Fannie Mae and "Multiple Parcels"

[Econobot]

Still not how it works.

Care to elaborate or offer a solution?

 

[Andrei Fin]

The HC is fine but the issue is whether or not the client will accept it. I say likely (do your own DD). Because clients care about risk, not about what you guys read in a textbook twenty years ago.

On the one hand you have Lee telling the client that it's impossible to deliver credible results using their lame instructions, fair enough... so they say fine, use an HC if it is needed for credible results... but then George says no. Did I understand that correctly?

The reason this stuff gets personal is when people are less interested in learning, discussion, facts, etc and more interested in proving to everyone else how smart they are and being right. which in some cases even leads them to completely make stuff up to win the argument.

 

[Econobot]

Ebot when you first joined forum you told several highly experienced appraisers they should leave the profession, Now on this thread elected yourself mayor of the board, who should stop posting, who is incompetent, who needs to take a HBU class etc. It is entertaining at this point . Carry on. .

The record shows I was not the first one to tell you that you are oblivious and a HBU class might help... I simply agreed and reiterated this to you. Thanks

 

[Econobot]

The HC is fine but the issue is whether or not the client will accept it. I say likely (do your own DD). Because clients care about risk, not about what you guys read in a textbook twenty years ago.

On the one hand you have Lee telling the client that it's impossible to deliver credible results using their lame instructions, fair enough... so they say fine, use an HC if it is needed for credible results... but then George says no. Did I understand that correctly?

The reason this stuff gets personal is when people are less interested in learning, discussion, facts, etc and more interested in proving to everyone else how smart they are and being right. which in some cases even leads them to completely make stuff up to win the argument.

I have checked with my client and chief appraiser... I'll keep their response confidential based on some of the remarks on this forum, but I will say that JGrant (...who said "no lender would ever accept"...) couldn't be more wrong on that assertion. Ultimately I think the lender/client has to trust the appraiser...or find another one, pretty simple. Moreover, I think the purpose of this forum is lost on some folks, aka "top poster"... This is an information site and it should be respected as that. Those who keep filling up threads with off topic and often stupid remarks should be encouraged to join a social media site for their jollies. It really interferes with someone like myself who is using it for gauging the opinion of his peers', not peer and not "top posters" who can't seem to leave the site alone for a day.

 

[George Hatch]

I agree George, but you apparently aren't aware that these threads have been open since late October or early November. I've been dealing with the "top poster" trolling my efforts since this time. She sees fit to not read comments and echo previous statements redundantly over and over. I've said more than once I'm tired of reading her misinformation. She's one of the few appraisers on this forum claiming it's fine to do "value in use". I'm a working appraiser trying to establish best practice on this subject. What I've gathered so far is that Fannie is wrong (opinion of majority of appraisers I've spoken with outside of this forum) and that they will be redacting/revising that guidance very soon (alleged by forum members and some of the appraisers I spoke with outside of this forum). So please, spare me the lecture about JGrant, she needs to back off this site and specifically these threads. If you'll casually read through the threads you might find I'm not the only who has an issue with her misinformation. Moreover, she's been told to stop commenting and start reading others posts by other forum members (CANative recently). For whatever reason she sees fit to endlessly bombard threads like she owns the forum or is the forum expert. She's been proven wrong countless times yet still sees fit to troll the threads with incessant rambling of her own competence (high end/waterfront/etc)... Thanks for your input George but this forum is better suited in providing solid information/analysis/opinions on appraisal theory and practice, not the defense of "top posters". Maybe heed your own advice and tell me how I'm wrong by using an HC and checking NO on HBU....??? Thanks

In my experience on this forum I generally get what I give. I tend to get snark when I give snark, and deservedly so. Appraisers are fundamentally good people, so I sometimes get better than I deserve.

You can't control what other people do, especially when it's appraisers. It is part of our job description to be judgmental, opinionated and tenacious in defense of those opinions. We couldn't function in our day job without such commitment. That makes it unreasonable to expect appraisers to respond differently to the disagreements we have here, and I can assure you there is no such thing as shaming a professional appraiser into agreement by calling them dumb or stupid. Only the carrot works with appraisers. The stick don't work.

 

[Econobot]

I am "clueless" according to an AMC work newbie,all the high value appraisals I did which were scrutinized and they get 2 appraisals done on them for comparison - carry on with nonsense rants you have zero to contribute to the topic, otherwise you would be actually addressing the topic.

right about one thing - spending too much time here is a waste and better things to do so will cut back, but staying on this thread for now too bad E bot...

Common and typical for lenders to order two appraisals on high value subjects, I'd like to see how many revision requests you get. I'm not even going to share what I've done in the past year and I've had my certification for a little over 1 year.... I'm not impressed but I strive to have ZERO revisions and just a little info for you...my high-value assignments typically come with a 1-page subject property description (a narrative description of the house)... I would hope an appraiser who claims to do "high end work" is doing the same...

 

[George Hatch]

Care to elaborate or offer a solution?

The obvious solution is to observe and report what is, not contrive what isn't solely on the basis of "fannie will accept".

This HC is not clearly required for any legitimate reason. How a lender chooses to use an appraisal is strictly up to them, so if they have a problem with 2 (higher) values then that's an internal problem, not an appraisal problem. If they're trying to get around their own internal requirements about not lending on vacant land parcels that's an internal problem, not an appraisal problem.

 

[gregb]

Some reviewers obsess on the appraiser and lose sight of the appraisal.

 

[Econobot]

The obvious solution is to observe and report what is, not contrive what isn't solely on the basis of "fannie will accept".

This HC is not clearly required for any legitimate reason. How a lender chooses to use an appraisal is strictly up to them, so if they have a problem with 2 (higher) values then that's an internal problem, not an appraisal problem. If they're trying to get around their own internal requirements about not lending on vacant land parcels that's an internal problem, not an appraisal problem.

Ok, so you're saying cancel the assignment and only accept if you can do a land appraisal and SFR appraisal?

 

[George Hatch]

Ok, so you're saying cancel the assignment and only accept if you can do a land appraisal and SFR appraisal?

Well, when faced with what amounts to an "unreasonable assignment condition" that is the very first of the possible solutions offered. Renegotiation of those assignment conditions would be another and I daresay that would probably work just fine for Fannie assignments.

I've never once had that fail in any of my assignments, but then again I work with all sorts of client types OTHER than Fannie.

BTW, there's no inherent reason for producing a separate report, so I don't know why anyone would leap to that as being the only way to express another value conclusion in this assignment.