Aloft Appraiser Toolkit

[DWiley]

You’re moving the goalposts.


I never said Fannie or Freddie “endorsed” a specific tool. The concern is broader: when the GSEs write the curriculum (like the UAD 3.6 course), train the instructors, and select private partners like Aloft to deliver it—they control the message.


And when someone like Heather Sullivan, who developed training at Aloft (a company built around proprietary tools), moves into a policy role at Fannie Mae—it’s fair to question how much independence really exists between tech platforms, education, and regulation.


It’s not about naming a tool. It’s about how the profession is being steered—by the same institutions shaping the rules, the training, and, increasingly, the voices delivering both.

I am not moving anything.

Here is your post



Tim's comment was about the tool (post 42) - not the training.

 

[Mejappz]

I am not moving anything.

Here is your post

View attachment 100334

Tim's comment was about the tool (post 42) - not the training.

No one believes you, not even Terry. That's what happens when you try to defend the indefensible. You still haven’t apologized for standing up for The Bradleys, the ASB, and McKisoock. Their actions contributed to some of the changes that happened in TAF afterward.

 

[TerryRohrer]

not even Terry.

???????????????????????????????????????

 

[George Hatch]

You’re moving the goalposts.


I never said Fannie or Freddie “endorsed” a specific tool. The concern is broader: when the GSEs write the curriculum (like the UAD 3.6 course), train the instructors, and select private partners like Aloft to deliver it—they control the message.


And when someone like Heather Sullivan, who developed training at Aloft (a company built around proprietary tools), moves into a policy role at Fannie Mae—it’s fair to question how much independence really exists between tech platforms, education, and regulation.


It’s not about naming a tool. It’s about how the profession is being steered—by the same institutions shaping the rules, the training, and, increasingly, the voices delivering both.

Fannie and Freddie are users of appraisals. They are not appraisal entities. Like it or not, they have a right to decide what level of SR1/SR2 is sufficient for their use, the same as any other type of user.

I'm part of the appraisal profession and I perform appraisals every week. There are a number of GSE policies that I never comply with. Fannie/Freddie don't control any aspect of what my appraisal clients do.

Residential fee appraisers are not the profession. They're part of a niche in the appraisal profession that doesn't even include the appraisers who work on staff. Residential Fee appraisers are a significant niche of the profession, to be sure; but it's still a narrow subset of the much more diverse whole.

 

[DWiley]

No one believes you, not even Terry.

I have not asked anyone to believe anything. Multiple posters have asserted that the GSEs "signed off" or "passed muster" on a certain adjustment tool. I am simply asking for a citation in support of that assertion.

I am not aware of either GSE approving, endorsing or recommending any such tool.

 

[Mejappz]

Here, let me help you connect the dots.


We’ve been down this road before. Remember the situation with Michelle Czekalski Bradley and McKissock? While she chaired the Appraisal Standards Board, McKissock—where her husband held a senior role—secured the USPAP education contract. It looked like a conflict because it was one. And yet, shills on this very forum aggressively defended it at the time.


But in the end, it turns out those of us raising red flags were right. Bradley ended up going to the CFPB herself, and her disclosure led to real changes within TAF. Funny thing—none of the loudest defenders ever acknowledged it. No apology. No retraction. They just fell back on the old “conspiracy theory” line and moved on. Never once did they stop and say, “Hey, maybe there was a problem here.”


And now it’s happening again—with Aloft and the GSEs. The GSEs write the UAD 3.6 curriculum. Aloft gets tapped to deliver it. Heather Sullivan goes from shaping Aloft’s education to a policy position at Fannie Mae. The pattern is the same: concentrated influence, lack of transparency, and a revolving door between private education and regulatory control.


If you couldn’t see the issue then, and still can’t now, maybe it’s not that we’re imagining things—maybe it’s that some people are just too comfortable with power structures they happen to agree with.

 

[chad hampton]

I wouldn’t waste your time, some people are up to their eyeballs in the swamp and are cashing out big-time on a corrupt system. They’re certainly not gonna change it or even acknowledge that it needs to be changed. People that are part of the problem don’t typically flip to be part of the solution.

 

[Mejappz]

I wouldn’t waste your time, some people are up to their eyeballs in the swamp and are cashing out big-time on a corrupt system. They’re certainly not gonna change it or even acknowledge that it needs to be changed. People that are part of the problem don’t typically flip to be part of the solution.

Exactly. They’re too invested—financially, professionally, and in some cases, ideologically. When you’re benefiting from a rigged system, the last thing you want is for anyone to start tugging at the threads.


You’re right: people who are part of the problem rarely become the solution. They protect the structure because the structure protects them. That’s why they dismiss every concern as a “conspiracy” or pretend it’s all above board.


But calling it out still matters—because even if they won’t change, others watching are paying attention. And the more sunlight we throw on this, the harder it gets for them to hide behind process and pretend it's all business as usual.

 

[DWiley]

Here, let me help you connect the dots.


We’ve been down this road before. Remember the situation with Michelle Czekalski Bradley and McKissock? While she chaired the Appraisal Standards Board, McKissock—where her husband held a senior role—secured the USPAP education contract. It looked like a conflict because it was one. And yet, shills on this very forum aggressively defended it at the time.


But in the end, it turns out those of us raising red flags were right. Bradley ended up going to the CFPB herself, and her disclosure led to real changes within TAF. Funny thing—none of the loudest defenders ever acknowledged it. No apology. No retraction. They just fell back on the old “conspiracy theory” line and moved on. Never once did they stop and say, “Hey, maybe there was a problem here.”


And now it’s happening again—with Aloft and the GSEs. The GSEs write the UAD 3.6 curriculum. Aloft gets tapped to deliver it. Heather Sullivan goes from shaping Aloft’s education to a policy position at Fannie Mae. The pattern is the same: concentrated influence, lack of transparency, and a revolving door between private education and regulatory control.


If you couldn’t see the issue then, and still can’t now, maybe it’s not that we’re imagining things—maybe it’s that some people are just too comfortable with power structures they happen to agree with.

You keep conflating issues.

Issue 1 - You don't like that the lead for developing the UAD training ended up working at a GSE. If you feel so strongly, you should take that up with that GSE.

Issue 2 - Multiple posters have asserted that the GSEs "signed off" or "passed muster" on a certain adjustment tool. I am simply asking for a citation in support of that assertion.

You just seem to feel so much disdain for anyone who chooses to pursue a career and not just a job. I don't know how you even keep track of all your conspiracy theories.

 

[Mejappz]

You keep conflating issues.

Issue 1 - You don't like that the lead for developing the UAD training ended up working at a GSE. If you feel so strongly, you should take that up with that GSE.

Issue 2 - Multiple posters have asserted that the GSEs "signed off" or "passed muster" on a certain adjustment tool. I am simply asking for a citation in support of that assertion.

You just seem to feel so much disdain for anyone who chooses to pursue a career and not just a job. I don't know how you even keep track of all your conspiracy theories.

Ah, a little ad hominem to spice things up—when the argument runs dry, go for the personal dig, right? I like it


Let’s clear this up. I’m not “conflating” anything. These aren’t two separate issues—they’re parts of the same system. One where the GSEs aren’t just writing the rules but also shaping how appraisers are trained to follow them. And now we’ve got someone who helped push that training at Aloft sitting in a policy seat at Fannie Mae. That’s not just a career move—it’s a revolving door, and it deserves to be called out.


As for the "tool" thing—I never said the GSEs officially endorsed anything. What I said is that when the same message shows up in the course materials, the training, and the tools certain companies are pushing, it’s fair to ask who’s influencing what. You don’t need a signed memo to spot alignment when it’s right in your face.


And yeah—nice try framing this as me being bitter about people with “careers.” I’ve got no problem with people moving up. I have a problem when people do it by propping up a system that shuts out independent voices, buries dissent, and pretends everything’s fine while insiders cash out.


If calling that out makes me the bad guy, I’m good with that.