3.6 Crunch Time

[J Grant]

True but there's something bigger going on and with the possibility of the GSEs early next year going public the whole operations may change how even appraisals are ordered and managed or used.

These guys aren't as dumb as many think they are and there looking at maximizing profits with or without appraisers.

I wish D Wiley could talk about that here and give some inkling about it. Instead of arguing arcane USPAP technicalities and such. Are the GSEs going to preserve the appraiser role longer term with 3.6 , or just use it as a bridge to the next appraiser phase-out?

Imo, the unease around adopting 3.6 by many traces back to this. Adopting 3.6 is an expense of money, time, and commitment on our part. The hope that appraisers will still be used in enough quantity to matter by the GSE's keeps the younger ones hanging on, and with that, they are losing time to retrain for another field. The reality is the bulk of res license work is lending work. Private work is limited. A few highly credentialed appraisers might get the few coveted management spots or the complex high-value work, but that will not be enough to sustain the majority

 

[Zoe]

Notice on appraisal bias and discriminatory hearings before Congress, VA did not even send a representative. VA needed no bailout. HUD sent a representative. GSEs had representatives. Major lenders had representatives.

 

[Zoe]

Every major player except VA had a respresentative in appraisal bias hearings before Congress.

If you show bias with VA, you will get fired.

 

[chad hampton]

The one thing I’ll say is that when you’re playing with your own money (or capital partners) and not the US taxpayers money, appraisals suddenly become more valuable. I work for a private money lender and we order appraisals the same way we did pre-2010. We talk to our appraisers we value their thoroughness and opinions. And we scrutinize the appraisal when it comes to making a lending decision.

And competing firms do things the same way. I don’t think the GSE’s current policy of waiving everything they can, and letting unlicensed exconvicts perform appraisal inspections, will last for too long when they’re responsible for the risk management decisions they make.

But who knows.

 

[Vermonter]

I don’t think the GSE’s current policy of waiving everything they can, and letting unlicensed exconvicts perform appraisal inspections, will last for too long when they’re responsible for the risk management decisions they make.

The real problem is the tech improving to the point human appraisers will be the higher risk option.

IMHO, we're already there, we just don't know it yet.

 

[Doug Wegener]

Its now August - getting many calls - "are you ready for 3.6?"

I use ACI - for 35 years - don't want to change BUT -

1) ACI is ready on a technical basis, I guess. Couldn't get the report to the finish line - they acknowledged it, so perhaps its really not ready. Has anyone fully completed an ACI 3.6 to the point where it can be transmitted to a client ?

1A) No templates, no cloning, no kidding
1B) If a trainee works a file, the completed report cannot be sent to the supervisor through an office network - the files are in the ACI cloud or some other cloud - no kidding
2) Cloud-based .... At this point, ACI is going to regret this move.
3) All manual entry, no carry-forward fields. It's amazing, that any developer would create this type software.
4) Street Map and Sketch need to be completed on 2.6 and then pasted into the 3.6 report. If you dont let 2.6 software calculate proximity of comparables then you have nothing because 3.6 cn not do it. No kidding.
5) No color coded fields or sections - just a blast of white backgrond all "bleeding" together.

Positives you say ? Spell check as you go is nice. Software will notify you of areas in need of completion before a module is completed.

Have tried Appraise-it-pro: Not cloud-based, easy to use, templates = yes, carry forward fields = yes - likely other features I have not found yet.

Interested in the free Reggora software - have not received it yet - anyone have the demo ?

May have to use SFREP or Reggora for a year see if ACI can get it together. ACI has had plenty of time - no excuses - software malpractice (if there was such a thing).

To all software makers: Your #1 job was to create software that let ME - THE APPRAISER - complete the report in the SHORTEST AMOUNT OF TIME POSSIBLE. Apparently, you all didn't think of that.

I have come to the conclusion that about the only way I could get ready is to stop accepting orders and work exclusively on preparing 3.6 reports. There is no way I can continued accepting reports and get ready.

 

[OSU Beavers]

The real problem is the tech improving to the point human appraisers will be the higher risk option.

IMHO, we're already there, we just don't know it yet.

Nobody involved with the origination of a loan wants an honest appraisal. They just want a high enough number and no complications.

Yet AI tech is better because appraisers are not honest enough. How do they square that circle? Waivers and the ability to run a deal through the machine two dozen times until an approval comes up.

 

[HVNY]

Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, UAD 3.6

 

[William K]

I wouldn't mind doing one just to try it, but it doesn't seem like my clients plan to order one any time soon.

I had a fairly "cookie cutter" 2.6 report that I attempted to recreate as a 3.6 in Total as a test when I had free time. It didn't go well. Still some bugs. Still issues with some simple features that are reported differently (a finished rec room in a basement). Differences when it comes to what they want in the inspection that wasn't needed in the 2.6 (ceiling types, heights, front door entrance height, etc). They really want appraisers to use the checkboxes and not to reiterate what was already checked off in a box. Too many "Condition" and "Quality" rating boxes for individual items/sections when they still want an overall rating, as we have always been reporting.
Biggest gripe is not being forthcoming. Asking why they need something and getting "because we do" with no explanation. But I guess the fact that they won't acknowledge they are "data mining" information it's to be expected.

 

[Non Sequitur]

The Regorra dude is a child: