Fannie and Freddie - UMDP / UAD Forms Redesign Initiative - They ARE interested in appraiser input. Surprise!

[djd09]

Stupid users

and we finally agree

 

[Non Sequitur]

 

[Mejappz]

and we finally agree

Give it time; he's coming around.

 

[djd09]

next they will tell you how CU will be a "risk" review

 

[George Hatch]

Give it time; he's coming around.

Unfortunately for you, I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Which means that even if your clients and users ARE idiots and they are all crooks it doesn't matter in a SOW decision because you STILL have to work towards "meaningful to intended users and not misleading". That's why I have no problem agreeing that your users can be dumb at the same time I'm telling you that you can't just blow them off because you hate them. You can only accept or reject the assignment and the assignment conditions therein. Take it or leave it.

 

[djd09]

Trying to resolve these fundamental issues in bits and pieces will allow too many loopholes to remain for unethical Participant to exploit the system.

 

[mp2277]

All of this, but hey, we still accept the desktop with the borrower or Realtor providing the sketch interior details and no need to take comp photos because hey they're only randomly important sometimes, not always, but maybe...

 

[djd09]

Give it time; he's coming around.

he will be riding six whites horses when he comes

 

[Mejappz]

Unfortunately for you, I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Which means that even if your clients and users ARE idiots and they are all crooks it doesn't matter in a SOW decision because you STILL have to work towards "meaningful to intended users and not misleading". That's why I have no problem agreeing that your users can be dumb at the same time I'm telling you that you can't just blow them off because you hate them. You can only accept or reject the assignment and the assignment conditions therein. Take it or leave it.

Lol. I have no idea what you’re taking about. What I have suggested is part of the appraisal body of knowledge. It’s included in just about every new text book we have including the two latest iterations of the Appraisal of Real Estate; Do you now you consider the Sales Comparison Approach racist too?

As far as misleading. I suggest you worry about the appraisers who are still checking that the market is stable,making up adjustments out of thin air and using market condition comments from 2008.

 

[RCA]

One of their considerations is that whatever rating system they come up will be used by appraisers *and users* of varying competency and effort. The quality and condition levels are benchmarked and observable, whereas leaving those ratings to the discretion of individual appraisers based on other properties in the area is moving away from that. "Inferior, similar, superior" does work insofar as the one dataset being used in the one appraisal at hand, but it's not going to work as well when a user is engaged in analyses of larger datasets.

MAYBE we should consider the optimum solution to include "both" as opposed to assuming it has to be an either/or choice.

We write appraisal reports for our users to use, not for ourselves or to assist us in developing our opinions. The forms (and the format) don't drive the analysis, they communicate them. Ideally in a manner the users can understand.

Appeal to reason (what makes sense to the reader) > appeal to authority (trust me because I'm the appraiser). IMO

Numerous appraisers on this forum have the same complaints as I have regarding Q1-Q6, C1-C6. They are too course and effectively useless for deriving adjustments. They do serve informational objectives of users who want that information. But for many appraisers they are useless. This has been expressed enough times, that FNMA has surely heard numerous complaints in this regard from sundry appraisers.

Yet they have never done a thing to change this.

I suggest there is more to this story than superficial information requirements of users.

In any case to say that FNMA is responsive to appraisers requests, or in fact that ANY standards committee in existence is in any way responsive to appraisers demends is a total FARCE. Anyone who claims otherwise is part and parcel of this ongoing chicanery.

And, yes, as you suggest, there is nothing wrong with requiring the appraiser to specify C1-C6/Q1-Q6 --- OUTSIDE OF THE SALES/ADJUSTMENT GRID.