Cdom Or Dom

[Deleted member 134708]

so because the agent took it off the market for 5 days and then relisted it under the same MLS number at the same price so it would appear to be a "new" listing for search purposes, you would ignore the other 103 days, almost 30 of which being the same price as it was "relisted" for? wow.

So I don't agree with FNMA and agree with you that it's 105. But FNMA forces you to put 5. Hey, this was just brought to my attention too.

Why is FNMA not being charged with fraud?

 

[TRESinc]

So I don't agree with FNMA and agree with you that it's 105. But FNMA forces you to put 5. Hey, this was just brought to my attention too.

Why is FNMA not being charged with fraud?

personally i feel we have to use a little common sense when it comes to issues like this. we are not blind robots who do exactly as instructed, and if you are and bow down to whatever your clients tell you to do then you need to find a new line of work. we are paid for our ability to research, digest and report what is happening in the market. someone who has never been involved in real estate in any capacity could easily see that it is nothing more than an agent playing games, so the full 106 (in this example) should be reported with a small explanation given somewhere in the report. i would be more than happy to defend myself if it ever came to that, and i highly doubt it would, before FNMA or my client.

 

[Deleted member 134708]

personally i feel we have to use a little common sense when it comes to issues like this. we are not blind robots who do exactly as instructed, and if you are and bow down to whatever your clients tell you to do then you need to find a new line of work. we are paid for our ability to research, digest and report what is happening in the market. someone who has never been involved in real estate in any capacity could easily see that it is nothing more than an agent playing games, so the full 106 (in this example) should be reported with a small explanation given somewhere in the report. i would be more than happy to defend myself if it ever came to that, and i highly doubt it would, before FNMA or my client.

Hey, believe me. I don't follow FNMA selling guide on the 1004MC and a few things. I'm way fine with it.

Only reason I'm going to follow this 1 is for 1 thing and 1 thing only, feed the machine junk.

 

[andrew81]

reporting of the sales, continuous days of most recent listing, listing date to off market or sale date. cumulative elsewhere in report

ok, they want DOM. but now the question of off market vs sale. if contract date is known (MLS contingent date), is this considered off market? or is it calculated to closing date?

 

[Deleted member 134708]

reporting of the sales, continuous days of most recent listing, listing date to off market or sale date. cumulative elsewhere in report

ok, they want DOM. but now the question of off market vs sale. if contract date is known (MLS contingent date), is this considered off market? or is it calculated to closing date?

View attachment 33675

Who cares. Feed them junk on the Uad line. Your savior is FNMA forced me too. And again, no clue how they are not sued for Forcing this inaccurate info.

 

[Deleted member 134708]

Class action:

GSE's causing misleading appraisals. (DOM, instructions on form diff from selling guide etc)

Appraisers now have to correct FNMA force of action with commentary so they don't create a misleading report Under USPAP.

By force.

So no class action?

Where is AI et al?

Let me guess, no one cares and part of the swamp.

 

[Deleted member 134708]

@timd354

You are a self admitted "advisor, helpor etc" on creating the UAD.

Who do appraisers -- if they were organized -- sue for being forced to include misleading information to the client/reader on a 1004 In UAD format? XML?

Curious. As you are a self admitted contributor.

I reiterate. "being forced to include misleading information to the client/reader on a 1004 In UAD format?"

Every word carefully chosen.

 

[Howard Klahr]

Appraisers now have to correct FNMA force of action with commentary so they don't create a misleading report Under USPAP.

Agreed ... As has already been noted, the directions result in conflicting and inconsistent treatment of data reporting which would result in omissions and be misleading which violate USPAP. Since assignment conditions can not result in misleading reports, strict adherence to this condition would be inappropriate. However, the situation if applicable would necessitate sufficient commentary beyond just form filling. just another example of why rote automation in every case just does not work in the "real" world.

 

[djd09]

Why is FNMA not being charged with fraud?

Because the government is immune from their own laws.

"This is a fannie mae UAD compliant report and may be misleading to some readers."

 

[timd354]

Who do appraisers -- if they were organized -- sue for being forced to include misleading information to the client/reader on a 1004 In UAD format? XML?

How is the information you provide misleading if it conforms to the spec that Fannie created and that your lenders/intended users are fully aware of? Fannie and your lenders/intended users are fully aware of the limitations of some of the UAD data fields, so when you complete the form in a manner that meets the spec, you are not misleading the intended user or Fannie. Besides that, if you believe that something in one of the UAD data fields appears to be misleading, you can include as much written narrative and supplemental data in your reports (in an addendum or elsewhere) as you wish. Nobody (and certainly not the UAD) forces an appraiser to submit a misleading report. If you submit a misleading report because you failed to explain something, that's on you and nobody else. Stop looking for excuses for not making the effort to be more than a form filler if you don't bother to include sufficient narrative and supplemental data as required to make your report credible.