Hybrid Appraisals

[George Hatch]

The words are the words. That's why I post screengrabs instead of merely "quoting". It is that adherence to the material that separates the successful from unsuccessful participants in the Instructor's course. Those participants who persist in loading more into the material than is actually stated will fail the course. It's been some years but the last I heard the failure rate was 45%, so not everyone will pass even if they meet the other qualifying criteria for taking the course.

That's the reality people should be taking from these discussions: the words are the words, and that especially applies to the terms which are explicitly set forth in the DEFINITIONS. The other fundamental is the point that USPAP is a minimum standard that everyone can be expected to perform at. Not an aspirational that nobody can reasonably expect to meet. The user-driven extras are supplemental to the bare bones minimums.

 

[Ricky LaFleur]

Lol. I couldn't copy the text so I quoted verbatim, but since you believe I loaded something into that quote:


The words are the words, ain't they?

 

[djd09]

watch him spin the words like independent and impartial...

 

[George Hatch]

Lol. I couldn't copy the text so I quoted verbatim, but since you believe I loaded something into that quote:

View attachment 102246
The words are the words, ain't they?

Asked and answered. The operative clause we're discussing is literally part of the definition itself.

"similar type of assignment" is the part you skipped when you referred to the wider community of appraisers instead of the smaller subset of appraisers who perform these assignments. That's where that talking point collapses. You can't say that the hybrid or desktop is different form the conventional 1004 without also acknowledging that "same or similar type of assignment" will only consist of the variant and will not be inclusive of the conventional 1004s.

The GSEs aren't appraisal entities but they are a user entities. Telling them they can't establish a policy for hybrids or desktops, can't develop and promulgate those underwriting criteria or those form or that they are cheating and misleading themselves about the additional limitations they're asking for - that's going to be an impossible sell from an appraisal standards perspective.

What their opposition would need is to implore the govt to prohibit these policies in support of taxpayer interests. To further intervene into their appraisal policies. Trying to tell the lenders that the appraisers can't perform these assignments because USPAP prohibits it is a non-starter because it's untrue.

 

[Ricky LaFleur]

Interesting take. So, let's say if appraisers at large don't believe the scope of work would meet the "bare bones" for credible assignment results (even though they are competent to address the appraisal problem presented in that assignment), then they aren't peers. But if some PAREA grads are desperate enough to regularly perform them, then they are all the peers that matter. Got it, thanks!

 

[George Hatch]

I keep telling you it isn't an interpretation. That's what the words are saying. "Competency and qualifications" are one criteria, but not the only criteria when it comes to a SOW decision. The other stated qualifiers exist in writing, too.

You could be competent to perform the assignment, but if you wouldn't do one for whatever reason then you can't be considered that appraiser's peer in that assignment so it doesn't matter what your reasons are for not doing them. You can agree, you can disagree but if you wouldn't do one then neither of those opinions factor into the 2-part test of the acceptability of a SOW decision for those particular assignments.

Like it not, this SOW was always a possibility going all the way back, even prior to the SOWR. USPAP wasn't modified to create some new alternative - the market participants did it. We didn't change, they did.

 

[TerryRohrer]

I keep telling you it isn't an interpretation. That's what the words are saying. "Competency and qualifications" are one criteria, but not the only criteria when it comes to a SOW decision. The other stated qualifiers exist in writing, too.

You could be competent to perform the assignment, but if you wouldn't do one for whatever reason then you can't be considered that appraiser's peer in that assignment so it doesn't matter what your reasons are for not doing them. You can agree, you can disagree but if you wouldn't do one then neither of those opinions factor into the 2-part test of the acceptability of a SOW decision for those particular assignments.

Like it not, this SOW was always a possibility going all the way back, even prior to the SOWR. USPAP wasn't modified to create some new alternative - the market participants did it. We didn't change, they did.

Reading "similar" as "those" is 100% interpretation.

 

[Justinjla]

Remember, appraisers have nothing to worry about. Value Acceptance and hybrids aren't taking any work from appraisers.

https://singlefamily.fanniemae.com/media/43141/display

View attachment 102229

To clarify what was released yesterday: Property Data Collections (PDCs) for the GSEs must adhere to the Uniform Property Dataset (UPD) specification. Each approved vendor submits this data digitally via a standardized API.

Until now, each vendor generated their own version of a PDF output, which led to inconsistencies—data points appeared in different locations depending on the vendor. This created inefficiencies for anyone reviewing the reports.

What we released is a GSE-aligned PDF format for PDCs that standardizes the layout and eliminates those inefficiencies.

 

[George Hatch]

Reading "similar" as "those" is 100% interpretation.

The verbiage in the first line of the definition is "same or similar". That is not an interpretation.

 

[Joe Flacco]

To clarify what was released yesterday: Property Data Collections (PDCs) for the GSEs must adhere to the Uniform Property Dataset (UPD) specification. Each approved vendor submits this data digitally via a standardized API.

Until now, each vendor generated their own version of a PDF output, which led to inconsistencies—data points appeared in different locations depending on the vendor. This created inefficiencies for anyone reviewing the reports.

What we released is a GSE-aligned PDF format for PDCs that standardizes the layout and eliminates those inefficiencies.

Fixed it for you.