FANNIE bonds with AMCs, over your dead low paid body.

[J Grant]

It was the dishonest "I personally inspected" that got people into trouble. They said one thing (I personally inspected) but did another (I sent an unsupervised trainee or runner).

The dishonesty, not the use of an unsupervised runner. Which that dishonesty will be the act for which the appraiser is sanctioned. Had they stated that they used the unlicensed runner or unsupervised trainee for that conventional 1004 assignment the client would simply have rejected the appraisal for not meeting the requirements of that assignment.

?? What does one thing have to do with another? There was a minimal problem of appraisers being dishonest who marked did inspect with a trainee who did not inspect. And the number of appraisers using trainees plummeted post-HVCC. If an appraiser used a runner and did not check the box of did not inspect they could be sanctioned for it.

Moving past that distraction, this is a massive influx of non-licensed non-appraisers into the field to do what used to be an inspection, now called a "data collection" to keep it on the razor-thin edge of legal. We are aware that USPAP does not require an inspection. But for the assignments where an inspection used to be done, now they are onboarding non-appraisers to do a version called PDR.

 

[Non Sequitur]

It was the dishonest "I personally inspected" that got people into trouble. They said one thing (I personally inspected) but did another (I sent an unsupervised trainee or runner).

The dishonesty, not the use of an unsupervised runner. Which that dishonesty will be the act for which the appraiser is sanctioned. Had they stated that they used the unlicensed runner or unsupervised trainee for that conventional 1004 assignment the client would simply have rejected the appraisal for not meeting the requirements of that assignment.

Yeah, but if you're a large and connected national firm that's only a slap on the wrist now with no sanctions.

 

[chad hampton]

It was the dishonest "I personally inspected" that got people into trouble. They said one thing (I personally inspected) but did another (I sent an unsupervised trainee or runner).

The dishonesty, not the use of an unsupervised runner. Which that dishonesty will be the act for which the appraiser is sanctioned. Had they stated that they used the unlicensed runner or unsupervised trainee for that conventional 1004 assignment the client would simply have rejected the appraisal for not meeting the requirements of that assignment.

Oh, that's what you had the problem with? Not the quality of the work being done? It was a check box that bothered you most?

You'd think it would be the exact opposite someone that cared about accuracy and quality would be concerned with. Or at least it should be both.

 

[chad hampton]

Well, congrats I suppose. Now you have folks that aren't even licensed trainees going our performing appraisal inspections all over the country. And I assume we would all be shocked to still know how many of that idiotic "box" is still being checked.

 

[J Grant]

Well, congrats I suppose. Now you have folks that aren't even licensed trainees going our performing appraisal inspections all over the country. And I assume we would all be shocked to still know how many of that idiotic "box" is still being checked.

It's almost comical how the stakeholders deployed their legal resources and managed to influence regulators to accept questionably ethical yet legally permissible loopholes in the very legislation meant to protect public trust.

1) The HVCC and Dodd Frank have appraisal regulations that prohibits/sanction developing an appraisal developed to hit a $target amount or direction for a desired result, such as mortgage loan approval. The Stakeholder solution...Avoid the appraisal regulation by not using an appraisal !! ( use a waiver/value acceptance where mortgage lender estimates the property value needed to make the deal work, or the SC price is the property value )

2) Appraisal regulation prohibited a trainee from inspecting alone unless the supervisor checked "did not inspect." (which many clients would not accept )Challenge - how to get around it??? Don't call it an inspection - label it a PDR collection and use a non-appraiser person who took a quickie class!

 

[Carnivore]

Below is the link to curren NC Appraisal Board. I was disappointed that they did not include the Appraiser count for res and CG. Maybe they only do that at renewal time. NC now allows PAREA whoopee Their were only two complaint cases. Thats a good thing. One complaint was about BIAS aka he did not hit the bull's eye is my guess

Home | Licensing Board

ncappraisalboard.org

below is all the AMC's in NC

https://www.ncappraisalboard.org/directory/NotAnAMC.pdf

I did not know there were FEDERALLY REGULATED AMC’S

huge list of AMC's

The North Carolina Appraisal Board welcomes you to its Web site

 

[TerryRohrer]

History has shown that anytime the GSEs and the banksters, and now AI, conspire, it has never been, and will never be for the purpose of advancing the interests of independent appraisers.

Its just one more step to the top of the mortgage appraisal profession gallows. But look on the bright side...maybe they'll use a new rope.

Our mom always used to tell us we would still ***** if we were hung with a new rope. I suspect the same applies here!

 

[George Hatch]

Oh, that's what you had the problem with? Not the quality of the work being done? It was a check box that bothered you most?

You'd think it would be the exact opposite someone that cared about accuracy and quality would be concerned with. Or at least it should be both.

This is what you said and to which I was responding:

"Used to be the kind of thing that got you sent in front of an appraisal board."​

My comment wasn't about what I do/don't have a problem with, but what the state boards are doing when they get the complaint - the appraiser falsely certified personal inspection. Not that an unsupervised inspection is prohibited by USPAP or state regs. The exception being some of the states require a certain number of hours or inspections before a trainee can inspect solo.

Now to the other point of "solo trainee inspections are not accepted by many of the clients and users" that's 100% true, but it will still be the dishonesty factor WRT the inspections that the state cites. The state regs I've seen don't have a statute that explicitly prohibits trainees or non-appraisers from performing solo inspections.

 

[George Hatch]

?? What does one thing have to do with another? There was a minimal problem of appraisers being dishonest who marked did inspect with a trainee who did not inspect. And the number of appraisers using trainees plummeted post-HVCC. If an appraiser used a runner and did not check the box of did not inspect they could be sanctioned for it.

Moving past that distraction, this is a massive influx of non-licensed non-appraisers into the field to do what used to be an inspection, now called a "data collection" to keep it on the razor-thin edge of legal. We are aware that USPAP does not require an inspection. But for the assignments where an inspection used to be done, now they are onboarding non-appraisers to do a version called PDR.

The intellectual disconnect you keep using is equating the desktop as being the same thing as the conventional 1004. IRL these are somewhat different types of assignments. Same as is the case with the 2055 vs the 1004. Some similarities but not exactly the same thing.

They figured out how to slice/dice the conventional 1004 into different tranches without creating a USPAP violation. Technically they could have done this 30 years ago if it had mattered enough to them to do so. MAYBE you should send them flowers and a thank-you card for not doing this sooner.

 

[J Grant]

The intellectual disconnect you keep using is equating the desktop as being the same thing as the conventional 1004. IRL these are somewhat different types of assignments. Same as is the case with the 2055 vs the 1004. Some similarities but not exactly the same thing.

They figured out how to slice/dice the conventional 1004 into different tranches without creating a USPAP violation. Technically they could have done this 30 years ago if it had mattered enough to them to do so. MAYBE you should send them flowers and a thank-you card for not doing this sooner.

I have never equated a desktop with the conventional 1004. Please show me a link to where I ever wrote anything of the kind. ( I never have )

Seems it took them thirty years to go all in on dicing up things to reward AMC's on a mass scale - by taking the no inspeciton or a third party property info/ visit is acceptable for a desktop or 2055 so why not dice up the more detailed and higher level 1004 to do the same indicated stakeholders are equating the desktop as the same thing ( or lowering the standards for a 1004 to equate them as the same ). The fact that the UAD 2.6 no longer uses form numbers and labels to clearly indicate the type of work done and who did what portion of the work ( letting it appear instead in a check box ) serves to obscure the distinctions.