Hybrid

[Evincere]

Duplicate deleted

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Then doesn’t this basically diminish the need for a 1004 down the road?

They will need enough DAT to feed the CU beast to sure. But one has to wonder how long before the ticks kill the host feeding them.

 

[Evincere]

The XML data from these hybrids which is basically the meat and bones data contained in a 1004 can then be gathered by Fannie to continue to feed their CU. Is that correct?

Then doesn’t this basically diminish - even to the extent the hybrid Replaces and phases out a 1004 down the road?

 

[Michigan CG]

Many Appraisers who complete a Desktop or BIFUR will not complete the requirements of Standard One completely, nor will they adhere to the Record Keeping Rule. What that means to me is simple, even if I were to complete any of these I would not be able to compete because those Clowns would be completing three for every one I could complete.

EXACTLY! I lose all respect for idiots who say these can be done in less than an hour. The AMROCK guy is the latest idiot.

 

[Michigan CG]

Just to recap what I've said over and over and over....
1. I believe that there are mortgage-related transactions where a hybrid appraisal makes sense.
2. I believe there should be limits on their use: the riskier the loan, the more a hybrid does not make any sense.
3. I believe that a hybrid is better than an AVM or BPO.
4. I would prefer appraisers to get this business than non-appraisers.
5. I argue that the acceptability of the assignment is two fold: the SOW and the appraiser's own personal standard.
6. I would consider taking these assignments with little hesitation as long as I agreed with the SOW and the intended use.
7. If the assignment passed #6 threshold, then the final determination for me would be the fee; if they accepted my fee, I'd do them. If they didn't, I won't.
8. I encourage all appraisers to bid any jobs, and these specifically, at a level that appropriately compensates them for the work they do and the risk they perceive (which may be much higher than what I perceive).
9. I've consistently said that if any appraiser doesn't like these for any reason, they should simply decline the assignment.
10. I've said if enough appraisers decline these assignments for any or a combination of reasons (disagree with the SOW; don't believe the assignment results can be credible with someone else performing an inspection; don't think it is appropriate for the specific intended use or for any mortgage-related intended use); find the fee insufficient; etc.) these products will die as far as an appraisal product is concerned.
11. I've argued that if the appraiser is the inspector, they are still required to follow the USPAP if they were engaged to perform the assignment because they were an appraiser (and I confirmed it with my state regulator and recommended others do the same); so I've argued that this component of the assignment should have a commensurate fee given the expectations and requirements. Indeed, I said that if a company were offing (actually, I think the one example priced it lower than) the typical fee they might pay for a 1004D re-inspection, I wouldn't accept it because there is more work and liability involved in an appraiser doing the inspection.

There's my position summed up in 11 points.
Please tell me where any of it is unethical?
Also, please tell me where I'm telling anyone else to do something that I wouldn't do?

Very nice summation and I can't argue with any of it.

These products are all about SOW and fee. Any appraiser around more than a decade has most likely performed a desktop appraisal or a review with no property inspection. These hybrids are nothing different with the exception of AMCs trying to tell appraisers they can be done in under an hour for a stupid low fee which simply is not true.

 

[hastalavista]

That was great!!!!

Now do one about me (it's always about me)...
Just try not to be too brutally honest!!!

Last one, but cannot resist...

You know our friend, UCbruin?
When he posts, you can bet a controversy is brewing
Believe it or not
(and despite the onslaught)
His appraisal career has not yet been ruined!​

 

[George Hatch]

The problem with that, George, is that we (RES appraisers, mostly doing Fannie/Freddie work) would have to think outside of F/F forms .... and that would take ... thinking outside of ... F/F forms

We have plenty of that on my side of the business, too. A narrative is just another form and lots of appraisers look at the report driving the process instead of merely being the vehicle by which the process is conveyed to the reader.

 

[Michigan CG]

Just like CU was just a risk assessment tool.

CU was most likely the smartest thing FNMA did considering technology. Appraisers were using so many different terms in their reports that no one could interpret them the same way. Average +, Average -, good, inferior, bad, poor,...........................

Buggy whip makers also denied the advances of technology.

 

[Michigan CG]

Let's not kid ourselves. It will be no different than it was/is with a 2055. No one will complain about the process unless the value is less than sale price, and that will NOT be new or unique to the "hybrid" process.

SOW for many 2055 reports when they were popular:

-Appraiser pulls the MLS info (if there is any).
-Appraiser pulls assessor records.
-Appraiser knows if assessor records in the area are generally accurate or not..........but............
-Appraiser relies on assessor records.
-Appraiser drives through the local coffee shop drive-thru on his/her way to inspection of subject property.
-Appraiser pulls to the side of the road in front of the subject property for 14 seconds and takes six photos, notes are optional.

 

[timd354]

CU was most likely the smartest thing FNMA did considering technology. Appraisers were using so many different terms in their reports that no one could interpret them the same way. Average +, Average -, good, inferior, bad, poor,...........................

Buggy whip makers also denied the advances of technology.

I was one of the people who worked on creating the UAD (djd can thank me later) and prior to the UAD the folks at Fannie Mae had determined by looking at thousands and thousand of appraisals that appraisers used more than 200 hundred different ways of stating something was some level of average including Avg, Avg+, Avg++, Avg+++, Avg-, Avg--, Avg+/-, Avg/Good, Avg/Old, Avg/New, Avg/Fair, Avg/Sup, Avg/Inf and many, many more combinations, usually without including any explanation of what the rating actually meant. The need to standardize GSE appraisal reporting was an obvious no brainer for them.