3.6 Crunch Time

[George Hatch]

notice you aint quoting that one...so how many 3.6ixers have you completed?

You're asking one of the designers if they understand what they designed.

While at the same time confusing the obligations of the individual acting as an APPRAISER per the Confidentiality section of the ETHICS RULE - which applies to dissemination of the specifics of an appraisal service - with the action of reading or using an appraisal report.

2 foolishments in one sentence.

 

[chad hampton]

You're asking one of the designers if they understand what they designed

At this point with how ****ed up the rollout has gone I think that’s a question that needs to be asked.

I would assume part of the approval process is having several appraisers at Fannie Mae. Sit down, open up the software and start from scratch and make sure an acceptable report can be produced in a reasonable timeframe. I’m not even joking when I say I assume that was part of the process. Maybe it was, but I’m starting to think maybe it wasn’t?

What’s been your experience working with the 3.6?

 

[Non Sequitur]

TRANSLATION:

 

[George Hatch]

At this point with how ****ed up the rollout has gone I think that’s a question that needs to be asked.

He's talking about looking at completed 3.6s being delivered to the lenders and being forwarded to the GSEs. Those appraisals are being completed by somebody, and they're being completed on appraisalware from at least one existing vendor. Proof of concept, proof of capability.

Some appraisers and appraisalware vendors have apparently figured it out.

 

[chad hampton]

TRANSLATION:

View attachment 111121

This is a very accurate picture of every GSE rep I’ve ever heard speak at a conference or meeting.

 

[DWiley]

I would assume part of the approval process is having several appraisers at Fannie Mae. Sit down, open up the software and start from scratch and make sure an acceptable report can be produced in a reasonable timeframe. I’m not even joking when I say I assume that was part of the process. Maybe it was, but I’m starting to think maybe it wasn’t?

The scope of the verification (not "approval") process is addressed in post 333.

 

[chad hampton]

Sounds like a no.

 

[George Hatch]

He has repeatedly commented on the differences in the interface and workings of the various appraisalware packages. How could he have come to that opinion without testing them?

 

[DWiley]

Sounds like a no.

That is correct. How easy/fast the software is is not part of the verifications process. Having said that, I (and others) have copies of several of them and I have done a lot of testing. I will take the software and set it up as if I was going to use it going forward in my local market. I like some of them way more than others, but what I like/prefer is irrelevant. Each appraiser will have to decide what works best for them - just as they have since software was first introduced.

 

[chad hampton]

How about you just tell us what the quickest one is that can spit out a report?

That's all anyone wants to know.

Most of us don't have time to sit down and "try" or "test" a bunch of software. That part should be handled by the entities that required the change. Having a bunch of software where you are only concerned with what the finished product is should have been a non-starter in the development stage.

George, I figure you've tested these, which do you plan to use?