<.....snip.....> that its entirely possible that the Appraisal and the Desktop are responding to different ideas about value <.....snip.....>
The what and the what? ... You mean "The" first appraisal and "The" second appraisal? Because last I checked they are both "appraisals." And do you care to explain why the same lender involving a mortgage, for a sale transaction of a SFR, would order two separate appraisals that employ two different definitions of value? Highly unlikely...
Undoubtedly the scopes (manner in which the two separate appraisals were completed) of the two appraisal assignments were very different. I seriously doubt the definitions of value used were and expect they were both identical definitions of "Market Value." Not, "Fair Market Value."
However, it was still a nice graph...![]()
Because last I checked they are both "appraisals." And do you care to explain why the same lender involving a mortgage, for a sale transaction of a SFR, would order two separate appraisals that employ two different definitions of value? Highly unlikely...
That is something that the general public needs to know and I wonder if the homeowners Realtor advised them of that risk? They can't continue believing that everything is OK and what the Media Hypes about. If I was the home owner in California, I would get what I can and Run, before it gets worse..........that they seem to be using a sham appraisal produce to do it so appraiser's take the heat. It would also be fair if they said up front, "Hey, we're scared, we're not going loan on full market value as described in the "Definition of Market Value" described on Page 4 of 6 of Fannie Mae Form 1004 March 2005. We're only going to loan on 85%." Then at least buyers and refi'er would't get sucked into the process assuming they will get fair consideration.
You need to get out more then. BoA seems to be doing this regularly through Landsafe. They order an full 1004. The 1004 comes in, then they pay a Landsafe reviewer to do "LARA" or some such kind of hybrid review/appraisal/risk eval document (call it what you will) on it. The value gets cut. Maybe there's still enough value to go through with the loan, maybe not. It truly seems like the bank is using the first "full" appraisal, to get a value for the proeprty, and then using the second desktop review product to arrive at some sort of value that incorporates the market value from the first appraisal but tempers it with evaluation of risk. The couple of conversations my supervisor has had with these reviewer its clear they're very focused on "risk" and use the word a lot. My understanding of review practice is that "risk" is not one of the things typically considered. The 2000 form asks if the information is "complete and accurate", not if its risky and poorly supported.