AMC Notifies appraisers of UAD Compliance

[Terraform]

In order for the appraisal report to be UAD compliant and deliver successfully to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, the Sales Comparison section must include the following: 1) (Purchase assignments) the Subject Sale Price matches the Contract Price.

Is this really an issue?

 

[hastalavista]

In order for the appraisal report to be UAD compliant and deliver successfully to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, the Sales Comparison section must include the following: 1) (Purchase assignments) the Subject Sale Price matches the Contract Price.

Is this really an issue?

So, I'm understanding this to mean: If my assignment is for a purchase, the purchase price information I fill out on page one regarding the pending sale of the subject needs to match the "sale price" that is transferred into the subject's first position column in the sales comparison approach.

That makes sense to me... am I missing something?

 

[jdbiggers]

Believe it or not, there are many appraisers who want to put in a lot of contradictory information, in this case thinking "sale price" is the "list price." So, yes, I can imagine some AMCs have gotten reports with different numbers.

I also see many appraisers trying to fill in the "Condition" comments, which MUST be in a particular format, in "their" way because they don't like the way UAD says to do it.

Just over the past few days I have a report with "Driveway" checked for car parking, but "0" listed as the number of cars. Well, it is hardly a driveway if you can't park one car on it. And, despite the appraiser being warned each and every time they created the export about this error, they overrode it and let it go through.

Ticks me off because it makes it look like my software is the issue when it is the appraiser deciding they want to do things their way.

JD

 

[Pilgrum]

What JD said.
[url]http://www.appraisalinstitute.org/ano/newsletter/DisplayNwsLtrArticle.aspx?volume=14&numbr=17/18&id=20617[/URL]

 

[Craig in Oregon]

To my way of thinking (?!) the UAD report requirements are contradictory with fast turns
and incidently low fees. Rushing through a report to make 48 hours or 72 hours or even 96 hour clock time turns, there just is no time to concentrate on the little UAD niceties.
But that is not what is important, is it, it is getting the NUMBER in loan play and cleaning up with stips later.
As to what JD is mentioning, maybe it is passive aggressive behavior; I don't much care for UAD either but will comply when I have these assignments.
On another note in a different thread, if F and F aren't getting out of UAD what they thought they would get, an eventual database for AVMs, maybe should look at how the UAD model fits reality of the marketplace. It doesn't.

 

[Tejus]

[url]http://www.appraisalinstitute.org/ano/newsletter/DisplayNwsLtrArticle.aspx?volume=14&numbr=17/18&id=20617[/URL]

This is another reason why the GSE's UCDP XML validation tool needs to be publicly available to the Appraisal User Community members.

The Appraisal User Community members have no method to validate their Appraisal to the GSE UCDP XML requirements.

The GSE's claim the Appraisal User Community members are not meeting the GSE requirements, yet the GSE's refuse to allow the Appraisal User Community members access to the GSE validation tools to ensure compliance. All the other XML validation tools floating around are unreliable and may be inconsistent with the GSE's requirements.

I also found Mr. Murphy's comments further illustrate his lack of knowledge in this area. Specifically, he stated "He added that those two factors (condition and quality) are the most important in determining a property's value". Everyone in real estate should know that a property's value is primarily determined by location, location and location.

The GSE's are ensuring failure.

The entire GSE staff responsible for this mess should be fired.

 

[Tejus]

I also found Mr. Murphy's comments further illustrate his lack of knowledge in this area. Specifically, he stated "He added that those two factors (condition and quality) are the most important in determining a property's value".

The GSE UAD condition and quality rating definitions are vague and confusing. Search the forum for numerous threads and discussion on the UAD condition and quality rating to confirm this.

The GSE UAD condition and quality ratings will never be reliable or consistent due to their vague and confusing definitions.

The GSE's have created the UAD condition/quality rating problem. The GSE's then try to pass the blame onto the Appraisers.

This appears to be another GSE political tactic to try to deflect the criticism against the GSE's failures.

 

[BRCJR]

The run fun begins on down the road.

Appraiser will be pitted against Appraiser.

Say Appraiser 1 indicates Q3 and a year later Appraiser 2 indicates the same property, that has been identified by a GSE as Q3 a year earlier, as Q4.

Now the GSE will want one or the other to be right and one or the other to be wrong.

8 Appraisers use the same comp in a brief period and 4 report Q3 and 4 report Q4.

8 Appraisers use the same comp in a brief period and 4 report C3 and 4 report C4.

The GSE server blows a gasket.........

 

[William K]

Maybe, just maybe AMCs should hire qualified appraisers rather than selecting those that are Fast and Cheap which they in turn have to train on how to report a SALES PRICE!m2:

 

[Tejus]

I think the problem will be worse.

An Appraiser will assign a condition or quality rating to a Comp, then 2 months later use a +1 or -1 condition or quality rating for the same Comp which is in similar condition and quality as when used earlier.

There are too many gray areas in the condition and quality rating. This causes inconsistent use.

The GSE's are hyping the condition and quality rating inconsistencies as Appraiser issues rather than addressing the real issue (i.e. the condition and quality vague definitions).

This is another method for the GSE's to deflect the criticism on the GSE failures.