hastalavista
Elite Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2005
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- California
I heard this second hand, but from a couple of different sources; while not an absolute certainly, I think it is on the horizon.
As we know, Fannie is in the process of re-writing their forms. However, there is talk about an interim step in the forms.
The final re-write may be a few years off.
But an interim re-write may include this: Multiple SOW with a different limiting conditions section for each SOW.
One SOW will be what exists currently (more or less).
An additional SOW will be written to include the ability to complete a hybrid (3rd party inspector).
Check one box (or, include one SOW/Limiting Conditions) and it is the traditional 1004.
Check a different box (or, include a different SOW/Limiting Conditions) and it is now a hybrid.
I can understand, from a reporting-process, why this may sound like a good idea:
Despite the form and processing efficiency, if this is an interim re-write, I don't think it is a good idea.
I've looked at non-GSE hybrid form-reports (and, I think there are examples on most of our form software packages now) and certainly to anyone who is familiar with the 1004, the hybrid reports are clearly different. It would be difficult to confuse the two.
I'm hoping that what I heard is just an option and not the choice. We have a different form- recognizable by those who need to know- for drive-bys vs. interior/exterior inspections. I don't see a really compelling reason why we shouldn't have a different form for an hybrid inspection as well.
As we know, Fannie is in the process of re-writing their forms. However, there is talk about an interim step in the forms.
The final re-write may be a few years off.
But an interim re-write may include this: Multiple SOW with a different limiting conditions section for each SOW.
One SOW will be what exists currently (more or less).
An additional SOW will be written to include the ability to complete a hybrid (3rd party inspector).
Check one box (or, include one SOW/Limiting Conditions) and it is the traditional 1004.
Check a different box (or, include a different SOW/Limiting Conditions) and it is now a hybrid.
I can understand, from a reporting-process, why this may sound like a good idea:
- Appraisers are familiar with the 1004 format
- Clients/intended users are familiar with the 1004 format
- If there is a check-box to differentiate the different inspection-types, that is easily coded and tracked
Despite the form and processing efficiency, if this is an interim re-write, I don't think it is a good idea.
- How easy is it to mis-check a box or put in the wrong SOW?
- Although such stakeholders as real estate agents, borrowers, buyers, etc., are not clients nor intended users, a large segment of the stakeholder pie is somewhat familiar with what a residential appraisal looks like, and there may certainly be confusion as to what type of inspection-process was actually performed if the two forms look so similar (except for a check-bod and the pre-printed SOW/limiting conditions).
I've looked at non-GSE hybrid form-reports (and, I think there are examples on most of our form software packages now) and certainly to anyone who is familiar with the 1004, the hybrid reports are clearly different. It would be difficult to confuse the two.
I'm hoping that what I heard is just an option and not the choice. We have a different form- recognizable by those who need to know- for drive-bys vs. interior/exterior inspections. I don't see a really compelling reason why we shouldn't have a different form for an hybrid inspection as well.
