Illinois Board Issues Warning On Hybrid Appraisals

[J Grant]

Remove fee for appraiser's portion and appraisers would be having the same discussions as now. Because Fannie did not announce that the inspections will be done by only highly qualified /licensed home inspectors or contractors. fannie is testing 7 labor pools among then RE agents /property preservation crews.

The appraiser does not select, supervise or interact with the inspector and has no control over who they are /what kind of job they did Thus an appraiser could get great info on one assignment and lousy info on the next . An appraiser will have to accept that reality if they decide do bifurcated -.except for a glaring difference between what inspector reports and public records there is no way to tell.

 

[Eli]

keeping values in their hoods on the high end definitely is an objective

Wonder why? Lol. Wonder why AMC’s would be interested along the same line? Hello? Lol

But, it works the other way too. Like two agents working together to try and steal a property from a little old widow that don’t have a clue.

Honey, you need to sell this. I can help you. This is all it is worth.

Market Value never enters in to the equation. An appraisal never enters in. That will change soon.

 

[J Grant]

Wonder why? Lol. Wonder why AMC’s would be interested along the same line? Hello? Lol
But, it works the other way too. Like two agents working together to try and steal a property from a little old widow that don’t have a clue.

AMC's will not benefit from RE agents trying to keep values up or minimize defects at an inspection ( if they do that on inspections)

It is Fannie that is deciding to bifurcate and have inspections be done by non appraisers, not the AMC- though AMC;s will find a way to profit from it. This is a debacle of fannies making....

 

[Eli]

AMC's will not benefit from RE agents trying to keep values up or minimize defects at an inspection ( if they do that on inspections)

It is Fannie that is deciding to bifurcate and have inspections be done by non appraisers, not the AMC- though AMC;s will find a way to profit from it. This is a debacle of fannies making....

That’s not true. Volume is the way they benefit. You were an agent. Agents play many games. Appraisal is not their game. Some may be appraisers but appraisal is not their game.

 

[J Grant]

That’s not true. Volume is the way they benefit. You were an agent. Agents play many games. Appraisal is not their game. Some may be appraisers but appraisal is not their game.

I believe RE agents are a terrible choice to inspect but it will a fannie decision to use them. The fact that AMC;s may profit from it or volume is a business issue, but as far as appraisal practice and staying in compliance, AMC's will not benefit if any RE agents choose to play games on the inspection end (imo, we can differ on our opinions)

 

[Elliott]

AMCs are a stakeholder for the honey pot of "valuation fees." No appraisals, no AMCs. At least we'll go down together.

One has to wonder if it were the AMCs that pushed the Board to make the statement.

 

[Eli]

That’s why I want a n

I believe RE agents are a terrible choice to inspect but it will a fannie decision to use them. The fact that AMC;s may profit from it or volume is a business issue, but as far as appraisal practice and staying in compliance, AMC's will not benefit if any RE agents choose to play games on the inspection end (imo, we can differ on our opinions)

It will be deeper than that. Tennessee is a prime choice. Tennessee through appraisers input put laws in place that are like spurs in a horse. Or more like a bit in the mouth.

 

[Eli]

Would love that meeting with TAC and Joan. I’ll sit on the back row in the peanut gallery.

I want some CE too with it.

 

[George Hatch]

Consult an attorney? For what? I know what the appraisal standard is and I know what the rules/regs that cover my license say and I know better than to rely solely on the form's verbiage to explain what I did and didn't do in an assignment.

Nobody reading one of my reports is going to get the wrong idea about what my SOW entailed and why I made the assumptions I made - or that my client engaged me to perform that SOW without knowing what it's limitations were. Or which use/users that the appraisal was intended for. I explicitly mention that the appraisal was not intended for any other user or any other use, and that any 3rd parties are encouraged to seek their own appraisal specific to their use.

I mention these things in my SOW summary on pg 1 of my report, my Final Reconciliation section and in my assumptions and limitations, so nobody can claim that these disclosures are buried in the fine print. A reader cannot even past the first page of my report without seeing these references. Now the Fannie forms are set up differently so appraisers using them have to resort to other methods of referring to these limitations, but it's still doable if you are willing to make the effort.

"This assignment involves a "desktop" appraisal process - I did not physically see the neighborhood but am basing my analyses on other information I believe to be reasonably credible for the intended use and intended users of this appraisal assignment - see addendum for a more complete explanation"

"This assignment involves a "desktop" appraisal process - I did not physically see the subject site but am basing my analyses on other information I believe to be reasonably credible for the intended use and intended users of this appraisal assignment - see addendum for a more complete explanation"

"This assignment involves a "desktop" appraisal process - I did not physically see or measure the subject improvements but am basing my analyses on other information I believe to be reasonably credible for the intended use and intended users of this appraisal assignment - see addendum for a more complete explanation"

Nobody reading an appraisal report on a GSE form that had this first line in the Neighborhood, Site Description and Improvements section (and elsewhere in the report) could subsequently claim they didn't know and could not understand that the appraiser was performing a desktop SOW wherein they never physically saw that subject. Or that they weren't directed to the more detailed explanation for what the appraiser did and didn't do.

As for "they'll still sue regardless of your disclosures and warnings" that's no more a possibility for one of these assignments than it is for any other type of assignment. Be smart about your use of data, look for indications that a particular piece of data may be inaccurate or biased, and explain what you're doing in your report.

 

[J Grant]

As for "they'll still sue regardless of your disclosures and warnings" that's no more a possibility for one of these assignments than it is for any other type of assignment. Be smart about your use of data, look for indications that a particular piece of data may be inaccurate or biased, and explain what you're doing in your report.

I think the possibility is higher for these bifurcated 1004P ( whether to sue or file a complaint ) because these have never been used in volume on origination loans before. It certainly gives a disgruntled RE agent or home owner an excuse to file a complaint or sue since they can claim (rightfully ) the appraiser did not inspect and thus X was wrong or mis valued.