Freddie Mac vs Appraiser Bias

[Dale Floyd]

Okay - I'll ask...

Why must the inspection be non-trainee / third party? Why not use the Hybrid model, and allow trainees or other appraisers to do the inspections instead? (I've already spoken to FNMA's chief about this, and another person or two has discussed this behind the blog wall. I'm interested in any answer that will be given.)

 

[Carnivore]

Even on other FNMA forms like the 1004's we make some assumptions with the MLS Comps and accompanying exterior interior photos and what ever little bit of drivel they say in the remarks section. Usually in the remarks they Puff. Now they even use professional interior virtually staged and enhanced photos.

I have no issue with desktop type assignments with one exception. I refuse to prostitute myself with fee like a street walker does in the early we hours.

I have said this before and will say again. The first casualty because of fee and turn time pressure of a desktop is the work file. I just can not compete.

 

[Dale Floyd]

The 2055 uses a different certification WRT personal inspections, right?

I'm not suggesting it, I'm saying it directly - the APPRAISER is required to disclose what they did and didn't do whether the form's defaults are set to do so correctly or not.

You are not a form-monkey and you don't work for the form. The form works for you. I must confess to being shocked at the assumption that the GSEs would use a form that contradicts the SOW they're using for this type of assignment. But even if that assumption was correct the appraiser still wouldn't find themself in an untenable position where they're being held to account for issues that are 100% outside of their knowledge or control. The appraiser can still add the clarification so as to inform the reader what they did/didn't do.

If you're worried about the form and disclosures involved then why don't you ask DW the question instead of running wyld with the speculation?

(edit: never mind - I see that DW just answered that question)

Running "wyld" with the speculation?

If that was your attempt to poke at me, you missed. That's funny.

DW isn't the form - I certainly agree that the form is not my employer - and - I can attest that no simians are in my family tree, although that might be argued by a few.

These discussions hopefully cause people to think in our profession. The forms and their certifications have cause us many issues, and I'm very sure you are aware of that. Here we are decades later, still talking about them. You may hang your shingle in hopes of moving liability around in certifications and processes designed by GSEs. The people who hire us in Tennessee, may expect more in the appraisal world.

 

[Carnivore]

Okay - I'll ask...

Why must the inspection be non-trainee / third party? Why not use the Hybrid model, and allow trainees or other appraisers to do the inspections instead? (I've already spoken to FNMA's chief about this, and another person or two has discussed this behind the blog wall. I'm interested in any answer that will be given.)

After looking at Ground-Works I think its about cost. I did not sign up to get a real look. Another member said they get $20 Bucks for an exterior and more for an interior. I don't have any other details so I may be forced to sign up to get the Real Skinny.

When this all surfaced quite awhile ago. The assignment only gave you a name but no phone number. Now I think, but don't actually know a phone number is now included.

 

[Dublin ohio]

I have no issue with desktop type assignments with one exception. I refuse to prostitute myself with fee like a street walker does in the early we hours

I have one client that has given me the choice between a 1004 and 1004 desktop twice within the past month. . My choice. Same fee. I chose 1004 on both. One was a new build under construction. Easier to inspect myself. Rather than trying to reconcile third party inspection with the improvement info within construction contract. Second one was 4000 sf home on 9 acres with a 2800 sf outbuilding and about 2/3 of the site in a 100 year flood zone.

 

[DWiley]

Okay - I'll ask...

Why must the inspection be non-trainee / third party? Why not use the Hybrid model, and allow trainees or other appraisers to do the inspections instead?

You have been able to do that for decades now, using the Supervisory Appraiser fields on a 1004/70.

 

[Tim Hicks (Texas)]

You have been able to do that for decades now, using the Supervisory Appraiser fields on a 1004/70.

We have been able to do that, but what lenders will accept it? I know many clients state only the assigned appraiser..., no trainees...etc.

 

[Carnivore]

You have been able to do that for decades now, using the Supervisory Appraiser fields on a 1004/70.

Yes, DW, your Correct as usual. OTOH in the Real World I have read here and Facebook that many if not most Lenders do not allow the Trainee to solo inspect.

Other Lenders don't allow the trainee to sign on the left and Super on the Right.

BUT they do allow a Trainee to state in the report their assistance.

I have received assignments where it says the above....but I haven't used a trainee in a long time.

It the Lenders Choice.

OTOH if your doing work Directly for FNMA they do allow the trainee to sign. I can't recall if they allowed the trainee to solo inspect . I don't know this first hand, it is what I have been told by other Collateral Vendors like me.

 

[Dale Floyd]

You have been able to do that for decades now, using the Supervisory Appraiser fields on a 1004/70.

Tim Hicks is exactly right DW - And that was something you and I already discussed somewhile back, and I've stated this multiples of times. It has been a constant complaint for years in our profession.

 

[George Hatch]

If

Running "wyld" with the speculation?

If that was your attempt to poke at me, you missed. That's funny.

DW isn't the form - I certainly agree that the form is not my employer - and - I can attest that no simians are in my family tree, although that might be argued by a few.

These discussions hopefully cause people to think in our profession. The forms and their certifications have cause us many issues, and I'm very sure you are aware of that. Here we are decades later, still talking about them. You may hang your shingle in hopes of moving liability around in certifications and processes designed by GSEs. The people who hire us in Tennessee, may expect more in the appraisal world.

I had never previously looked at that form, so I didn't know for sure that the GSEs hadn't screwed up. I just suspected they were using forms that did include such disclosures. Kindly note that I framed my responses in terms of the appraiser's obligations WRT these disclosures and that I advocate being very specific about them; moreso than these forms normally get into.

FTR, I don't consider full disclosure as to what the appraiser is doing in their SOW to be an example of "moving liability around in certifications and processes designed by GSEs". I just consider it to be sound appraisal practice, which I also follow in 100% of my own work.

I am in no way attempting to persuade you or any other appraiser to perform these assignments. And for sure, if the people in Tennessee expect more from an appraisal than what the GSEs have decided they will accept then I certainly have no criticisms of that or of any appraiser who is identifying and then proceeding to meet those higher expectations. I'm just sifting through the chaff that has been injected into these discussions as a means of getting down to the facts - so that we can all make the more informed choices.