Are online "valuations" reliable or legal?

[J Grant]

WRT the public adding online valuation tools to their decision making, I think it's better when people have access to more information, not worse. Whenever they can make more informed decisions that makes our jobs easier.

In my experience, buyers or homeowners even with all these online tools are not using them to make better choices nor understanding what a true comp is - ( a few might but I have not met them ) The online tools can serve as a fun toy or to get some rough ideas about values or open their eyes to other housing options they might not have otherwise known about. But it can also confuse and overwhelm.

The borrowers I see on a refi can pull more data for an ROV or the sales they talk up at inspection, yet their "comps" are still biased/awful and buyers seem as gullible as ever about believing a RE agent's CMA and market pronouncements.

Investors have always been savvy so likely does not change much for them though it might improve their analysis options.

 

[djd09]

how is looking at bloated numbers helpful?

must be nice to estimate values without johnny law looking over your shoulder.

it just reminds me of the fraudulent election, nothing more or less. land slide, what land slide.

 

[J Grant]

I bet these online sites are much more a thorn in side for RE agents/brokers than for appraisers.
WRT to RE agents now --their job is so much harder - not only are their commissions under attack but their former status of market experts and proprietary info as well, MLS is now all over the place and so is FISBO /data and neighborhood info -

The RE agents/brokers have to advertise on these sites to stay relevant/get leads, yet at same time the sites act as competition to them. Each customer is also now a self proclaimed market expert. .

 

[George Hatch]

In my experience, buyers or homeowners even with all these online tools are not using them to make better choices nor understanding what a true comp is - ( a few might but I have not met them ) The online tools can serve as a fun toy or to get some rough ideas about values or open their eyes to other housing options they might not have otherwise known about. But it can also confuse and overwhelm.

The borrowers I see on a refi can pull more data for an ROV or the sales they talk up at inspection, yet their "comps" are still biased/awful and buyers seem as gullible as ever about believing a RE agent's CMA and market pronouncements.

Investors have always been savvy so likely does not change much for them though it might improve their analysis options.

I'm not trying to suggest that these tools are helping the borrowers mount successful BPOs because - as you note - they're picking and choosing their "comps" by price the way brokers usually do it instead of by attributes the way appraisers are supposed to be doing it. Apart from that, any appraiser who is getting overturned on appeal should be re-thinking what they're doing, so again, the availability and use of more info at street level is a step forward there, too.

What I'm saying is that these tools add to their ability to make their own choices. As opposed to previously being solely dependent on what their brokers are telling them. There's the potential for less of "I heard" and for more of "I saw". IMO that potential will only grow as people become more familiar with accessing and using the info, and in doing so that increase of info at street level may result in a more orderly market overall. Less volatile over the long term.

And yes, I agree with you that the public having access to that data probably is making it harder for the brokers to sell the dream to their clients.

 

[George Hatch]

"IAC = Pay to Play. In order to see how the sausage is made, members pay $2,500 per year to buy access to TAF executives, board chairs, and various staff. Members pay their way to the IAC meetings across the county, probably spending $10k to $15K annually. I only attended the meetings when they were in DC but each of those trips cost me about $1,500 round trip. I am not making the argument here that these companies shouldn’t have access to TAF, but it shouldn’t be on a pay to play basis. It is corporate elitism at its worst."

truth.

biased rule making makes bias appraisals.

Which "rules" coming from TAF do you think result in biased appraisals? For that matter, and even though its not TAFs role to protect your business interests, which "rules" coming from TAF do you think are biased against your economic interests?

I think the PAREA efforts will work against the economic interests of appraisers but there are a lot of parties other than the AMCs which have been fretting about running out of appraisers. What else besides that would you say run contrary to your interests?

BTW, if I can consider PAREA to be contrary to your business interests as a fee appraiser then by the same measure I consider the AQBs reduction in the number of trainees a supervisor can run to 3 was beneficial your business interests. That is, for those appraisers who never intended to run trainee-oriented sweatshops.

 

[George Hatch]

And since you guys and the Cosmic Moron Farmer are constantly bleeding about it, would you support TAF eliminating the IAC fee and letting all these companies to join and participate for free? Kewl. Although I disagree, because I think putting a bit of the financial barrier in place leads to more of the participants doing so on a serious bases - especially so if/when their motivations are in opposition to your interests.

I can't imagine how much harder you would be bleeding if it worked out that what you actually pay to TAF was being used to subsidize the costs to TAF of these companies' participation due to them being allowed to participate for free.

 

[djd09]

yawn yawn yawn, the BOA chief appraiser will chair. chair what they ask. oh never mind.

it is only confidential until the scum bag mortgage broker has the borrower turn you into the state.

 

[George Hatch]

Yeah, that's what I thought.

 

[Mejappz]

TAF has no say or influence in which activities get regulated or de-regulated.

TAF does have a say(see below). How much influence they have depends on much cash their willing to cough-up to get their agenda through. TAF is relentless when it comes to advocating for their interest.

 

[George Hatch]

I admire the heroic efforts you're going to in support of whats-his-name's stupidity, but you've hit a dry hole on this one.



The "Subcomittee" in the Appraisal Subcommittee refers to being an element of the Federal Financial Examinations Council (FFIEC) and it literally is part of the Federal Govt. Park is a Federal employee, not an employee of TAF. The ASC has direct oversight over the state appraisal boards. Kindly note that their website has a "gov" extension, not an "org". Park has the legal obligation to point out the legal ramifications of a state violating FIRREA because doing so is part of his job description.



By contrast, The Appraisal Foundation is not part of the ASC and is not subject to ASC oversight as such. Unlike the ASC, TAFs website runs with an "org" extension because, as it explicitly states, it is not a government entity. Bunton is an employee of TAF, and in that role it is part of HIS job description to advocate the merits of the use of a single appraisal standard as opposed to using different and potentially conflicting standards.