Fannie Mae and "Multiple Parcels"

[Lee Lansford]

Once again. I'll ask. Where does USPAP have the authority to dictate a lender (or in this case a GSE/former GSE) what they can lend on? Waiting....I'm beginning to question your "expertise". USPAP requires analysis and reporting. I don't see where USPAP allows over riding a lender clients allowed lending regulations.

PLEASE, PLEASE POINT OUT THE GOD CLAUSE! I ONLY PAID $10 for my new USPAP book, thanks to the NCAB, but I don't see what you propose is there. I appreciate your candor in answering my
question rather than more misdirection. (Every figure out who was taking over the board or who was actually in charge? ) Loved the murder mystery implied posts...

You really don't understand that you are asking about 2 separate issues?

One--proper appraisal practice.

The other--what Fannie might accept.

George Hatch has given you--and others--some excellent advice above. I suggest that you take his words to heart.

 

[Lee Lansford]

Does the Fannie Mae article require the appraiser to not use proper appraisal practice?

Are you kidding?

 

[Mr Rex]

Analysis of H&BU is required. As is an opinion of market value (aka Appraisal) Where is there such a disconnect in your mind and why should USPAP over ride a lenders decision to loan on any particular parcel or parcels? In a subdivision analysis, certainly each lot sold separately will present a higher individual value than sold as a bulk sale. Does USPAP not allow these sales? Trees, Forests, and blindness to the duty of the appraiser.

 

[Mr Rex]

Are you kidding?

Are you so blind that you can't see?

 

[George Hatch]

NOBODY IS TELLING FANNIE THEY CAN'T MAKE WHATEVER LENDING DECISIONS THEY WANT TO MAKE.

That's a strawman. It's none of the ASBs business how Fannie underwrites their loans and this appraisal issue has nothing to do with how they make those decisions.


This whole problem would go away if Fannie was allowed to use their own definition of value - they could call it some form of Mortgage Value or Fannie Value, and then be free to spell out the assumptions and limitations according to their own perspectives. They could modify it every year and according to market conditions if they wanted, and we'd all be happy to comply so long as we could cite that definition in black and white.

I don't care what definition of value Fannie uses. I just want them to leave appraisers alone to do what they say and say what they do. And calling a value conclusion something that it isn't (namely, MV as defined) is a problem for appraisers even if it wasn't also a problem for Fannie.

 

[Lee Lansford]

Are you so blind that you can't see?

Try Mr. Hatch's post #365.

See if a light bulb turns on .

 

[Mr Rex]

This whole problem would go away if Fannie was allowed to use their own definition of value - they could call it some form of Mortgage Value or Fannie Value, and then be free to spell out the assumptions and limitations according to their own perspectives.

I don't care what definition of value Fannie uses. I just want them to leave appraisers alone to do what they say and say what they do. And calling a value conclusion something that it isn't (namely, MV as defined) is a problem for appraisers even if it wasn't also a problem for Fannie.

IIRC, somewhere in the FNMA selling guide it says H&BU is as is (or it used to say so) and not the USPAP derived H&BU tests (although it didn't refer to USPAP) . I don't have time to look it up right now, but in any case, I know USPAP does not or can not legislate what a lender, or in this case the largest residential mortgage backer in the worlds actions regarding the issue of more than 1 parcel. Regardless, the OP has claimed that FNMA is wrong due to USPAP, and I am still waiting for his proof. FNMA, is not under the umbrella of USPAP and there is nothing in the SOW rule that precludes compliance with a clients protocol and actually REQUIRES it unless the results are not credible.

 

[George Hatch]

I would refer you back to reading the SOWR for content



I literally DO NOT CARE who the user is, shading a value conclusion to favor their interests is immoral and unethical. That includes lowballing a value in order to be "conservative" just as much as it does for hitting a predetermined target value. Batting for Fannie's team is the fastest way I know to discredit our assertions of impartiality and objectivity.

Answer the question as asked, but don't mischaracterize that answer as something it isn't (if/when that's the case).

 

[Lee Lansford]

IIRC, somewhere in the FNMA selling guide it says H&BU is as is (or it used to say so) and not the USPAP derived H&BU tests (although it didn't refer to USPAP) . I don't have time to look it up right now, but in any case, I know USPAP does not or can not legislate what a lender, or in this case the largest residential mortgage backer in the worlds actions regarding the issue of more than 1 parcel. Regardless, the OP has claimed that FNMA is wrong due to USPAP, and I am still waiting for his proof. FNMA, is not under the umbrella of USPAP and there is nothing in the SOW rule that precludes compliance with a clients protocol and actually REQUIRES it unless the results are not credible.

Uuuhhhh...incorrectly applying appraisal principles ...you believe is not a violation of the USPAP? Try Standards Rule 1-1 (a); 1-2 (e); Standards Rule 1-3 (b).

 

[George Hatch]

IIRC, somewhere in the FNMA selling guide it says H&BU is as is (or it used to say so) and not the USPAP derived H&BU tests (although it didn't refer to USPAP) . I don't have time to look it up right now, but in any case, I know USPAP does not or can not legislate what a lender, or in this case the largest residential mortgage backer in the worlds actions regarding the issue of more than 1 parcel. Regardless, the OP has claimed that FNMA is wrong due to USPAP, and I am still waiting for his proof. FNMA, is not under the umbrella of USPAP and there is nothing in the SOW rule that precludes compliance with a clients protocol and actually REQUIRES it unless the results are not credible.

I don't know and I could be wrong, but the way I remembered it was Fannie was saying that if the answer to HBU in the site section was "no" then the appraisal wasn't supposed to be reported on that form.

I do remember their warped perspective that the form drives the process; that myopia is what has created so many problems.

And you're 110% correct when you say USPAP doesn't legislate what a lender does. USPAP spells out the professional appraisal standards for appraisers and for users of appraisals; it doesn't address anything in terms of the decisions lenders make.