Hybrid

[J Grant]

What makes you believe an inspector goes to the subject, takes photos and writes up notes and submits to AMC....
AMC then submits photos and notes to appraiser....
Appraiser then submits sales that appraiser considers potential comps back to the AMC....
AMC then forwards sales back to the inspector for inspector to drive to sales for photos....
Inspector takes the photos submits photos to AMC who then submits to appraiser.....
Appraiser decides additional sales required...
Repeat....

Come on.....

If you read my posts, I never said that is the way it is going to happen. I questioned if the inspector is going to photo the comps, and if they do, what are the ramifications if appraiser finds a better comp afterward...I doubt the inspector will photo the comps for this reason as well as increasing burden of time/coordination of appraisers having to pre select comps and get the list to the inspector but who knows.... Just speculation at this point

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

So the volume is low

Good point. The idea appraisers will be desk bound doing 8 of these a day is a joke. They will come in at about the same rate as any other assignment, so look for a few of them per week at peak and for each one done, subtract one conventional appraisal that would have been ordered, which means the income for appraisers will plunge.

 

[Evincere]

I see no USPAP violation here

Why would there be. Sounds like he alone completed the report

If the inspectors don't provide comps why would they provide photos of comps????

I gleaned that from communication with 2 different AMCs who are seeking both inspectors and appraisers....
Maybe not the FNMA hybrid but just their own....
But as Timd has repeatedly pointed out....
Why would AMCs create a product that FNMA hasn't approved????

who cares what FNMA approves . Their goal is to retain sustained profitability - period. Appraisers earnings are of no concern or consequence whatsoever to them or their investors or as they like to say the “stakeholders” they service.

Even a novice McDonalds employee with nothing more than a newly minted high school diploma would tell their manager to take a hike upon being told their salary was going to be cut in half because headquarters needed more profits. And that the customer was going to save .50 on a Burger

 

[Evincere]

I have performed 3 assignments similar to that being discussed....
I remember assignment where I was provided only subject front exterior and street scene....
And another assignment which also included rear and interior photos....

But always selected my own comps and added MLS photos if required....

You selected your own comps and used MLS photos for the comps YOU selected which you obtained from your own MLS data.

Which means you did not do the kind of assignments under discussion. Where an inspector ( in all likelihood unknown to the appraiser) Takes photos of comps (and possibly interior subj photos) Which somehow Make their way to
the appraiser.

 

[ucbruin]

You selected your own comps and used MLS photos for the comps YOU selected?

Yes, when the product type required photos of the comps, AMC requested MLS photos....

 

[Evincere]

Yes, when the product type required photos of the comps, AMC requested MLS photos....

Which begs the question. What is the real motivation for this “modernized” hybrid appraiser / inspector split.

My suspicion is that stakeholders want to pick the comps thereby having almost complete control over the process.

Any of those in the know posting to this thread can feel free to refute.?

 

[ucbruin]

Which begs the question. What is the real motivation for this “modernized” hybrid appraiser / inspector split.

My suspicion is that stakeholders want to pick the comps thereby having almost complete control over the process.

Any of those in the know posting to this thread can feel free to refute.?

From my experience completing 3 assignments as the appraiser......
I didn't find this to be the case....

But things can always change...

 

[J Grant]

Which begs the question. What is the real motivation for this “modernized” hybrid appraiser / inspector split.

My suspicion is that stakeholders want to pick the comps thereby having almost complete control over the process.

Any of those in the know posting to this thread can feel free to refute.?

I think that's ridiculous. IF "stakeholders" pick the comps, (for an appraisal) they are at that point engaging in appraisal practice. They may be greedy but they are not stupid.

 

[George Hatch]

No appraiser is compelled to limit their analysis to only the data a client provides to them. As a point of fact, appraisers are *prohibited* from allowing assignment conditions to limit the SOW to such a degree that the assignment results are no longer credible in the context of the intended use.

 

[J Grant]

It's still a problem in these threads because appraisers are mixing the two products in and trying to figure out what's going to happen but the products are for different uses (my understanding )

1) The desktop hybrids, the ones being shopped out now for fees of $60 range and an exterior photo of subject by an inspector are NOT replacing traditional appraisals, rather they replace BPO's or AVM's as stand alone for HELOC's or portfolio /other use. Reason: recent past regulations requiring a BPO or AVM only be upgraded to at minimum an "evolution" with an ext photo of subject..Thus, this product, even at dinky fees, likely will expand work/income to appraisers.

2) The Fannie pilot testing of hybrids "bifurcated " appraisals, with an inspection done by a non appraiser (or perhaps another appraiser ) are intended to replace a segment of "traditional " 1004 form appraisals for refinance or purchase, due to probability of low fees likely will reduce work/income to appraisers.