Crappy Hybrid Inspection

[chad hampton]

What? You can't scope away misleading? I was told we could.

 

[djd09]

i would love to see a comment by TAF in regards to the contradictions of L.C. 4 and the SOW rule...oh never mind 15th st

 

[George Hatch]

the sow cannot be limited not to produce credible results

an appraisal cannot be credible if the data is not accurate or wrong

yeah reading is fundamental

Credibility is judged by the user specific to their usage. Not as an abstract in isolation of their usage. In any case, your dispute is with these lenders because they're the ones who don't think your personal inspection is necessary for these assignments.

"Credible" is also not synonymous with error-free or zero defect. We already acknowledge that there are a certain amount of errors in the data we use. That's why we disclose it as an assumption that we believe it's accurate as opposed to certifying it all as factual despite not actually *knowing* one way or the other.

What you are doing by asserting a level of accuracy you do not always meet is create an unrealistic expectation - you're undermining your own credibility. Being credible includes acknowledging our limitations. Not deliberately lying about there being no such limitations.

Moreover, we have been doing 2055s without actually seeing those interiors for ourselves. So no, that "zero defect" alternative that you seem to be using in reference to the 1004 doesn't exist as such in the 1004s.

 

[George Hatch]

not talking about you. As far as I know, you have never sat in front of an appraisal board and pushed these sort of things on them for approval like other “appraisers” have done. I also don’t see your face plastered on notices about seminars where they talk about what great products they are.

But I still think you do harm to the profession when you support these things. I think they are embarrassing for the profession.

Why, because I won't lie for you and promulgate the factual inaccuracies of your arguments?

It's not illegal for these lenders to engage these assignments
It's not illegal for the appraisers to perform a desktop assignment
It's apparently not illegal (under banking regs) for lenders to engage unlicensed inspectors to produce a 3rd party inspection
Those inspectors are not appraising the properties
Physical characteristics are not part of the assignment results as that term is defined

Saying otherwise is untrue on the factual basis.

 

[TC]

Moreover, we have been doing 2055s without actually seeing those interiors for ourselves. So no, that "zero defect" alternative that you seem to be using in reference to the 1004 doesn't exist as such in the 1004s.

Copy that.

 

[djd09]

Credibility is judged by the user specific to their usage. Not as an abstract in isolation of their usage. In any case, your dispute is with these lenders because they're the ones who don't think your personal inspection is necessary for these assignments.

"Credible" is also not synonymous with error-free or zero defect. We already acknowledge that there are a certain amount of errors in the data we use. That's why we disclose it as an assumption that we believe it's accurate as opposed to certifying it all as factual despite not actually *knowing* one way or the other.

What you are doing by asserting a level of accuracy you do not always meet is create an unrealistic expectation - you're undermining your own credibility. Being credible includes acknowledging our limitations. Not deliberately lying about there being no such limitations.

Moreover, we have been doing 2055s without actually seeing those interiors for ourselves. So no, that "zero defect" alternative that you seem to be using in reference to the 1004 doesn't exist as such in the 1004s.

(b) not commit a substantial error of omission or commission that significantly affects an appraisal; and

Comment: An appraiser must use sufficient care to avoid errors that would significantly affect his or her opinions and
conclusions. Diligence is required to identify and analyze the factors, conditions, data, and other information that would
have a significant effect on the credibility of the assignment results.

An appraiser must be prepared to support the decision to exclude any investigation, information, method, or technique
that would appear relevant to the client, another intended user, or the appraiser’s peers.

An appraiser must not allow assignment conditions to limit the scope of work to such a degree that the assignment results
are not credible in the context of the intended use.

Comment: If relevant information is not available because of assignment conditions that limit research opportunities
(such as conditions that place limitations on inspection or information gathering), an appraiser must withdraw from the
assignment unless the appraiser can

really, credibility would be acceptable by either a judge and jury or by the kangaroo state board court

 

[George Hatch]

The operative term is still "not commit". The SOW test is still benchmarked on what is being done in the same or similar assignments, not on conventional 1004s to the exclusion of all other possible assignment types. If users are legitimately using them and appraisers are legitimately doing them it doesn't matter what you think they should be doing instead.

You can repeat the premise that all errors are the appraiser's problem whether they made it or not, but only a form monkey is dumb enough to take that narrow a view of it.

Now with all that said, if you don't think it's acceptable practice you can decline to do them. What you can't do is say the appraisers who are doing them are in violation of USPAP or their user's requirements because they aren't.

 

[djd09]

the appraisers have immunity from third party inspections dont drink the kool aid

 

[George Hatch]

I have the same immunity from every bank robbery that I never committed.

 

[djd09]

only mr ivpi can criticize the gse's and lenders gaslighter