Fannie and Freddie - UMDP / UAD Forms Redesign Initiative - They ARE interested in appraiser input. Surprise!

[J Grant]

I have not read most of these posts, but when I scrolled through the samples, nearly every comment they chose to address or develop a change was from STAKEHOLDERS.

Fannie and Freddie may pay lip service to appraiser input but seems to have no affect. Regardless, the reality is these forms are developed for the benefit of the clients and users, they are not developed for the benefit of appraisers.

If WE designed forms, it they would be more streamlined and intuitive to fill out. But our experience of the forms are not the agencies' concern. Their concern is responding to what the stakeholders want, and results looks like stuff the forms with loads of detail so the clients and users can claim they knew enough about the property to make an informed lending decision,

 

[djd09]

I’m not a fan of her politics but she’s correct about Wells. Here’s an oldie but goodie, and honestly I’m discouraged that captive AMCs and the behavior described is still common:

“ValueIT eventually changed its name to Rels Valuation, a Defendant in this case. Plaintiffs claim that "Rels is a `captive' puppet of Wells Fargo, either by virtue of partial ownership by a common parent or economic power as its largest client." Id. ¶ 39.”

“In June, 2007, Sound Appraisal received a request from Wells Fargo through Rels to appraise a home in Enumclaw, Washington. After Sound Appraisal's sole proprietor, Don Pearsall, submitted the completed appraisal, Rels contacted Pearsall and "asked that he alter the Uniform Residential Appraisal Report he submitted."Id. ¶ 44. Pearsall refused to alter the report. Rels' area manager, Randall Pierzina, told Pearsall that Pearsall "took USPAP too seriously" and that Pearsall was going to "kill the deal." Id. ¶ 55.”

“When Pearsall inquired about the sudden decline in work, Pierzino stated that Pearsall had been "suspended and was no longer an approved appraiser for Rels Valuation." Id. ¶ 47.”

“After providing these appraisals to Rels, a "Collateral Compliance Reviewer" for Rels emailed Savage and included information "to support an increased value" of the appraised property. Id. ¶ 52. Savage then reviewed its appraisal and determined that no such increased valuation was appropriate. The next month, Savage received a letter from Rels, which stated that he had been removed from its approved panel of appraisers. The letter did not provide an explanation for the removal.”

Sound Appraisal v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. C 09-01630 CW | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Sound Appraisal v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. C 09-01630 CW, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

yeah she just wants her cut. notice no whining about how WF is a member of the IAC of TAF. public trust, eh?

 

[Alsie35]

RELS Valuation, FYI, was bought out and became part of Corelogic Valuations in 2015.

 

[Bearcat Bri]

This is just another change that will force more experienced appraisers out creating a greater scarcity of good appraisers and the end result will be higher fees or.....we are all screwed....again......just like the last time......and the time before that......

 

[Fernando]

1004 is fine. Leave it alone.
My suggestion to Fannie is to get rid of ANSI. Terrible standard to follow and only causes confusions.
Also why did 1004MC miss having a signature date? Fix that. You're welcome.

 

[ccpanel]

mckissock webinar RIGHT NOW and the 2 talking heads are saying words that mean really only one thing but they are also saying the words out loud they didnt intent to.
They polled 2600 appraisers out of the ~78,000 in the USA...

"this will allow us to capture data easier"
"this will allow us to capture the information without being buried in an addendum somewhere"
these are literal quotes I am typing as they talk.
"there will be more checkbox fields and less commentary"
"...it will be like turbo tax...pop-ups will appear if you check the correct box..."

blank fields will only appear if you check the magic box to allow a text field to show up.

"the reader will no longer be on an easter egg hunt"=the robots can read teh report easier...

"the report can adapt and adjust"

 

[ccpanel]

"the new URAR will update across all forms at the same time"

https://s3.amazonaws.com/vc5-course-documents/courses/72941/UADMcKissock.pdf

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

"the new URAR will update across all forms at the same time"

But the vendors will keep all the forms in their "library" dating back to the 1980s and thus you spend 30 minutes trying to find an "addendum" some knuckleheaded AMC wants to see no matter how irrelevant it is.

 

[ccpanel]

More data mining. Last 20 minutes so far just explaining that nothing is changing but its all changing....
The first 20 was explaining that ...'we need to mine your data so that useless addendum full of text is not going to be needed any more since we will have an active form that dynamically changes as you click boxes and will expand/contract in order to capture checkbox data and dont have the train the robots to read english.

"its about standardizing this language"

"its easier to check a box than to see addendum"

"its easier to point/click than to type a lot"

"its easier to understand without commentary"

a comment was made about how reviewers never read addendums and now this will eliminate the need since the checkboxes will be scanned and AI interpreted.

 

[ccpanel]

"got rid of net/gross adjustments"
I will miss that-its an indicator to me of how valid a comp might be... i dont care what teh number is.... but if everything is 8 and i have a 30-then maybe i need to look at it.