I'm seeing two themes here:
Let's say that FNC developed env. formats that would exactly reproduce your reports as they appear in Wintotal. The symptom (rearranging) that you've been complaining about would be resolved but your real problem (datamining) would remain. You'll be right back where you started, and in short order.
George:
I have never said I had an issue with data stripping. I will say publicly that I do have one, but I have not brought that to this debate, others have. I have an issue with reports being limited to the point of confusing what is supposed to be a rich report full of analysis, examples and conclusions, with these strippe down data sheets. We are require dto communicate to the client in manner that is not misleading. We all know as professional sthat many of the folks that work for the lenders do not read the report, and when they do many have no clue the difference between a guideline and a requirement. It is our job to be as concise as possible, not to do what many do by applying the very minimum. How many reports have you reviewed that even as an appraiser you have had troble trying to understand what the appraisers wa strying to dvelop as a final value estimate? I read this things having been trained to be an appraiser and wonder how the preparer got from poinbt a to point b.
George if you and I write a report in the current .env format, I am very sure we both would write a well supported report. It can be done with minimal requirements. The larger issue I have with this is that we have very poor appraisers out there as a result of these augmented and dumbed down ways of doing work.
We are asked to police ourselves via peer reviews and the like. I see this in one light as a way to help stop the madness of what is a cancer eating away at our industry. For those of us that stood and watched from the shadows without saying something, the guilt of the current economy lies on our shoulders. I decided a long time ago that I would no longer sit along the sidelines and watch. Pam and Pat and Dodd and many others decided that as well. We are not greedy people, and I know you are not either George. I appreciate your contributions and the fact that you are on one side of this paticular issue and I an on the other, but we all know there are larger things at stake here. The arguments that you have made the last several posts are the same one sthey will make, among ssome others.
There is a compromise that will work for both sides, submission of the reports as PDF from the appraiser and the conversion done by the end user, or agent of the end user. If they are delivering the final report in PDF to teh client, then what is wrong with my version of it? Their problem with it is that the numerical data they get out of the report for their QC process is useless sometimes without the primer that is in the narrative.
They want minimal numercial data. I am sorry but we all know that the human element of buying and selling creates situations that will not explain themselves numercially all the time. Sometimes the transaction requires the ability to say that the reason that this sale does not make sense is becuase the two human parties on each side made irrational decisions. Numbers can indicate that is a probability but in a transitioning market computer models would not see it as you and I will see it. We are limiting ourselves unless we thoroughly understand that we must work around the limitations of the technology. Some appraisers do not understand that, some do and don't care.
Bad decisions were made when using AVM's and appraisal reports I am sure were improperly prepared as a result of this type of limiting technology being at use.
I guess i get the benefit of having trained several appraisers through their early part of their careers. I have seen perfectly well intended people try and meet minmal requirements set forth in these systems. Their thinking was that it met the client requirements, but it would hav egiven an incomplete picture.
