UAD 3.6 discussion

[DWiley]

. That will continue to add page lenthg, I assume with 3.6.

Have you looked at the sample reports posted on the GSE web sites? Have you looked at the length compared to current reports?

https://sf.freddiemac.com/docs/pdf/uad-sample-scenarios-combined.pdf

 

[J Grant]

That narrative is why I posted the recent job aid that highlights what is new. Take a look at that and tell me if the majority are value related items or not.

https://sf.freddiemac.com/docs/pdf/uad-inspection-and-reporting-tips.pdf

A quick read of it indicates that the details such as linear water footage or depth or measuring windows or a front entry elevation are not essentially value-related. The concepts can be value-related, such as does the water allows deep water boat dockage or not, but the exact depth of the water is an engineering factoid ( and making appraisers liable for it is scary )

The buyer in a MV definition is expected to be well-informed or well-advised. A buyer purchasing waterfront property, or any property, can find out any level of detail they want and make whatever inspections they want. Appraisers should address what is important to value for any assignment - with waterfront might be it is navigable to other canals or rivers or the ocean or does it has fixed bridges and if the dock is long enough for a certain kind of boat etc - but the details of water depth should not be the responsibility of the appraiser to find out.

Would you suggest that lenders add additional time for turnaround in UAD 3.6? I think it would be the responsible thing to do to inform them that the new format can add time to an appraisal, because the level of exact factual detail in certain fields will take additional time to gather.

The UAD does add some good value related fields- however, addressing additional facts and data adds time, and turn times were already tight for the level of verification that could benefit a report. - I doubt action will be taken on part of the GSEs to let lenders know that since it would be unpopular, and this way the appraisers can be blamed for taking too long.

 

[J Grant]

I ABSOLUTELY deny that I've EVER recommended anyone 'guess' at anything. That, my friend, is what is ludicrous.


It was an actual study - I think done by the St. Louis FED (although I can't find the study now). Here's another one to peruse in it's absence, though:

https://www.appraisalinstitute.org/...e-adjustment-research-contains-multiple-flaws

While that is true, they are also 'alternative valuation methods' when comparing them against the SCA. Hybrid appraisals and AVM's are also alternative valuation methods as compared to traditional appraisals. Not sure why that is such a difficult concept to grasp?


You really don't understand what a valuation is, do you? You state that a BPO is a 'price opinion', but in reality, it's a broker's estimation of the worth of a particular real property right (or bundle thereof). As is an AVM.

Look - you don't like the fact that the GSE's 'sped up the process' in light of their opinion that 'traditional valuations' were/are lacking. An opinion that has been demonstrated to be (in general) VERY accurate. Don't blame the messenger.

If a BPO is not a price opinion, then why is it called a BPO? Why not call it a BVO- - (broker valuation opinion( The truth is a broker rarely does them, misleading label. I am aware the BPO is also some level of worth/value but look at who fills it out - a person, so it is still low tech.

 

[alebrewer]

If a BPO is not a price opinion, then why is it called a BPO? Why not call it a BVO- - (broker valuation opinion( The truth is a broker rarely does them, misleading label. I am aware the BPO is also some level of worth/value but look at who fills it out - a person, so it is still low tech.

I thought we were discussing what an alternative valuation was, not the merits of a BPO?

 

[cashcatz]

Looks like https://www.aivre.com is the first to get approved, a brand new start up - impressive!

 

[Non Sequitur]

Saw a post from Jake yesterday that they hadn't yet, but were expecting to be the first approved.

Edit: cashcatz beat me to the punch.

 

[DWiley]

.... but the exact depth of the water is an engineering factoid ( and making appraisers liable for it is scary )

It can be helpful to read the actual specs rather than relying on social media posts addressing non-existent requirements.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

All of those new required data points, yet they ignore those that are important to buyers when deciding which neighborhoods to live or invest in. Number of homeless within 1000 feet of the subject, shootings or violent crime, presence of graffiti, chicken bones and empty Fireball bottles, multiple un-mowed or dead lawns, and number of abandoned junk cars on the street.

Woke doesn't go so well when it comes to investing your own $$$.

 

[chad hampton]

There will be a learning curve, just like anything else. Appraisers have adapted to change I would say as much as any group of professionals ever has had to over the last 20 some years, and this will be no different. In the end, if it’s too much of a pain in the *** for the relatively low pay that this profession offers, people will leave. But I suspect most will just decide that while this isn’t really a viable full-time career, it’s not bad for some side money.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

Technology is a broad term, but generally 'not keeping up with the advancement of analysis tools' might suffice, yes? RE actually performing analysis: (1) remember the study done on how many appraisals still use $20/foot for GLA adjustments? (2) or how 'bout the recent requirement that appraisers 'show' their market analysis. These are what I'm talking about WRT appraisers not actually doing analysis, but rather using their 'experience' (which in most cases is little more than applying adjustments the way their supervisory appraiser told them to). This is why (IMO) the GSE's have moved toward alternative valuations sooner than later.

(1) This has nothing to do with technology.
(2) This also has nothing to do with technology.

This has to do with doing your job.

GSE technology being the gold standard they compare us too is sometimes the problem, it is way out of whack sometimes, even for cookie cutters. Relying on technology that is not reliable rather than doing the analysis yourself is a problem.

At some point wouldn't a lender/AMC not want an appraiser using $20 sq ft. adjustments for every appraisal? Its not rocket science when you use $10 sq.ft. adjustments, you have one that is similar in GLA and the others are double the GLA and are adjusting much higher.