their individual views known in the process. Should not someone who understands what these thngs are, at least in some regards? If someone head sthis up that cares less, then what good are they?

Mis-information is abound from some on both sides of the arguement. As the ASB and the AI have both failed to do anything, if nothing more than allow these things to happen, a state has decided to take on the issue directly. It is very close to being decided, as I believe that after this meeting the next step is for the full board to vote on it. I am glad someone somewhere has had the ability to stand back and ask "Should we instead of just can we"?

 

[Bearslide]

Humbly, I have to say that no computer can do the job a human being can, at least at this point in time. Computers can be set up to find empty boxes that need to be marked, and can see if values are within tolerance for acceptability. It may be fine for cursory QC but nothing more. It can't review a complicated type file. Things are advertised as appraisal reviews.

The limited ability of this system is obvious, yet it is sold as the be all and end all of appraisal technology for lenders. This system limits the ability of the appraiser to communicate. It limits the client from receiving a report that is rich in both content, and intended to be a concise summary report. It is supposed to remove human interaction because the mortgage industary still fails to hire, train and support personnel.

Appraisers and our contribution to the valuation process has been stigmatized and pigeon holed. We have been dictated to by the lenders that are in the know, and by companies like FNC, and by groups of our peers to follow a role that has become more increasingly that of data gatherers, and not appraisers. The limited way we are asked to fill out these reports results in our data being resduced to things that have to follow within tolerance settings.

I know everyone here that appraises has run into, almost on a daily basis, the need to explain things that can not be simply left as a numercial value, or simply good/avg/poor. I know someone will point out that you can still write comments in the narrative portions of the report. The point here is that we need people to receive and read (and undertsand what they read) reports in the content rich way many of us take hours to prepare. Rick Borgess (I am summarizing) an instructor that I respect on several levels , comments that the art of the appraisal lies within the narrative and how the report is communicated. I agree with that, and depise any system that results in the removal of the human element in what we do. Efficently is possible with humans preapring, receiving and reviewing reports.

We have spent more than 15 years with licensing, and with the AQB 2008 standards in effect, I do hope that the idiots in this industry are found out and removed, or quit. My head still shakes at the thought that no significant licensing has been implemented at the processor, underwriter, and originating levels within the mortgage business. No one should be reading a report without a minimum and documented understanding of the report and the basic mechanics of what is in an appraisal report. For God's sake, these are the same people who are assisting American Families leverage their biggest assets.

I know this reply is long and semi-off topic, but really, it all comes down to this: PDF is an acceptable format. I care less what people do to my report after I deliver it. I know enough about the conversion results to trust them. No matter what anyone says, many appraisers are not at the level of understanding they need to be with conversion software. I read questions everyday, and have spoken with many appraisers through my work with the Labs project. I can attest to you in all honesty that many appraisers are in fact not savvy at all with the technology curve. That is not a stab at them at all, but many folks claim that we are as a a whole ahead of the curve as appraisers. Keeping it simple, and using PDF as the common document type for submission makes it easy, at least for the time being. I truly believe that portals and conversion software should be required to approved by every state board in the country for it to be used by appraisers in the individual states. Since lending use is the predominant residential work done, I don't see why each state can not have minimum requirements for appraisers to be allowed to use them.

PDF converters work, annd work well. The claim has been made to me that the reason FNC will not allow this to happen is that the clients want it submitted in a converted format for the sake of the upcharge fees if FNC was to convert the file. I welcome any lender to show up on the 23rd and agree to that. No one will, because the next thing the lender would need to answer in a public forum is why the lender wants reports in a format akin to an abridged novel on CD read by Forest Gump, when they could have a first edition novel. If FNC truly cared about the report, they would allow us to submit the report in PDF and then convert a copy for themselves, and forward the Original PDF to the client. The converted copy can be run through every QC Program they have. The client can then read the appraisal report and use the QC report(s) to formulate their opinions of the report, and use it for supplementary QC.

These companies have the convertors already. They add no more cost to the process as they are being used for data conversion anyways, but that is a conveinant excuse to suggest. Everyone can be happy and get what they want of both sides would step back and see that. The biggest problem with PDF conversion is not the cost, but the liability. FNC et all, can not fathom shouldering the responisbility of converting reports. They see a place to exploit money from the process, and like all industries that follow the Wal Mart model, it is not about anything besides maximizing capital with no regard for the collateral damage these comapnies do to the small bsuinesses and the naive public.

Switching Gears:
For anyone else on this thread to raise questions about Pat Turner's involvement as part of the Board is simply someone trying to slander a good person's name. I have been at all the meetings with the State, and God willing, I will be at the next one. Mr. Turner has been nothing if not polite and exteremely welcoming to Neil Olson and anyone else that some would perceive to have differing opinions than Mr. Turner. Becuase he heads the commitee looking into this matter, does not mean he will steer anything. There are several other poeople involved with the process as part of the board and the directors, that will clearly make their individual views known in the process. Should not someone who understands what these thngs are, at least in some regards? If someone head sthis up that cares less, then what good are they?

Mis-information is abound from some on both sides of the arguement. As the ASB and the AI have both failed to do anything, if nothing more than allow these things to happen, a state has decided to take on the issue directly. It is very close to being decided, as I believe that after this meeting the next step is for the full board to vote on it. I am glad someone somewhere has had the ability to stand back and ask "Should we instead of just can we"?

This deserves reading twice. Thank you, woody, for a well spoken summary. I too, dislike the innuendos re Mr. Turner. Somewhat reminds me of politics - when you aren't winning on votes, try winning on mud-slinging.

PDF has been the accepted standard. If lenders want it in another format, then let them convert it themselves and NOT put the burden on the appraiser. They can convert their furry little hearts away, do their "QC checks" - and leave the appraiser out of it.

 

[Fred]

Mis-information is abound from some on both sides of the arguement. As the ASB and the AI have both failed to do anything, if nothing more than allow these things to happen, a state has decided to take on the issue directly.

These things?

 

[BRCJR]

I do not know Pat Turner, but many of the appraisers I know and respect, that do know Pat Turner, all agree he is a good man and appraiser.

 

[Couch Potato]

Appraiser chooses AI Ready.

If FNC truly cared about the report, they would allow us to submit the report in PDF and then convert a copy for themselves, and forward the Original PDF to the client. The converted copy can be run through every QC Program they have. The client can then read the appraisal report and use the QC report(s) to formulate their opinions of the report, and use it for supplementary QC.

So we are to conclude FNC does care about the report? After all FNC does allow submission of the report in PDF format in their AppraisalPort system.

 

[Carnivore]

So we are to conclude FNC does care about the report? After all FNC does allow submission of the report in PDF format in their AppraisalPort system.

That bypasses their consistent set of rules standards. FNC does all this to place all the risk on the appraiser and causes pressure from lenders onto appraisers.

The acceptable system in my personal view is that I be allowed to send the report in two ways. 1. PDF and 2. through there conversion.

The current system does not allow this. Why not!

Look, I dnt care to hear the same old arguments about PDF making changes also. I am interested in only one thing. That is that the client receives what 'I' want them to, not some goofy looking thing FNC software does.

BUT

There is another solution. The ASB can just delete the requirement for maintaining exact orignals in are chosen work file medium.

My postiion is that the current system is untenable for Appraisers. It does not help Appraisers enhance or even help maintain the public trust.

Oh, yea, before Ken and Danny try to divert the attention onto data mining;

I dont care about Data mining. These are two distinctly different issues.

 

[Ken B]

These things?

You read my mind.

Oops, I better behave. I wouldn't want to upset anyone. Might get another email. :icon_neutral:

Given the personal tirade previously spewed at DW by a certain party, I find the inference that anyone perceiving a possible conflict of interest by other parties is "slandering" those parties to be laughable.

Uh oh, now I am really in for it. :icon_rolleyes: