Have you received a bid request for a 3.6 report?

[Tom4value]

No. The closest I came was the order called for a "legacy form". Holy crap! What is that? Oh, the forms we always use. At least now they are making the distinction between the new and "old" forms.

 

[Bobby Bucks]

No. The closest I came was the order called for a "legacy form". Holy crap! What is that? Oh, the forms we always use. At least now they are making the distinction between the new and "old" forms.

Legacy form, I love and loathe that description. Suddenly I feel 20 years older, I would have thought a legacy form was the 1004 S-93, if it’s the 2.6, I’m practically ready for a blanket and a rocker.

 

[Joe Flacco]

I am not sure I can make the jump to 3.6 if I am asked for it.

I am a big user of the addendum and the word processor likeness of the addendum makes it easy to communicate what you need to communicate in a organized way.

Before I started looking at the software, I thought those that are challenged with computers and tech would have a hard time moving over. But the problem is not that appraisers are challenged with tech, it is that the tech sucks.

 

[gregb]

Reviewer for Citi Private Bank told me this morning that the move to 360UAD would not occur before 2027, given that their loans are portfolio and not GSE.

 

[Joe Flacco]

Reviewer for Citi Private Bank told me this morning that the move to 360UAD would not occur before 2027, given that their loans are portfolio and not GSE.

I'm crossing my fingers that they dont move to 3.6 at all.

 

[George Hatch]

I remember when the 1004mc came online. When first introduced there were no available apps for automating the grid. People were fretting about the length of time it would take to manually run multiple queries and how you couldn't even do a median of sale/list instead of the median sale / median list. Because it had never come up before for them, many appraisers didn't even know what the difference was between the average vs the median.

Some of the appraisalware vendors responded by building apps that they intended to sell to appraisers as an extra module, but a few appraisers (including me) developed Excel-based worksheets that could accurately populate the entire grid with a single MLS query/export, and then we offered the distribution as freeware so that appraisers didn't have to pay a dime extra to do it. IIRC my freeware distribution had ~15,000 downloads all by itself. (I wasn't even doing GSE appraisals and never had use for the worksheet. I just did it because appraisers had no money to be buying these from the appraisalware vendors and because they were stressed.)

So by the time the 1004mc became required, there were several apps available (a couple were free). Everyone had access to apps that would populate the grid using a 3minute process. I could hit "results" on an MLS query, mark/export the results into an .xls file format and copy/paste those results into the worksheet in 3min or less. My worksheet even included the 1004mc form itself. Just fill the rest of the form out and print to a pdf or copy/paste into an xml addendum.

The point being, whatever requirements they can come up with I am confident that most appraisers are capable of learning what they need to learn in order to meet those expectations. I saw the group do it - albeit on a narrower scale - in a matter of weeks. I am confident the appraisalware vendors will eventually refine their apps so that they'll be easy to use.

 

[Joe Flacco]

This is very different from the 1004MC.

 

[Joe Flacco]

I only took a brief look at it on Total yesterday. I think the odds of all appraisers that do GSE work, are retirement age, and receiving social secuity, hanging it up is very high.

 

[George Hatch]

This is very different from the 1004MC.

110% true, but the adaptation is the thing I was trying to point out. Back in the day most appraisers were using typists on an IBM Selectric typing onto blank 2-sided URAR forms from Forms and Worms. The appraisalware programs put the appraisers into directly writing to the file and using a dot-matrix to print to a continuous feed form. Then the appraisalware vendors went to printing the form+report by using laser printers or inkjets and the rest was history.

But also, a relative few of the appraisers never did make that transition from typewritten to laserjet and quit instead so that also happened.

My overarching point is that once the appraisalware stabilizes the learning curve for most appraisers might amount to a dozen reports before they find their groove.

 

[Joe Flacco]

110% true, but the adaptation is the thing I was trying to point out. Back in the day most appraisers were using typists on an IBM Selectric typing onto blank 2-sided URAR forms from Forms and Worms. The appraisalware programs put the appraisers into directly writing to the file and using a dot-matrix to print to a continuous feed form. Then the appraisalware vendors went to printing the form+report by using laser printers or inkjets and the rest was history.

But also, a relative few of the appraisers never did make that transition from typewritten to laserjet and quit instead so that also happened.

My overarching point is that once the appraisalware stabilizes the learning curve for most appraisers might amount to a dozen reports before they find their groove.

It's not going to be adopted like the 1004MC.

It's not like going from typewriter to software either. Typewriter to software improved efficiency and productivity, but appraisers were hesitant about the tech. That is not what is happening here. What is happening here is a major move backwards in efficiency and productivity.