Put these cert 25 comments into an 3.6 addendum.

[chad hampton]

Part of DF did indicate studies were supposed to be performed. That’s how the markets would note the fees. Bidding is not mentioned in DF.

It’s an enforcement issue. The profession is a mess.

 

[TerryRohrer]

Not at all. As George pointed out in another post, sometimes we had to knock on doors to get data. It was harder and took longer. That does not equate to being impossible.
What do you do now when a listing on a great comp has no photos? Do you just assume, or do you seek out other sources?

Who is the arbiter of this provision: "The appraiser must be able to obtain adequate information about the physical characteristics (including, but not limited to, condition, room count, gross living area, etc.) of the subject property from the exterior-only inspection and reliable public and/or private sources to perform this appraisal."? Is adequate a subjective term, or defined in objective language somehwere? Does the UAD 3.6 specification include a similar provision?

 

[Surf Cat]

I agree that appraisers accept the scope of work when taking an assignment, but that doesn't address the bigger issue.

Shouldn't Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, or even the Appraisal Institute take the initiative to conduct an independent study determining how much time, research, and verification it actually takes to produce an appraisal report that meets the standards they expect?

Publish those findings and establish a reasonable fee benchmark based on the actual work required. Whatever that number turns out to be, lenders paying less should be required to justify it, or the loan should not qualify for purchase by the GSEs.

This would have tremendous benefits, most importantly improving appraisal quality by allowing appraisers to dedicate the necessary time and resources to their work. It would also encourage experienced appraisers to remain in the profession and attract a new generation.

In an average purchase or refinance transaction, the appraiser is often one of the lowest-paid professionals involved, yet carries arguably the greatest professional responsibility.

To continuously demand higher standards while hiding behind "let the market determine the fee," without even making an effort to establish what it reasonably costs to meet those standards, is a serious failure of responsibility.

Why allow an entire profession to deteriorate this way? Unless that is intentional, which I hope it is not, why aren't the institutions that depend on appraisers taking meaningful action?

I genuinely believe that whichever institution takes the lead on this initiative will become a hero to the appraisal profession. And the benefits would extend far beyond appraisers, resulting in better appraisal quality, more reliable valuations, and having a better stronger portfolio of loans.

It is an opportunity for one of these institutions to show real leadership.

Epic rant....too little too late I'm afraid....

 

[J Grant]

It's a different world now. Knocking on doors can get you shot., What if there is a no trespassing sign? Many homes have Ring doorbells now. If it shows a stranger, they wil not answer the door. In the old days, reports had a two-week turnaround time. Time to drive around neighborhoods and knock on doors, or call and wait till they called back.

Try calling someone now and getting through the screening. Even if they call or text back, it can be days after the due date.
Reports back then did not have multiple levels of scrutiny and did not have an obligation for an ROV.

The poster who said "impossible " meant it as hyperbole. This is a bulletin board, with people exchanging their viewpoints and experiences; it is not a court of law where every word is worthy of a cross-examination.

 

[djd09]

One practical way to alleviate this frustration and demonstrate trust in the appraisal profession would be for the GSEs to share with appraisers the same data and tools already available to lenders, including relevant information collected through UCDP. Allowing appraisers to cross-check comparable sales data, property characteristics, and adjustments reported in other appraisals could help improve accuracy, consistency, and overall appraisal quality.

why don't they let appraisers access CU...then their gig would be up

 

[Fritz in NY]

My office has had "0" 3.6 requests as of today 5:30 Friday. No one here is 100% on the new platform, more like 15%. Expect a slow weekend, alot of waiting.
If we did have the CU scan, prior to even uploading the report, it would be helpful to see what UW deals with. Why didn't that ever happen?

 

[Dublin ohio]

If we did have the CU scan, prior to even uploading the report, it would be helpful to see what UW deals with. Why didn't that ever happen?

Because it would become the new "book" of adjustments and could also lead some to conform with property characteristics descriptions, even if they are wrong or different from your description

 

[Tom D]

CU goes with the group thought when looking at your appraisal. If the group got something wrong, but you got it right. CU dings you for being wrong anyway. Group thought is still like a bell cure, 80% will be similar, then you have the 20% outliers. It seems to work that way with an group of people on anything.

 

[Dublin ohio]

If the group got something wrong, but you got it right. CU dings you for being wrong anyway.

I saw a lot of that when CU first started. All of them could have been cleared by the reviewer or UW if they had just looked at the report. The best one was a golf course lot w/ a golf course view. My "peers" said I was wrong. Never mind the plat map showing the lot adjacent to the golf course, the aerial photo showing the same and the picture of the golf course from the back deck, all included in the report