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

[DWiley]

?? 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.

There is nothing "razor thin" about the legality. USPAP and state laws have always allowed appraisals without inspections. I did a no-inspection appraisal for a big legal case over 20 years ago. For my whole career it has been acceptable to perform appraisals without a personal inspection of the subject.

The only reason that the 1004/70 requires personal inspection is because that is the GSEs' policy when using that form. It still is the policy, when using that form.

Many are unhappy with the GSEs' decision to move away from the requirement for personal inspection by the appraiser, and they seem to want to blame the wrong entity for the data that supported that decision.

 

[chad hampton]

What was changed was that when an inspection was required, who can do it. Up until recently, it was unthinkable (and In violation of many laws and rules) that a random dude off the street could perform appraisal inspections.

 

[J Grant]

There is nothing "razor thin" about the legality. USPAP and state laws have always allowed appraisals without inspections. I did a no-inspection appraisal for a big legal case over 20 years ago. For my whole career it has been acceptable to perform appraisals with a personal inspection of the subject.

The only reason that the 1004/70 requires personal inspection is because that is the GSEs' policy when using that form. It still is the policy, when using that form.

Many are unhappy with the GSEs' decision to move away from the requirement for personal inspection by the appraiser, and they seem to want to blame the wrong entity for the data that supported that decision.

The razor-thin reference is not about USPAP allowing appraisals without inspections.

The hybrid has an inspection as part of the assignment. It uses a non-appraiser to perform a PDR collection as a proxy for an inspection - imo that is a razor-edge compliance issue, since USPAP defines an inspection as part of appraisal practice under certain conditions, and that includes if an opinion is part of the inspection results. Thus, it is a workaround to command the PDR inspector not to offer an opinion, to keep it from being part of appraisal practice as an inspection, (instead is labeled as a data collection. )

Question -When a PDR collector makes an appointment to see the property, do they use the word inspection? Or do they call a homeowner or RE agent and say they want to make an appointment to come over for a data collection?

A hybrid is an appraisal - yes, appraisers are unhappy with being the least well-informed among the parties, since the appraiser is now denied seeing the subject property in person for their own appraisal. What entity decided this was a good idea? What "data" supported this decision? Though the end result is the same.

 

[Trihard]

They will never give appraisers the CU data because they need to steal your data.

 

[J Grant]

What was changed was that when an inspection was required, who can do it. Up until recently, it was unthinkable (and In violation of many laws and rules) that a random dude off the street could perform appraisal inspections.

Their legal department came up with the idea of substituting the word "data collection" for "inspection". Thus, it is not a violation of law to send a random dude off the street to do a data collection.

Random dudes are used because they can pay them a dinky fee,, and at the same time double or triple the output of deskbound staff appraisers. Any data that supports this was designed to support it because it creates a profit stream for third parties. It prevents the next generation from becoming market experts because market expertise is developed from going out in the field.

The problem is on the individual assignment level, that an appraiser can never know what they might have appraised it or what opinions they would make if they had personally visited the property. The MV assumes a well-informed buyer and seller. Now the appraiser is less well-informed than any other party, since the appraiser has not visited the property and gets their information third-hand. The seller, usually an owner, of course knows the property; most buyers visit the property if at all possible, RE agents view the property, but the appraiser does not. Makes it hard to defend a value .

 

[chad hampton]

we also confuse no enforcement with laws not existing. This profession is one of the best examples of scofflaw out there.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

They will never give appraisers the CU data because they need to steal your data.

If CU is stealing my data it doesn't do that well in understanding it.

 

[djd09]

it is like that movie wall street...when gecco dismantles the airline for big profits...that is who we are dealing with...so without the public trust in mind the looting continues

 

[chad hampton]

it is like that movie wall street...when gecco dismantles the airline for big profits...that is who we are dealing with...so without the public trust in mind the looting continues

At least folks that think of themselves as the Gordon Gekko of appraising

 

[DWiley]

What was changed was that when an inspection was required, who can do it. Up until recently, it was unthinkable (and In violation of many laws and rules) that a random dude off the street could perform appraisal inspections.

The part that you seem to be missing is that "when an inspection was required" for a GSE appraisal, it was only required because the GSEs themselves required it. USPAP and state laws have always allowed an appraisal without a personal inspection by the appraiser. Appraisers who have been disciplined in the past for not inspecting were not sanctioned for not inspecting - they were sanctioned for lying about inspecting.

The thing that confuses me is that you often express opposition to appraisals where the data comes from a recent property visit by a third party, yet in another thread you stated that if someone was uncomfortable doing 2055s, have the client call you instead. Why are you perfectly fine with a 2055, but not a hybrid?