Hybrid

[Joe Flacco]

Exactly how many of these have you engaged appraisers to do, and what turn times did they provide to you?

I am sorry if actual data from having engaged in this work for over a decade does not align with preconceived notions harvested by the PFA method.

As I said earlier, I think everyone is jumping the gun on these. Until Fannie settles on an actual SOW and reporting format, speculation about fees and turn times is just speculation. Yes, they are using data about current processes, but that data may not be relevant to what they plan to do. I already said that before. Did you miss that?

Look at you throwing in "We do both interior and exterior hybrids" as if interiors make up any significant percentage of hybrids. Why don't you actually put out some detailed stats against what I am saying?

All appraisers know that the biggest hurdle to getting a property inspected is accomodating the owners schedule. Not PFA at all. All your statements about the speed of hybrids conveniently ignore that.

 

[DWiley]

All appraisers know that the biggest hurdle to getting a property inspected is accomodating the owners schedule. Not PFA at all. All your statements about the speed of hybrids conveniently ignore that.

I think you are projecting views onto me that I have never expressed.

I never made any claim whatsoever that the hybrids based on exterior inspection should be compared to hybrids with interior inspections. I did say that those looking at it are doing that, and I pointed out that was not valid logic. I think this will now be the third time that I have said that both fees and turn time cannot be fully evaluated until we know what SOW and format Fannie adopts.

 

[timd354]

I think you are projecting views onto me that I have never expressed.

I never made any claim whatsoever that the hybrids based on exterior inspection should be compared to hybrids with interior inspections. I did say that those looking at it are doing that, and I pointed out that was not valid logic. I think this will now be the third time that I have said that both fees and turn time cannot be fully evaluated until we know what SOW and format Fannie adopts.

Danny, it does not matter that you have stated that three times since that simply does not fit with Flacco's narrative and he is going to hear what he wants to hear.

 

[Joe Flacco]

Danny, it does not matter that you have stated that three times since that simply does not fit with Flacco's narrative and he is going to hear what he wants to hear.

You are such as Danny Wiley *** kisser. What about his statements like "mathematical fact that the total turn time is significantly reduced" ?

 

[timd354]

You are such as Danny Wiley *** kisser. What about his statements like "mathematical fact that the total turn time is significantly reduced" ?

You must be cognitively challenged since you apparently do not realize that he has not once, not twice, but thrice qualified that statement by stating that both fees and turn time cannot be fully evaluated until we know what SOW and format Fannie adopts. (RIF)

Even though he has said that at least three times in this thread, you called him the "king of misleading" and now you call me an "a** kisser"...those statements are an excellent reflection of the credibility of your arguments and will fool no one who has even a modicum of intelligence and logical reasoning ability.

 

[bnmappraisal]

I think most of us get the fact that a "full blown" appraisal really isn't necessary all the time. But, what everyone fears is the race to the bottom and expansion of use of PIWs and Hybrids in too many cases. Legitimate concerns, in my view.

In my view, it's all about the fee(s)

AMCs touting "$75 and can be completed in an hour" etc

I've said before, I've done desktops for private clients. Never left my office. Never physically saw/inspected/measured the property, etc. All USPAP compliant per agreed upon SOW. But I was compensated well above $75 for said assignment. To me it comes down to fee(s)

 

[Joe Flacco]

You must be cognitively challenged since you apparently do not realize that he has not once, not twice, but thrice qualified that statement by stating that both fees and turn time cannot be fully evaluated until we know what SOW and format Fannie adopts. (RIF)

Even though he has said that at least three times in this thread, you called him the "king of misleading" and now you call me an "a** kisser"...those statements are an excellent reflection of the credibility of your arguments and will fool no one who had even a modicum of intelligence and logical reasoning ability.

"It is a simple mathematical fact that the total turn time is significantly reduced"
"We do both interior and exterior hybrids"

You don't think statements like that should include saying that BUT 99% of them do not have to accommodate owners schedule? That's called MISLEADING.

I am calling you a DW *** kisser because that's exactly what you do in all threads and all topics.

 

[Joe Flacco]

I don't hate DW or *** kissers. I just say things the way I see it.

 

[DWiley]

In my view, it's all about the fee(s)

AMCs touting "$75 and can be completed in an hour" etc

I've said before, I've done desktops for private clients. Never left my office. Never physically saw/inspected/measured the property, etc. All USPAP compliant per agreed upon SOW. But I was compensated well above $75 for said assignment. To me it comes down to fee(s)

Of course it is all about the fees. The problem I see is that people (again, appraiser and users) are comparing apples and oranges. Most hybrids done today are done using software specifically designed to facilitate that. They can add a LOT of efficiency to the process. If hybrids become "general practice' will the typical appraiser have access to the tools like that that are required to be maximally efficient? Odds are someone will develop such a thing, but will it be as efficient as some of the custom stuff that existing companies have? I do not know. Also, when people look at fees paid you cannot just look at the per unit fee paid to a staff appraiser, who may be on salary, getting benefits and other compensation in addition to the per unit additional fee paid.

 

[timd354]

"It is a simple mathematical fact that the total turn time is significantly reduced"
"We do both interior and exterior hybrids"

You don't think statements like that should include saying that BUT 99% of them do not have to accommodate owners schedule? That's called MISLEADING.

I am calling you a DW *** kisser because that's exactly what you do in all threads and all topics.

Okay, I got it...when the cognitively challenged lifts one statement out of an entire thread and ignore the qualifier that was stated at least thrice they apparently can apparently fool themselves into thinking something is misleading when it is clearly not.

Carry on with you selective reading though, I am sure it will help you become more successful in the future