3.6 and ACI

[George Hatch]

Wasn't the talking point that the new UAD is a dataset that the GSEs will be using to populate various forms, both external to their operations (like appraisals) and internal to their operations (like underwriting or qualifying)? By use of various subsets of the whole depending upon which report or analysis is being populated? If so that suggest that a smaller subset could be readily segregated out from the whole to populate the legacy forms.

 

[J Grant]

Wasn't the talking point that the new UAD is a dataset that the GSEs will be using to populate various forms, both external to their operations (like appraisals) and internal to their operations (like underwriting or qualifying)? By use of various subsets of the whole depending upon which report or analysis is being populated? If so that suggest that a smaller subset could be readily segregated out from the whole to populate the legacy forms.

If the GSE's had designed it to work that way, then yes.

However, UAD 3.6 is not designed to work with legacy forms.

It does not sync with legacy forms with their form numbers that differentiate them. It seems that the UAD drop-down menus are on the cloud/internet and overlay onto the usable form from the software provider, which is a universal form with the sections relevant to a property type appearing. It looks like the disconnect between a cloud/internet overlay onto a form that seems to be causing the software vendor's tech issues.

 

[George Hatch]

So the GSEs only use the UAD in the one format or report type and not in any other format?

It seems to me that it would be on the appraisalware vendors to configure how the UAD would load into their forms. Use only what they use and discard the rest. If they can do it with the older version then it seems like the newer version could be handled the same way.

 

[Bobby Bucks]

I've used SFREP since 1997 as my primary software. I was forced to use ACI and TOTAL for a short period by 2 clients that made it mandatory for about a year. There is no comparison. SFREP was originally developed by an appraiser in Louisiana and every block and cell when completing a report is a reminder that an appraiser developed it and not some tech guy who couldn't care less what appraisers thought of it. The tech support experience was painful with ACI & TOTAL, ie. it was like calling the DMV, and worse yet, when you cancel, their telemarketers are like airport hare krishnas of old, relentless and rude. I intend to wait until the last possible moment to actually try 3.6, I looked at it in SFREP PRO and said I think I will wait since no one knows what will change. I'm glad to see SFREP is so far ahead of the rest of those companies and can rest assured that when they say it's "ready", it will actually be ready. i have no faith in what the alphabet soup notables say. Meanwhile, I hope you pioneers have fun playing with your cyber mud pies, Buzz "atta boys" and dodging those arrows.

 

[J Grant]

So the GSEs only use the UAD in the one format or report type and not in any other format?

It seems to me that it would be on the appraisalware vendors to configure how the UAD would load into their forms. Use only what they use and discard the rest. If they can do it with the older version then it seems like the newer version could be handled the same way.

Legacy forms are legacy forms and UAD 3.6 is its own animal. The present system is designed so they remain distinctly separate, though many software providers will continue to provide both as well as other forms for appraisal use into the future.

 

[Alsie35]

Legacy forms are legacy forms and UAD 3.6 is its own animal. The present system is designed so they remain distinctly separate, though many software providers will continue to provide both as well as other forms for appraisal use into the future.

STOP THE PRESSES.

DID IT ACTUALLY HAPPEN?

DID PERHAPS THE "PRE-EMINENT MEMBER OF THE BLOCKED BRIGADE" JUST MAKE A POST THAT MAKES MORE SENSE THAN WHAT GEORGE WROTE ABOVE???!?!?!

WAIT - THIS JUST IN HOT OFF THE WIRE: "A MR LUCIFER JUST PLACED A BULK ORDER FOR ARCTIC PARKAS" ...

 

[jpowers]

The carry-over issue Fnbpos raised is a bigger deal than it sounds. The 2.6-to-3.6 crosswalk is genuinely hard to
build — the field structures are completely different, the dropdown options and predefined answers all changed, and a
lot of what used to be free-text is now structured data with specific formatting requirements. If your software vendor
didn't build for 3.6 from the ground up, they're trying to bolt a new spec onto an old architecture, and that's where
the bugs and missing features come from.

@Essexfenwick — I hear the frustration, but I'd push back a little on "extinction is the goal." The 3.6 form actually
requires more professional judgment, not less. The new environmental sections, energy/green fields, disaster
mitigation reporting — that's not data entry work, that's appraiser expertise. The problem isn't that 3.6 makes
appraisers obsolete. It's that the software hasn't caught up to what the form actually demands.

chad hampton's point about needing one platform for both formats is spot on too. Nobody can afford to run two separate
systems during the transition. That should be a basic requirement for any vendor at this point.

For what it's worth — my partner (28-year residential appraiser) and I have been grinding through the full MISMO 3.6
spec for months now. The crosswalk problem is solvable. Backward compatibility with 2.6 is solvable. Importing your
existing 2.6 reports and having that data carry forward into 3.6 — also solvable. The part that takes real time is
getting an actual working appraiser to sit down and test every section against real reports, not demos. That's been
the biggest investment for us.

 

[cashcatz]

The carry-over issue Fnbpos raised is a bigger deal than it sounds. The 2.6-to-3.6 crosswalk is genuinely hard to
build — the field structures are completely different, the dropdown options and predefined answers all changed, and a
lot of what used to be free-text is now structured data with specific formatting requirements. If your software vendor
didn't build for 3.6 from the ground up, they're trying to bolt a new spec onto an old architecture, and that's where
the bugs and missing features come from.

@Essexfenwick — I hear the frustration, but I'd push back a little on "extinction is the goal." The 3.6 form actually
requires more professional judgment, not less. The new environmental sections, energy/green fields, disaster
mitigation reporting — that's not data entry work, that's appraiser expertise. The problem isn't that 3.6 makes
appraisers obsolete. It's that the software hasn't caught up to what the form actually demands.

chad hampton's point about needing one platform for both formats is spot on too. Nobody can afford to run two separate
systems during the transition. That should be a basic requirement for any vendor at this point.

For what it's worth — my partner (28-year residential appraiser) and I have been grinding through the full MISMO 3.6
spec for months now. The crosswalk problem is solvable. Backward compatibility with 2.6 is solvable. Importing your
existing 2.6 reports and having that data carry forward into 3.6 — also solvable. The part that takes real time is
getting an actual working appraiser to sit down and test every section against real reports, not demos. That's been
the biggest investment for us.

Are y'all building a new 3.6 solution for general consumption or some sort of internal thing?

 

[Fnbpos]

The carry-over issue Fnbpos raised is a bigger deal than it sounds. The 2.6-to-3.6 crosswalk is genuinely hard to
build — the field structures are completely different, the dropdown options and predefined answers all changed, and a
lot of what used to be free-text is now structured data with specific formatting requirements. If your software vendor
didn't build for 3.6 from the ground up, they're trying to bolt a new spec onto an old architecture, and that's where
the bugs and missing features come from.

@Essexfenwick — I hear the frustration, but I'd push back a little on "extinction is the goal." The 3.6 form actually
requires more professional judgment, not less. The new environmental sections, energy/green fields, disaster
mitigation reporting — that's not data entry work, that's appraiser expertise. The problem isn't that 3.6 makes
appraisers obsolete. It's that the software hasn't caught up to what the form actually demands.

chad hampton's point about needing one platform for both formats is spot on too. Nobody can afford to run two separate
systems during the transition. That should be a basic requirement for any vendor at this point.

For what it's worth — my partner (28-year residential appraiser) and I have been grinding through the full MISMO 3.6
spec for months now. The crosswalk problem is solvable. Backward compatibility with 2.6 is solvable. Importing your
existing 2.6 reports and having that data carry forward into 3.6 — also solvable. The part that takes real time is
getting an actual working appraiser to sit down and test every section against real reports, not demos. That's been
the biggest investment for us.

The appraisal form itself is fine - a little over the top - but we can work with that. The software companies should have had a goal of making the form as user-friendly as possible. I want features that will let me spend AS LITTLE TIME AS POSSIBLE PRODUCING THE REPORT. The software companies (some) appear to be more concerned about being in the cloud or having search integration that will produce adjustments for me. Those are the least of the features I want. Despite what they say, the lack of appraiser input for some of these companies is apparent.

SFREP is from an appraiser - and looks like it. Don't use i,t but have the demo - will take a detailed look at it.

If I have to manually type in entries that i didnt have to in 2.6; if I can't import sections or comps from 2.6 into 3.6 (all Gpar's will still be 2.6); if i cannot simply enter an "=" instead of typing the same entry 6 times; if I cannot customize to save time; if i cannot start an assignment with a form that has prefilled generic entries; if i can't import a comp from another 3.6 report (didnt see any method for that) --- THEN IT IS A FAILURE. Some of these companies should have consulted with those appraisers who were or who have high volume companies. We know every shortcut and time-saving method of the software we use. P.S. high volume does not mean low-quality appraisals - don't bother going there.

 

[Fnbpos]

Are y'all building a new 3.6 solution for general consumption or some sort of internal thing?

You are right about 2.6 to 3.6 carryover. But i was actually referring to carry-over text within the form itself. Some entries could and should carry-over to other sections of the same report - they do not. FAIL