Unintended consequence of reviews

[Terrel L. Shields]

If only lenders knew what was and wasn't required to be USPAP compliant.

Too many reports are vetted for compliance with USPAP with a simple checklist and the checklist is checked off by a loan secretary. A few of our regionals actually have hired real appraisers to do the checklist. They also are the ones hiring the appraiser and maintaining the credentials of the appraiser.

 

[Non Sequitur]

There is definitely some truth to that. Additionally, if a lender has sold numerous loans done by an appraiser into the secodary market and then proceeds to get that same appraiser disciplined, they are inviting scrutiny of those loans which could result in potential repurchases if issues are found.

100%.

 

[sputnam]

I think one problem is that some appraisers go off script when they review. They lose sight of the point that their subject isn't the property itself; it's the quality of the original appraisal. As well, the benchmark for the original appraiser's valuation isn't "accurate value"; but what's "reasonable" given the SOW.

Any reviewer who thinks it's their job to operate on an adversarial basis under the assumption that a compliant appraisal report doesn't exist is doing it wrong. Way wrong. And you especially don't want a state board investigation to be getting out over their skis when it comes to acting in the role of appraisal review.

The other thing that some reviewers do is review the appraiser rather than the appraisal.

 

[TC]

Any reviewer who thinks it's their job to operate on an adversarial basis under the assumption that a compliant appraisal report doesn't exist is doing it wrong. Way wrong.

Copy that.

 

[DWiley]

I think one problem is that some appraisers go off script when they review. They lose sight of the point that their subject isn't the property itself; it's the quality of the original appraisal. As well, the benchmark for the original appraiser's valuation isn't "accurate value"; but what's "reasonable" given the SOW.

Any reviewer who thinks it's their job to operate on an adversarial basis under the assumption that a compliant appraisal report doesn't exist is doing it wrong. Way wrong. And you especially don't want a state board investigation to be getting out over their skis when it comes to acting in the role of appraisal review.

I found that when hiring reviewers, especially those who are appraisers, it was important for them to understand that step 1 in the review process was NOT to try to appraise the home themselves.

 

[Sadie]

I found that when hiring reviewers, especially those who are appraisers, it was important for them to understand that step 1 in the review process was NOT to try to appraise the home themselves.

I am assuming you mean to separate out the review vs, the reviewer's opinion of MV when asked for. Kind of hard to porvide a MVE if you are not appraising the house.

 

[Dublin ohio]

I am assuming you mean to separate out the review vs, the reviewer's opinion of MV when asked for. Kind of hard to porvide a MVE if you are not appraising the house.

The reviewer's opinion of MV is made after the appraisal is reviewed. The review is the reason the reviewer decides to opine their own MV

 

[DWiley]

I am assuming you mean to separate out the review vs, the reviewer's opinion of MV when asked for. Kind of hard to porvide a MVE if you are not appraising the house.

No. I mean the reviewer should not assume that the reviewer's value opinion is part of the review SOW

I know that field appraisers using standard industry forms are often asked for their own value, but that is typically NOT the case for reviewers at banks, AMCs, state boards, etc. I did literally hundreds of reviews for my state board and I never provided a value opinion. And when i worked at an AMC we did not want a second value opinion from the reviewer, just an opinion about the quality of the report we had received.

 

[Dublin ohio]

No. I mean the reviewer should not assume that the reviewer's value opinion is part of the review SOW

I know that field appraisers using standard industry forms are often asked for their own value, but that is typically NOT the case for reviewers at banks, AMCs, state boards, etc. I did literally hundreds of reviews for my state board and I never provided a value opinion. And when i worked at an AMC we did not want a second value opinion from the reviewer, just an opinion about the quality of the report we had received.

Boils down to SOW

 

[Sadie]

No. I mean the reviewer should not assume that the reviewer's value opinion is part of the review SOW

I know that field appraisers using standard industry forms are often asked for their own value, but that is typically NOT the case for reviewers at banks, AMCs, state boards, etc. I did literally hundreds of reviews for my state board and I never provided a value opinion. And when i worked at an AMC we did not want a second value opinion from the reviewer, just an opinion about the quality of the report we had received.

Read my post, I said if the assignment includes reviewer's opnion of MV. It doens't always but it sometimes does,Std Rule 3-3 (c)