Appraisal On Form 1004 For 'individual Client'

[TRESinc]

Using the Q and C ratings makes sense - a least on one level (or maybe two): it's very easy to copy the ratings' descriptions into a report so that a user can have a (at least) some idea of what the labels attempt to describe; which can help communicate the reason for any adjustments made for these attributes. Of course, the same could be said for a summary of some other source's ratings (M&S, for example) (though any published source would probably have their ratings' descriptions copyrighted).

come on pete, we all know that's not what happens. people get the report and look at the number. if it's where they think it should be or higher then it's a "good" report. if it's below where they think it should be it's a "bad" report.

 

[Peter LeQuire]

come on pete, we all know that's not what happens. people get the report and look at the number. if it's where they think it should be or higher then it's a "good" report. if it's below where they think it should be it's a "bad" report.

I figure your tongue is pretty far over in your cheek, but I find that private clients are no less sensitive about the descriptive portions of my reports than are lenders' reviewers. This is particularly true of litigation-related work: if, for example, my value happens to not favor my client, that client will simply disregard my report, even to getting an appraisal from another appraiser - but I still get paid. If the appraisal result favors my client, the other party's attorney will work real hard to find errors to make my work appear less than credible.

 

[TRESinc]

I figure your tongue is pretty far over in your cheek, but I find that private clients are no less sensitive about the descriptive portions of my reports than are lenders' reviewers. This is particularly true of litigation-related work: if, for example, my value happens to not favor my client, that client will simply disregard my report, even to getting an appraisal from another appraiser - but I still get paid. If the appraisal result favors my client, the other party's attorney will work real hard to find errors to make my work appear less than credible.

it was

 

[residentialguy]

Using the Q and C ratings makes sense

Appraisers can't even agree on their meaning. I suggest a generic form with descriptors like: Superior, Similar and Inferior. Hard to screw that up.

 

[Peter LeQuire]

Appraisers can't even agree on their meaning. I suggest a generic form with descriptors like: Superior, Similar and Inferior. Hard to screw that up.

I bristled when using descriptors that are (at least superficially) objective: I think appraisers were rightly criticized for using relative terms to obscure the real quality or condition of properties they were appraising (the argument being that a property was "average in its market" or "average when compared to the comparables"). The characteristics defining the GSE descriptors are, IMO, pretty ambiguous, more ambiguous than, for example the M&S descriptors (which are copyright protected).

Using the GSE Q & C ratings makes sense for private work because the - at least - offer a description (however terse) of what the ratings mean, and they offer a point of beginning to explain any value difference attributable to differences in those ratings.

That appraisers can't agree on the meaning of the various GSE ratings is an argument - though a weak one - for using ratings that are more definitively descriptive. (If this forum reflects the occupation's practitioners, there's not much that appraisers agree upon in the first place.)

 

[JasonHaskell]

I'm using the form so my sales data will be consistent and reduce the potential for errors.

I have the definitive answer on how the Oregon Board will view this action Elliott. I had to submit sample reports to get my supervisor license to train an employee. On of the reports they asked for was a private party appraisal that I completed on the Fannie Mae form. They declined my application and asked me to resubmit with additional samples and told me in no uncertain terms that I had violated USPAP in that report. They basically said NEVER under any circumstances use the Fannie form for non-fannie work. So you can keep rolling the dice but If that report ever finds it's way to the Oregon ACLB you will be in some trouble.

 

[Elliott]

Jason,
So what was wrong with using page 1 and page 2 of the form and isn't significantly different that any other residential form, since it doesn't even relate to lending? I can appreciate that the assumptions and limiting conditions are different, which I don't use. As some have said, what the client is frequently interested in is the value, a form report accurately reflects the credible process of producing a value estimate with the same limiting conditions and assumptions as the AI form. I wonder why lenders require the Forms & Worms Land Appraisal form.

Thanks for you insight.

 

[jay trotta]

Please tell me the violations if I use this form. It would include a 6-page addendum that addresses purpose, scope, highest and best use, adjustments, detrimental conditions, special limiting conditions, resume, and all those things that are recommended by my E/O company.

"I have Examined " - your words; I have Observed (my words); your word may indicate something different from my word, my word is how I perceive my "State Laws" in regards to "Inspections", where I do not wish to have to Define "my walk thru", as any type of Inspection.

These are my words and interpretation (from the snowglobe library) "Elliott" has my permission to use the word "Observe" for it's intended Use and is not in violation of my copy write knowledge base, for the time period of; 07/29/2017 to midnight this date.

 

[Elliott]

If its a violation to use part of a Fannie form for a private assignment, doesn't it follow that using a non-approved FW 68 for lending would also be a violation? What if I include one of the worms with the report? What if I call it a Worm rather than a Form. Actually, all my assignments are narratives.

 

[residentialguy]

I bristled when using descriptors that are (at least superficially) objective: I think appraisers were rightly criticized for using relative terms to obscure the real quality or condition of properties they were appraising (the argument being that a property was "average in its market" or "average when compared to the comparables"). The characteristics defining the GSE descriptors are, IMO, pretty ambiguous, more ambiguous than, for example the M&S descriptors (which are copyright protected).

Using the GSE Q & C ratings makes sense for private work because the - at least - offer a description (however terse) of what the ratings mean, and they offer a point of beginning to explain any value difference attributable to differences in those ratings.

That appraisers can't agree on the meaning of the various GSE ratings is an argument - though a weak one - for using ratings that are more definitively descriptive. (If this forum reflects the occupation's practitioners, there's not much that appraisers agree upon in the first place.)

I don't believe you need descriptors like Q & C. The only reason FNMA uses them is to use against us and to steal our information to create their own data system bank...nothing more. We should just adjust if they are superior or inferior to the subject ...that's what we are appraising...and our commentary should show how that particular adjustment is warranted and supported. Far easier for the private work to understand and less likely to confuse and/or mislead. There is not even a weak argument to support using GSE Q&C ratings. It doesn't matter that this house is a q4 and the comp is a Q3....much less insulting is that the comp has brick exterior and marble flooring which the market pays more for, thus adjusted at that contributory value.