Using Collateral Underwriter to Turn Appraisers In

[Terrel L. Shields]

(which personally, I approve of them tightening up).

Me, too.... since I don't work for the scumbags...whatzit2me? Crickets, George? Do you even work for them either?

 

[residentialguy]

All this means is that Fannie is becoming a higher maintenance user than in the past. Probably others will follow suit.

They should be required to produce proof... and saying that we had some skippies report the quality to be q4 and not q3 isn't proof.

 

[George Hatch]

The way she is telling it she got hassled for the report and she rebutted it, then they sent in the complaint inclusive of her rebuttal.

I don't know exactly what happened, but (for example) if the source of the disagreement is her rating of the subject's Q/C attributes which in turn led to the use of the less optimal comps then arguing those comps against her own ratings will not be a persuasive rebuttal. She would need to argue the validity of her Q/C ratings first, which if she prevails at that will presumably justify everything else she did with the comp selection and reconciliation.

Whenever I review, I always look first at the accuracy of the facts being asserted because that's how most "unreasonable" value conclusions go bad.

I don't know but my perception of it is that the CU's perspective on the subject's Q/C ratings will be coming from what other appraisers have previously done on that property. If so, it's her peers who she is actually disagreeing with on that one.

 

[George Hatch]

Me, too.... since I don't work for the scumbags...whatzit2me? Crickets, George? Do you even work for them either?

I have a couple clients that are much more demanding than the GSEs have been (in the past). If they're tightening up now then they're playing catch up with some of the other lender types.

I also have some clients that run looser than the GSEs. Mostly by necessity given the very different levels of the amount of usable data that can be used in these different assignments.

My theory on it is that the more complicated the appraisal problem is the fewer critics there are who think they can do better. An appraisal of a dogbox tract house is going to attract the most critics and they're going to fixate on the every-more-trivial issues. Lots of these critics feel compelled to lift their leg just to show they were there.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

They should be required to produce proof... and saying that we had some skippies report the quality to be q4 and not q3 isn't proof.

I had a certified general claim a basic 3 br 2 bath rectangular rancher that is easily a q4 house with standard materials you would see in most communities was actually a q2. I just wonder what they do when they actually have a q2 house. I really don't care if a house is between q4 and q3 what someone calls it.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

I had a certified general claim a basic 3 br 2 bath rectangular rancher that is easily a q4 house with standard materials you would see in most communities was actually a q2. I just wonder what they do when they actually have a q2 house. I really don't care if a house is between q4 and q3 what someone calls it.

So what is the "quality" of this house - not the condition, just the quality - bilt about 1930 - 9' ceilings, wood floors, plaster walls,

 

[residentialguy]

I had a certified general claim a basic 3 br 2 bath rectangular rancher that is easily a q4 house with standard materials you would see in most communities was actually a q2. I just wonder what they do when they actually have a q2 house. I really don't care if a house is between q4 and q3 what someone calls it.

CGs are all rookies

 

[residentialguy]

So what is the "quality" of this house - not the condition, just the quality - bilt about 1930 - 9' ceilings, wood floors, plaster walls,

View attachment 60403
View attachment 60404

Probably a Q4

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Probably a Q4

Why?
After all - if there is a relationship between age or condition, why doesn't FNMA not even mention age?

I miss the old Boeckh appraisal system. It classified houses by age from pre-war and post war for one. I can presume that a house (here at least) wasn't even insulated prior to the energy crisis of 1972-3. In fact, FHA didn't even require those little cookie cutters to have insulation until later. In 73ish, some FHA houses had higher utility bills than mortgage payments and as a consequence entire subdivisions of them went into foreclosure.

So this house, was built in its day as top shelf housing. And it has features no modern house of similar size (1,000 SF or so) has. Large pillars, wood trim, wood subfloor, wood flooring, 9' walls. The quality is almost always established by the COST and we don't know the original cost. But I bet if you did a comparison of appraisals you would find a correlation between the QUALITY RATING and the CONDITION RATING... a QUALITY house in poor CONDITION, will get downgraded from its actual QUALITY. Condition and quality should be separate items.

This house from a cost book rating has a substantially higher RCN than does most newer houses of its size. But even those don't account for insulation, nor plaster over sheetrock (plaster is more expensive but perhaps not superior although commonly though of as superior materials)

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

Why?
After all - if there is a relationship between age or condition, why doesn't FNMA not even mention age?

I miss the old Boeckh appraisal system. It classified houses by age from pre-war and post war for one. I can presume that a house (here at least) wasn't even insulated prior to the energy crisis of 1972-3. In fact, FHA didn't even require those little cookie cutters to have insulation until later. In 73ish, some FHA houses had higher utility bills than mortgage payments and as a consequence entire subdivisions of them went into foreclosure.

So this house, was built in its day as top shelf housing. And it has features no modern house of similar size (1,000 SF or so) has. Large pillars, wood trim, wood subfloor, wood flooring, 9' walls. The quality is almost always established by the COST and we don't know the original cost. But I bet if you did a comparison of appraisals you would find a correlation between the QUALITY RATING and the CONDITION RATING... a QUALITY house in poor CONDITION, will get downgraded from its actual QUALITY. Condition and quality should be separate items.

This house from a cost book rating has a substantially higher RCN than does most newer houses of its size. But even those don't account for insulation, nor plaster over sheetrock (plaster is more expensive but perhaps not superior although commonly though of as superior materials)

Based on the picture it looks like Q4. It is not the condition that is telling me that. Looks like a standard shape house, not from a designer plan. Standard fenestration. 9' ceilings is not enough for me to call it q3. I can see your argument that plaster may be more costly, but not more desirable. I wouldn't call it having significant exterior ornamentation.

I would consider something like this q3. more than likely.