1004p Inspections

[Evincere]

What are the other options we have to get inspection information for the comps?

The crux of the arguments in favor of data collectors seems to be that Appraisers rely on MLS property descriptions and pictorial essays for comparable which should / could now be applicable to the SUBJECT. If the info is it’s good enough to be used for comps it should be good enough for Subject. IOW realtors providing the data are just as credible as an appraiser performing the same function.

Essentially the subject is thrown into the comparable pool of sold properties before it’s even appraised for EMV

 

[DWiley]

Borrowers seeking loans are subjects of these “test and learn” expeditions? Knowingly or unknowingly?

The appraisal is for the lender, not the borrower. Having said that, the borrowers are fully informed. And there is an option to not participate.

You sure have posted a lot of views on the program for someone who does not seem to know a lot of the basics about it

 

[Evincere]

The appraisal is for the lender, not the borrower. Having said that, the borrowers are fully informed. And there is an option to not participate.

You sure have posted a lot of views on the program for someone who does not seem to know a lot of the basics about it

What. Fannie couldn’t come up with a more creative form label than a 1004p

What does the p” stand for - peewee

 

[George Hatch]

That's a separate problem that (IMO) Fannie should change. If they're going to retain the XML data fields for these assignments then they should provide a new shell for them so the reports don't look like a 1004. As far as I'm concerned, allowing readers to mistakenly equate one of these with a conventional 1004 is a hugely hostile and immoral move by Fannie.

 

[J Grant]

That's a separate problem that (IMO) Fannie should change. If they're going to retain the XML data fields for these assignments then they should provide a new shell for them so the reports don't look like a 1004. As far as I'm concerned, allowing readers to mistakenly equate one of these with a conventional 1004 is a hugely hostile and immoral move by Fannie.

It was delineate to have the two forms look alike and a similar title (1004P) , with a tiny box for appraiser did /did not inspect - implying some other appraiser or professional inspected - not a RE agent or person who took a one hour training webinar "data collecting". .

It all speaks to the deceptive pedigree of this program, which originated from the Fannie former disgraced CEO's epiphany that appraisers should be at the desk.. (divorcing appraiser from the market ), followed by hailing appraisal modernization as on par with Dominoes" Pizza Delivery.

Time will tell how this program / waivers perform long term. If Fannie's internal valuation system is as bad as the rote, blind as bat CU "comps" they send - used to decide waiver or level of appraisal. A giant form of comp checking!! Only now that Fannie does it it is okay If their valuation model "hits " on a sale price or refinance target value , they can decide at their option to not appraise and lend on the target value ! Ironic considering that is the same goal mortgage brokers had with pressuring to meet target value pre HVCC...

 

[George Hatch]

In fairness it could be that it was just simpler and more convenient for Fannie to tweak the 1004. Nevertheless, once we tell Fannie that it will lead to readers making unwarranted assumptions about this SOW being effectively the same as the 1004 that should be enough for them to take steps to correct the problem.

This was one of the issues we had with ZAIOs program; they loaded the results of their appraiser-enabled AVM into a 2055 variant, thus implying to the readers that it was the same thing even though they weren't. It's not that there was anything inherently wrong with ZAIOs process - there isn't. It just isn't the same as the process for a conventional 2055. And it becomes downright misleading to allow even the casual readers to make the assumption that they are the same thing.

 

[J Grant]

In fairness it could be that it was just simpler and more convenient for Fannie to tweak the 1004. Nevertheless, once we tell Fannie that it will lead to readers making unwarranted assumptions about this SOW being effectively the same as the 1004 that should be enough for them to take steps to correct the problem.

This was one of the issues we had with ZAIOs program; they loaded the results of their appraiser-enabled AVM into a 2055 variant, thus implying to the readers that it was the same thing even though they weren't. It's not that there was anything inherently wrong with ZAIOs process - there isn't. It just isn't the same as the process for a conventional 2055. And it becomes downright misleading to allow even the casual readers to make the assumption that they are the same thing.

I think you give Fannie way too much credit. Maybe the "old" Fannie would have corrected , but the new, Fannie will celebrate the unwarranted assumptions as a positive business model .

 

[Carnivore]

deleted

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Curious...correct me if wrong. Wasn't the earliest forms (the old old green form) actually an FHA form? When did FNMA take over the function of creating these forms and why were they given that authority by whom?

 

[George Hatch]

That was one of my complaints when they revised the form and said it was Fannie-centric.

As I understood it the "Uniform" in URAR was intended to reflect a consolidation of the hodgepodge being used in the market which preceded its use.