1004p

[Michigan CG]

These clients are not providing 8 hours a day volume , rather a scattering of orders with fast turn times that disrupt other work.

I might need a drink, I agree with the above.

The AMCs are trying to order from the ala carte menu where prices should be higher. If someone were to say to me they need an inspection completed in two days they are going to pay more than the company who gives me more time to schedule effectively and combine that inspection when I am in the area.

I do a lot of new construction draw inspections. The companies I do these for allow ten days for the inspection to be completed. I inspected four of them on Friday. The two-day turn time thing would be a no go for me as it reduces my income potential.

It is my thought that AMCs have absolutely no regard or respect for appraisers when it comes to the efficiency of the appraiser and the appraiser's bottom line. To call appraisers "partners" is ludicrous.

 

[Dale Smalley]

Why cant the Appraiser in charge hire the inspector? We don need the AMC for that. It would be faster and cheaper and the appraiser would have more control of the quality.

 

[ramrcdk]

Why cant the Appraiser in charge hire the inspector? We don need the AMC for that. It would be faster and cheaper and the appraiser would have more control of the quality.

Thought: the reason or at least A reason for splitting the assignment into two parts?
Money is why. That is IT! OR why else?
Not-licensed Inspector some here say $80/per. Appraiser offered Fee, some say here $120/per. TT: for both 2-3 days?
TT : # of days is crazy given: in most cases the lender does not need and/or has much more than 2 -3 days of title, etc, paperwork ... and for the closing in a few weeks, months. (edited: removed a conf-usable word- not meant to be taken out of context ---ooops).
Where for THE all of this: the FAKE NEWS of the initial reasoning from the FDIC & etc, hence public response has expired. " Appraisals take Too Long & are Too High "
Guess, their Fake News sources were AMCs where it MAY HAVE taken a few days TO find a Traitor, excuse Scum willing to accept TOOOO low of a Fee
& where the AMC percentage CUT is STILL more than they are offering US NOW! The AMC Rep' is rated ON their assignment performance ratio & will get bonuses for...
Lender to Borrower: willing to charge $100 less (from their fixed fee menu rates of say $600) IF the borrower is OK with a hybrid. Fact!!! SO, WHO gets the remainder ?

Shooting Fish in a barrel. Easy to figure out! CHARGE ADEQUATELY FOR OPERATING A BUSINESS, not providing a Form.

 

[mike32716]

What you don't want to hear is that the answer for that would be no different than it would be for someone measuring a comp instead of measuring the subject. You (and others) see some profound difference between using third party data for a comp versus using third party data for the subject, but USPAP recognizes no such difference.

It's not quite that simple. With respect to comparables we are relying on multiple data points (comps), any of which could have errors in the data. However, when all these potential comps are adjusted there should be a central tendency of value. The comps with the erroneous data are more likely to stick out (too high or low), and either get more research as to why or rejected. It's a judgement call that appraisers get paid for. Contrast this with erroneous data in the subject information that will carry through the entire report, and impact the estimate of value.

 

[Eli]

Thought: the reason or at least A reason for splitting the assignment into two parts?
Money is why. That is IT! OR why else?
Not-licensed Inspector some here say $80/per. Appraiser offered Fee, some say here $120/per. TT: for both 2-3 days?
TT : that is crazy & lacks ethical outcomes, as in most cases the lender has much more than 2 -3 days of paperwork ... for the closing in a few weeks, months.
Where for THE all of this: the FAKE NEWS of the initial reasoning from the FDIC & etc, hence public response has expired. " Appraisals take Too Long & are Too High "
Guess, their Fake News sources were AMCs where it MAY HAVE taken a few days TO find a Traitor willing to accept TOOOO low of a Fee
& where the AMC percentage CUT is STILL more than they are offering US NOW! The AMC Rep' is rated ON their assignment performance ratio & will get bonuses for...
Lender to Borrower: willing to charge $100 less (from their fixed fee menu rates of say $600) IF the borrower is OK with a hybrid. Fact!!! SO, WHO gets the remainder ?

Shooting Fish in a barrel. Easy to figure out! CHARGE ADEQUATELY FOR OPERATING A BUSINESS, not providing a Form.

Now ethics rule is huge, but the ivory tower folks will say I was not acting as an appraiser. What they say they were acting as might be comical. LOL

What were you acting as? Oh, I don't know. I can't remember. LOL What are your credentials?

 

[Eli]

I don't get it from an ethics standpoint. Do what you say and say what you do to the borrower. And make sure it is disclosed on the truth in lending documents. That's your safe haven from an appraisal standpoint.

 

[George Hatch]

It's not quite that simple. With respect to comparables we are relying on multiple data points (comps), any of which could have errors in the data. However, when all these potential comps are adjusted there should be a central tendency of value. The comps with the erroneous data are more likely to stick out (too high or low), and either get more research as to why or rejected. It's a judgement call that appraisers get paid for. Contrast this with erroneous data in the subject information that will carry through the entire report, and impact the estimate of value.

The appraiser's role in these assignments is limited to performing a desktop SOW. That's all the appraiser is doing. That much we should all be capable of acknowledging.

That being the case, what's the difference *WRT to the appraiser's obigations* in an desktop appraisal if an error occurs in a 3rd party inspection vs any other 3rd party datasource such as public records or an MLS listing?

 

[George Hatch]

I disagree.

First of all the 1004 is not going away.

If the fees for these ala carte products pay less than what appraisers make on traditional products then they won't do them.

The reason I think the 1004P *should* go away completely is because it will be interpreted by some casual readers to be the same thing as a conventional 1004. I think that if they want to retain the same datafields but rearrange them to show the inspection results in one section of the report and separate sections for the appraiser's work, formatted on a different report form - that would more clearly convey the difference between these assignments vs the conventional assignments.

I think that if they are going to pursue the hybrid then they should streamline the development and reporting elements of these assignments so as to accommodate the additional limitations.

 

[Eli]

The appraiser's role in these assignments is limited to performing a desktop SOW. That's all the appraiser is doing. That much we should all be capable of acknowledging.

That being the case, what's the difference *WRT to the appraiser's obigations* in an desktop appraisal if an error occurs in a 3rd party inspection vs any other 3rd party datasource such as public records or an MLS listing?

From a public trust standpoint, you have substance. From an ethical standpoint, you have loopholes. America was built on morals and ethics. Pure disclosure to borrowers is an ethical issue.

No George. It ain't right. Let the appraisal be solely for the lender's use (restricted use). We can go a different route and support the real estate agents and borrowers and public in general. Easy solution. Still have issues even with a restricted appraisal as to whether one is performing appraisal practice or not. Another ethical and moral issue.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

t's not quite that simple. With respect to comparables we are relying on multiple data points (comps), any of which could have errors in the data. However, when all these potential comps are adjusted there should be a central tendency of value.

A nice lucid thought. If we could depend upon every sale being described accurately and exactly, and every seller and buyer being equally motivated as every other buyer and seller, then we only need ONE comp. Right? And nothing in USPAP says we cannot have an appraisal using only ONE comp. So why isn't Fannie Mae going to try and test a ONE comp appraisal report, say call it the 1004-Single? Hmm? That would save time right?