Hybrid

[George Hatch]

No it is not.

If it were just a desktop appraisal, only the appraiser would be involved.

the bi-f appraisal is a direct bias of the appraiser to rely on information provided by an interested party, while excluding the appraiser from performing the inspection themselves to gather their own data for analysis.

.

So if a lender provides a previous appraisal to the new appraiser that information is assumed to be biased because the lender acquired it and provided it to the appraiser? How about if the lender provides permits and a title report? Tainted because the lender handled it?

I don't think so. A borrower or a broker would be considered an "interested party". An employee of the lender might be considered an "interested party". But a 3rd party report prepared by an outside contractor who is not otherwise part of the transaction and doesn't have any other functions? I don't see how.

 

[Joe Flacco]

No it is not.

If it were just a desktop appraisal, only the appraiser would be involved.

the bi-f appraisal is a direct bias of the appraiser to rely on information provided by an interested party, while excluding the appraiser from performing the inspection themselves to gather their own data for analysis.

.

I don't agree with that.

 

[Meandering]

So if a lender provides a previous appraisal to the new appraiser that information is assumed to be biased because the lender acquired it and provided it to the appraiser? How about if the lender provides permits and a title report? Tainted because the lender handled it? .

Are we playing the if, then, else game?

I aint JGrant, but I'll give it a shot.

So why is a lender giving a previous appraisal to a new appraier if not for a review assignment?

What can be relied upon in a previous appraisal if the effective date of value is the date of inspection, and the appraiser is using a previous appraisal as being reliable?

Can a retrospective appraisal be used for lending? Sure, but it depends on how retrospective the effective date of value is.

But really if there is an existing report, why order one and give the OA to the second appraiser, if not to influence?

Title reports can be verified as accurate through the title company, no assumption is necessary and actually required due diligence to verify, might question why the title report was not verified through the title company. Hence, the lack of performing the due diligence would not lead to a credible EA. And that goes ditto for permits. Can be verified via the municipality. You can't avoid doing your job by making assumptions anything you say is correct.

I don't think so. A borrower or a broker would be considered an "interested party". An employee of the lender might be considered an "interested party". But a 3rd party report prepared by an outside contractor who is not otherwise part of the transaction and doesn't have any other functions? I don't see how.

You are making me laugh again.

But a 3rd party report prepared by an outside contractor who is not licensed to do so and doesn't have any other function, is a violation of licensing laws for appraisal practice without at license.

There, fixed it for you.

But while you are there playing the if, then, else, game,

Show me the regulation that says outside contractors have to be independent of the transaction, their independence must be maintained, their reports can't be altered by underwriters or anyone else.

Thanks.

.

 

[George Hatch]

I was only trying to illustrate the principle - see, that's how you test whether or not the principle holds up, by substituting similar versions of the same variable to see if the theory still makes sense. To see if your assertion that a 3rd party inspection report is being developed by an "interested party" holds up - which it obviously doesn't.

Inspecting and measuring isn't appraising (no opinions of value involved) , and we already went over the difference between me blindly adopting your quality/conditions vs using the info you're providing to develop my own opinions.

As for regulations - those are used to limit conduct, not endorse it. I know you haven't missed the point that the regulators are ALREADY ALLOWING the use of various valuation products that are provided by parties other than appraisers. And have even promulgated some of the requirements for certain types of alternative valuations - which is how we know none of this stuff is being done under the table or without the regulators noticing.

I think you're simply on the wrong side of history on this one.

 

[Meandering]

I was only trying to illustrate the principle - see, that's how you test whether or not the principle holds up, by substituting similar versions of the same variable to see if the theory still makes sense. Which your allegation that a 3rd party inspection report is being developed by an "interested party" holds up - which it obviously doesn't.

Inspecting and measuring isn't appraising (no opinions of value involved) , and we already went over the difference between me blindly adopting your quality/conditions vs using the info you're providing to develop my own opinions.

As for regulations - those are used to limit conduct, not endorse it.

No you were not trying to demonstrate anything, but play a silly game that makes no sense.

The regulations are all there plainly written in the queen's English.

There is no real world reason for the scenario you presented.

So, let me try one.

If I ask you to appraise my house for my own information, and not for any lending reason

would you sit in your office and do that from your computer?

.

 

[Meandering]

Oh,

I'll even send you some pictures of it.

 

[djd09]

I don't understand what the confusion is. A hybrid is just a desktop appraisal.

So is this your conclusion after your big sting operation.

Now George wants to throw his credentials around. Lucky this is not a ROV thread. Fastball high and tight.

 

[Meandering]

Inside curve

 

[Joe Flacco]

So is this your conclusion after your big sting operation.

Now George wants to throw his credentials around. Lucky this is not a ROV thread. Fastball high and tight.

Lol. It being a desktop appraisal is a fact champ.

I am going to try to be objective in my reporting.

 

[George Hatch]

No you were not trying to demonstrate anything, but play a silly game that makes no sense.

The regulations are all there plainly written in the queen's English.

There is no real world reason for the scenario you presented.

So, let me try one.

If I ask you to appraise my house for my own information, and not for any lending reason

would you sit in your office and do that from your computer?

.

You said the inspections are being provided by "interested parties" which as that term is being used in the discussion is patently untrue. You seem to think the inspectors need to be licensed, but have no reference for that. You think appraisers have to "verify" subject conditions until I pointed that out to be an error in fact. You think inspectors are appraising, which is also an error in fact. And you're saying the lenders are doing things with these valuations that aren't allowed under the regulations, even though Congress and the regulators are obviously all fully aware of it.

These lenders aren't operating in secret.

Nothing you're alleging is panning out. Nor will it ever. I'm opposed to lenders using hybrids for any decisions of consequence but if they aren't going to order a 1004 or a 2055 I'd rather see them use a hybrid prepared by an appraiser who knows how to do a 1004 and a 2055 than see them use an AVM or a BPO prepared by non-appraisers. But that's just me, because in the end nothing appraisers say is going to alter the permissiblity of performing a desktop appraisal whether with or without a 3rd party inspection report.