Hybrid

[Joe Flacco]

With respect, the term your use of the term making the engagement decision based on fee implies that's the only criteria. But that's not exactly true, is it? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the lenders are choosing which of the nominally proficient appraisers they have to choose from who is offering to do it for the lowest fee ?

And sure, the lenders are responsible for the decisions they make; and by extension the chief appraisers are responsible for the appraisal policies they develop and promulgate. And likewise, the GSEs are also responsible for the decisions THEY make.

I dunno for sure if it's true, but they say you can't cheat an honest man.

Overall, I agree with what all of you guys are saying. You guys are just avoiding the fact that there is a reason why some are able to charge less and do them faster and saying its the same because there is no data or evidence.

 

[Mr Rex]

So are you saying that Skippy's are a new phenomenon?

 

[hastalavista]

I don't have any issues with GSE guidelines or USPAP. My whole point is that the emphasis on speed combined with the emphasis on cost is promoting appraisals that fall short of standard 1 compliance.

We are getting into a circular argument here:
SOW is what is going to determine the level of research/analysis and development.
From these posts, we (or at least I) have learned that the SOW for the current non-GSE pilot programs is far less than the SOW for the GSE pilot program.
I'm not convinced that just because the appraisal is a hybrid that it is going to fall short of SR-1 minimum requirements given the SOW and intended use. But, I assume that is part of the pilot program's objective; to see if there are shortfalls or not.

As to the existing hybrids for non-GSE purposes, it would appear that SR-1 shortfalls are not significant or pervasive given that SOW, despite what we may individually think. Since those loans are typically held (or the assets potentially on the books) of the lending institution, their continued use with their own skin-in-the-game would argue they meet their needs. This would be especially true if the regulators have provided written confirmation that such appraisals are in compliance with the existing regulations.

 

[timd354]

So is there data or credible evidence supporting the contrary? It should just be ignored?

I am not asserting anything one way or another, so I have nothing to prove. You are the one who has asserted that the emphasis on speed combined with the emphasis on cost is promoting appraisals that fall short of standard 1 compliance.

Obviously, you have no support for that assertion and just pulled it out of thin air because it sounds good and fits your narrative.

The only thing that I will say on the matter is that I certainly have not seen any evidence whatsoever that overall appraisal quality has worsened in any respect since the rise of the AMC model beginning around 2008 or 2009 when the HVCC was adopted, which presumably is when you think the emphasis on speed and cost began.

 

[Joe Flacco]

We are getting into a circular argument here:
SOW is what is going to determine the level of research/analysis and development.
From these posts, we (or at least I) have learned that the SOW for the current non-GSE pilot programs is far less than the SOW for the GSE pilot program.
I'm not convinced that just because the appraisal is a hybrid that it is going to fall short of SR-1 minimum requirements given the SOW and intended use. But, I assume that is part of the pilot program's objective; to see if there are shortfalls or not.

As to the existing hybrids for non-GSE purposes, it would appear that SR-1 shortfalls are not significant or pervasive given that SOW, despite what we may individually think. Since those loans are typically held (or the assets potentially on the books) of the lending institution, their continued use with their own skin-in-the-game would argue they meet their needs. This would be especially true if the regulators have provided written confirmation that such appraisals are in compliance with the existing regulations.

Circular argument indeed. I am talking more about the concept of the "raise fee until there are enough takers" method rather than the hybrid.

 

[timd354]

Overall, I agree with what all of you guys are saying. You guys are just avoiding the fact that there is a reason why some are able to charge less and do them faster and saying its the same because there is no data or evidence.

Why would I believe in anything for which there is no evidence? That would be pretty stupid.

 

[Joe Flacco]

I am not asserting anything one way or another, so I have nothing to prove. You are the one who has asserted that the emphasis on speed combined with the emphasis on cost is promoting appraisals that fall short of standard 1 compliance.

Obviously, you have no support for that assertion and just pulled it out of thin air because it sounds good and fits your narrative.

The only thing that I will say on the matter is that I certainly have not seen any evidence whatsoever that overall appraisal quality has worsened in any respect since the rise of the AMC model beginning around 2008 or 2009 when the HVCC was adopted, which presumably is when you think the emphasis on speed and cost began.

Use some common sense. Does putting pressure on fees and cost promote standard 1 compliance then?

I don't know when the emphasis on speed on cost began but it is probably way back in the day.

 

[hastalavista]

Not sure if you realized this or not Denis, but you have misquoted me. The tract you reference was posted by George Hatch, not me. I did quote him in my post, and you are quoting my post that quotes him. I haven't complained, directly anyways, about fees in a very long time. What I have been harping on, is appraisers ought to organize, so they could better control the process, which would have an effect on our bottom lines, among other benefits of organization. Talk to George if you want to comment about fighting fees.

I didn't realize it; thanks for the clarification.

 

[Joe Flacco]

Why would I believe in anything for which there is no evidence? That would be pretty stupid.

What's pretty stupid is that a chief appraiser does not understand why some can do a appraisal for half the price and in half the time. Ridiculous.

 

[timd354]

What's pretty stupid is that a chief appraiser does not understand why some can do a appraisal for half the price and in half the time. Ridiculous.

Since I pointed out that you have absolutely zero evidence to support your assertion, you decided to go personal....that's a very genius response