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

[George Hatch]

Rating different rooms, kitchens, etc., will do nothing to improve valuations. Bert is right; the C & Q rating are a joke. I suggested something similar to what Bert suggested and got laughed at by the appraiser Illuminati. We will see who gets the last laugh.

Again, I wouldn't necessarily say it will improve the appraisers SR1 development unless that appraiser has been doing less of that they should have been (which there are some appraisers who have been guilty of that). What it will do is SR2 clarify for the reader what the appraiser saw and provide more context for that reader to judge the credibility of the workproduct.

WRT mortgage lending appraisal reports, these reports are about a lot more than just the number on the bottom line; they're also about how we got to that number. Being right about the number doesn't cover the entirety of that assignment.

Now we can say there's a point of diminishing returns to the amount of info a user considers to be meaningful, but by the time a user is actually asking for the info that demonstrates what THEY think they need for their decision. And their other uses.

 

[Mejappz]

I could carless what the users want or demand. I do it the right way, and my way can' be scrutinized because it's objective. The proof is in the pudding; (even if I have to educate them), they keep coming back for more, and I get paid more than your garden variety form-filler.

 

[George Hatch]

I didn't really think about it before now, but the cliche "property characteristics cannot be copyrighted" came to mind. I don't know if that's true but if that is actually true then the info the appraiser collects about the property characteristics doesn't "belong" to the appraiser. The GSEs don't even need to ask the appraisers to agree to let them use that info for their AVMs.

 

[George Hatch]

I could carless what the users want or demand. I do it the right way, and my way can' be scrutinized because it's objective. The proof is in the pudding; (even if I have to educate them), they keep coming back for more, and I get paid more than your garden variety form-filler.

Is this a great country or what? God Bless America.

 

[Mejappz]

Is this a great country or what? God Bless America.

No, not really. It’s more an indictment of the horrid so-called education peddled by people who know nothing.

 

[George Hatch]

I could carless what the users want or demand. I do it the right way, and my way can' be scrutinized because it's objective. The proof is in the pudding; (even if I have to educate them), they keep coming back for more, and I get paid more than your garden variety form-filler.

Here's the problem with your position:

 

[Mejappz]

Here's the problem with your position:

View attachment 64594

 

[George Hatch]

You're a licensee. As a matter of regulation, you don't have the discretion to blow off "meaningful to intended users".

You definitely can decline to perform those assignments, though. If you want.

 

[Mejappz]

I will give you an example of how stupid the uses are. Last week, I got a revision request where the underwriter asked why I adjusted for Days on the market when I adjusted for market conditions. This is pretty self-explanatory to someone who knows what they are doing. Yet the same users will flag your report when a comps days on the market is outside the typical Dom reported on page Yes, incredibly stupid.

 

[George Hatch]

Yeah, correction stips can be really annoying. Stupid users.