Reading between the lines some folks at least are going to be going on witch hunts and seem to be painting appraisers with black pointy hats and gowns :roll:
Not sure the roster thing works 'cause some of the good old boys were as bad as some of the newly approved, but I am sure not getting too many FHA appraisal orders... I also know which blind appraisers in town ARE getting orders, there is some Honest competition, and some dishonest. But How Bout those FHA REO's with patent preexisiting conditions. :evil:
Any one heard further on the plan to document defaults and toss FHA appraisers off the rolls if they have too many defaulted loans on homes they appriased FHA? Is this report just more of the same?
I would hope they would only kick people out for something they can control, like doing bad appraisals, rather than whether the loan defaults. the appraiser has no control over that. Hopefully it won't come down to "We have found a witch, may we burn her?!"
Given that FHA doesn't review appraisals now, how is HUD going to determine who's good or bad - by the foreclosure rate? I've had to review FHA appraisals by those hired to do FHA Repo appraisals and found them severly lacking in accuracy, and these people are supposed to be the most responsible appraisers. We had the least pressure and most accurate appraisals when the Roster was in force with local HUD offices overseeing the appraisals. Yes, there were still problems (made up comps, etc), but they were far less than the MAI (made as instructed) appraisal process HUD has now.
Currently doing a review of an appraisal for the purchase of a HUD repo property.
Outside of the multiple errors in this appraisal, the property NEVER should have been accepted when it was purchased in 1999 with a FHA loan. I could see that before I even got out of my car. The appraisal I really want to review would be the one from 1999.
FYI: The 1999 loan was through Countrywide with their CHEAP land safe appraiser. I normally do not gamble but would place a bet that a trainee did that one.