Are you currently doing appraisals with 3.6 form?

[shrubberyvaluation]

Maybe. But the more likely outcome is lenders will push the waiver (Value Acceptance, ACE) and PDC buttons to close the deal (like they did during COVID) before they pay more and wait longer for a 3.6 report.

Most lenders aren't ordering 3.6 reports because they don't have to yet and they don't have time to beta test someone else's software/process. And look at it from the lender's perspective, what lucky borrower(s) do you pick for the beta test? And what do you tell the borrower? "Hey Mr./Ms. borrower, you're the lucky winner! Your appraisal fee is higher and will take longer because we want to beta test new appraisal software. Don't worry, your seller will understand the delay. Please send us the contract extension when you get it signed." Good luck with that.

I know it's hard for appraisers to swallow, but no one is coming to save us. Not the the insta-toot, not TAF or the rest of the useless alphabet soup in DC, and definitely not the GSEs. It's that simple.

Or they could just give the appraiser more of that $1,000 they already collect instead of giving 75% to an AMC.

 

[alebrewer]

I just ran across them the other day, hadn't previously looked into their platform. Free use is tempting... but they can pull the rug at any time. They will likely start charging a year from now. I truly want to go with the best platform but I don't like any of them... probably because the new system itself is terrible

I'd be curious to know what you think about Reggora.

I've worked through Reggora, SFREP, Freedom, and AIVRE. AIVRE is too automated for me. Freedom is a hot mess. SFREP is ok, but very 'old school'. Reggora seems to be the most intuitive that I've tried. I agree with you, though. They're all very tedious.

 

[Tim Hicks (Texas)]

On my practice 3.6 there was no required “box” for dimensions. I went back and forth with the tab key looking for it. I called a guy at SFREP to see if I was missing something and he said in the new form dimensions aren’t required.

Things must be bad if Bobby Bucks is testing out the 3.6 before me. Just not enough time...

 

[Joe Flacco]

I've worked through Reggora, SFREP, Freedom, and AIVRE. AIVRE is too automated for me. Freedom is a hot mess. SFREP is ok, but very 'old school'. Reggora seems to be the most intuitive that I've tried. I agree with you, though. They're all very tedious.

So how long is it taking you?

 

[alebrewer]

So how long is it taking you?

First Reggora file took ~ 5 hours (no inspection). 2nd one was about 4. SFREP was about 7 hours total.

 

[Joe Flacco]

First Reggora file took ~ 5 hours (no inspection). 2nd one was about 4. SFREP was about 7 hours total.

That's not bad.

 

[George Hatch]

If you want to get a glimpse of the reader experience using your legacy appraisalware, try filling out the Appraisal Institute SFR form without adding narrative addenda, then imagine adding thumbnails of your comps in the SC grid and more detailed site and improvements descriptions.
------------------

Just in general and excluding the "extra" in the level of detail in the 3.6....

When the base form can accommodate everything you need to say about a subject (with only rare exceptions) reading a dozen of them for content and from different appraisers will become a very different review experience. Whatever you have to say about the site is always in the same place in every report regardless of who. Whatever you have to say about the subject - and its condition - is in the same place in every report.

There are 2 problems with all-narrative formats and the extensive use of narrative addenda:

1- everyone does the sequence and the content differently from one another. If you're only reading one report that's a little cumbersome but when you're reading a lot of them the "easter egg hunt" it takes to figure out where something is addressed in a report becomes a hassle.​

​

2- a reader has to be savvy enough to spot any omissions. On a structured form, a field that is left blank leaves a noticeable hole, but in a narrative format an omission leaves no hole; it's simply not addressed. A reader has to know what they're looking for and check a couple times in order to ensure they didn't miss the it, lest the response turns out to be "read the report, I already addressed this in the addenda". Running into that hassle (take 2-3 passes to know for sure there's a hole) a couple times a day becomes annoying.​

​

Assuming similar levels of detail (which is not the case with the 3.6) a generally more reader-friendly report layout doesn't make the report writing go faster, except to the extent we're avoiding repetition between the base form and the addenda. But it does make reading reports for content go a fair bit faster and easier.

Aside from that, if we know a lot of appraisers are commonly allowing the SR1 development to follow (instead of lead) the SR2 report format it becomes even more critical for the designers of these formats to structure them in the more logical and consistent layout.

 

[Joe Flacco]

If you want to get a glimpse of the reader experience using your legacy appraisalware, try filling out the Appraisal Institute SFR form without adding narrative addenda, then imagine adding thumbnails of your comps in the SC grid and more detailed site and improvements descriptions.
------------------

Just in general and excluding the "extra" in the level of detail in the 3.6....

When the base form can accommodate everything you need to say about a subject (with only rare exceptions) reading a dozen of them for content and from different appraisers will become a very different review experience. Whatever you have to say about the site is always in the same place in every report regardless of who. Whatever you have to say about the subject - and its condition - is in the same place in every report.

There are 2 problems with all-narrative formats and the extensive use of narrative addenda:

1- everyone does the sequence and the content differently from one another. If you're only reading one report that's a little cumbersome but when you're reading a lot of them the "easter egg hunt" it takes to figure out where something is addressed in a report becomes a hassle.​

​

2- a reader has to be savvy enough to spot any omissions. On a structured form, a field that is left blank leaves a noticeable hole, but in a narrative format an omission leaves no hole; it's simply not addressed. A reader has to know what they're looking for and check a couple times in order to ensure they didn't miss the it, lest the response turns out to be "read the report, I already addressed this in the addenda". Running into that hassle (take 2-3 passes to know for sure there's a hole) a couple times a day becomes annoying.​

​

Assuming similar levels of detail (which is not the case with the 3.6) a generally more reader-friendly report layout doesn't make the report writing go faster, except to the extent we're avoiding repetition between the base form and the addenda. But it does make reading reports for content go a fair bit faster and easier.

Aside from that, if we know a lot of appraisers are commonly allowing the SR1 development to follow (instead of lead) the SR2 report format it becomes even more critical for the designers of these formats to structure them in the more logical and consistent layout.

That's all good and fine. That's the script for selling it to the lenders and other stakeholders. But at the end of the day the main reason for it is data collection and organization, which is fine too.