FNMA September revised FAQs

[Mr Rex]

And?....................What does that have to do with the subject's neighborhood?

If there are no sales in the subject's "neighborhood" what are the market trends?

 

[Non Sequitur]

They use to have a Appraiser Guide. It was a condensed version of the FNMA selling Guide directed at you the appraiser.

I thought about authoring just such a manual. I realized that it would be non-profit because every appraiser out there would get a free copy! Just Like ANSI, if you don't have it your crazy because its readily available for FREE. Just ask any longtime appraiser at this forum. Its where I got my copy in PDF.

I still have one of the old guides, IIRC the cost was $10.

 

[Peter LeQuire]

So then, if we're doing a GSE-related appraisal, if we don't have enough comparable properties in the neighborhood to develop meaningful trends on the MC addendum, we shift to competing properties in the market segment to complete the one unit housing trends of the neighborhood analysis portion of the 1004. That is somewhat less than straightforward, and, in my opinion, misleading on the face of it (the "face" being the forms themselves) - but that's alright because somewhere in the report we've explained all this and explained the information the trends reflect.

If we're doing an FHA, we report trends of all one unit housing regardless of comparability to or competitiveness with the victim property.

So, we have two "correct" ways to complete the appraisal, and they are not the same, and in some market areas are absolutely contradictory. The GSEs have been given their out by the interpretation that USPAP's requirement not to mislead is couched it terms of the intended users of the appraisal. But, in doing so, it seems to me that they completely disregard the prospective borrower as an intended user of the appraisal. I don't look forward to the conversation with a borrower who raises questions about the information in the 1004 prepared for a GSE lender.

 

[Deleted member 128537]

So then, if we're doing a GSE-related appraisal, if we don't have enough comparable properties in the neighborhood to develop meaningful trends on the MC addendum, we shift to competing properties in the market segment to complete the one unit housing trends of the neighborhood analysis portion of the 1004. That is somewhat less than straightforward, and, in my opinion, misleading on the face of it (the "face" being the forms themselves) - but that's alright because somewhere in the report we've explained all this and explained the information the trends reflect.

If we're doing an FHA, we report trends of all one unit housing regardless of comparability to or competitiveness with the victim property.

So, we have two "correct" ways to complete the appraisal, and they are not the same, and in some market areas are absolutely contradictory. The GSEs have been given their out by the interpretation that USPAP's requirement not to mislead is couched it terms of the intended users of the appraisal. But, in doing so, it seems to me that they completely disregard the prospective borrower as an intended user of the appraisal. I don't look forward to the conversation with a borrower who raises questions about the information in the 1004 prepared for a GSE lender.

I am going to continue doing it the way I have always done it. The neighborhood trends indicate the entire market and not a reflection of the 1004MC. I believe it is fundamentally misleading to do it the way FNMA wants it done when many times I have 2 or 3 comparables in each line of the 1004MC. That is no indication of the neighborhood. And it is fundamentally misleading. I don't care what FNMA says. If FNMA wants to take me to task then so be it. I'm done with this crap in a few months anyway.

 

[Riick]

>>> In the new way, I don't think the data is as clear.

Why do you think they want anything clear/clarified?
They have a checkbox and it needs to match the other checkbox or *obviously*
the appraiser made an error that must be corrected. The 1004mc has been SNAFU
since it's inception, probably "developed" one beery night, on a napkin, at a local bar.

.

 

[Peter LeQuire]

>>> In the new way, I don't think the data is as clear.

Why do you think they want anything clear/clarified?
They have a checkbox and it needs to match the other checkbox or *obviously*
the appraiser made an error that must be corrected. The 1004mc has been SNAFU
since it's inception, probably "developed" one beery night, on a napkin, at a local bar.

.

People who do stuff on napkins during happy hour generally sober up and throw the napkin away.
:laugh:

 

[Mile High Trout]

Stupid question of the day - Why does Fannie resist publishing a guide like the FHA 4150 where it tells appraisers what is expected in each space on the form - the Fannie created form!!!!

Because by the time they were done with that, the new 1004 form would be out already. Fannie reps said at our group, expect a revised 1004 form sometime only a few more years down the road.

I'm expecting more hijacked uad lines, less free writing area, and more boxes to check for no darn good reason except to create the illusion that automatic underwriting works better.

 

[Mile High Trout]

Specific question on MC process

Specific question on MC process.
______________________________

September 2014
Page
10
of
12
Q45.
Is the Median Sale Price as % of List Price determined by dividing the Median Comparable Sale Price by the Median Comparable List Price from the preceding data on the form, or is it based only on comparables for sold properties?

The Median Sale Price as % of List Price is to be determined by analyzing the comparables that have sold and settled during the specific time frame, not by using the data from the lines above this section on the form.
________________________

Our new MLS provider has put forth an auto MC chart where the indicated percentage is not a product of list divided by sale. But rather is determined from some complex analysis of what was coincidentally left on market at that time. Using data not specifically expressed in the MC full form printouts they provide. That is to say if you asked someone to reverse workup or prove how the indicated MC percentages were developed, or proof them, they could not.

So I've been approaching this with this standard verbiage in my MC fills:

Standard MC notes: Historical days on market figures are taken from sold examples only. No withdrawn or ghost type listings were researched.
The Corelogic Matrix MLS assembles MC data based on unaffixed data examples. Meaning that the sold trending is not tied directly to the sales
active vs sold, but rather the Matrix MC provides anecdotal information on sold comparisons vs as of yet unsold comparisons. / My approach
was to manually assemble MC figures, where the actual list vs sale for only sold units is analyzed. I feel this provides much more realistic list to
sale and market price trending data compared to comparing ratios with unsold offerings. The MC is a manual work up, based on fixed analysis
for list and sold pricing for the sold properties in the time periods.
_________________________________________________________

My question is:

What the heck is Fannies policy on MC form development?

The FAQ seems like a magicians trick or something, designed to confuse.

I've got more questions after reading this FAQ answer.

Yes or no question: Should the MC final % figure be a direct product of List divided by sale?

I believe the answer should be yes, because if challenged, you must be able to backtrack, prove, and proof your own conclusions.