Intimidation....I Will Not Be Silenced

[George Hatch]

It’s such a weak argument - because USPAP does not require an inspection we can leap to that must mean anybody can do the inspection. Just as strange as the argument of since you rely on flood map information from a third-party (a 3rd party of professional degrees hydrologists). that means you can use a third-party for anything and everything else in an appraisal. It’s tremendously flawed logic, and if it wasn’t backed up with intimidation and threats, the arguments would’ve been tossed out a long time ago.

You keep missing the point that it has always been the user who drives these decisions, whether explicitly or implicitly based on what criteria they are required to meet. Like if the govt required them to use full personal inspections or prohibited no-look appraisals.

The arbitrary and external benchmark you seek for inspection decisions does not exist. They're all user-driven. DW just said they do not accept 2055s with EAs about the subject composition and condition - the appraiser is required to have the info for those attributes from somewhere. That's a GSE requirement because some non-GSE assignments do allow exterior-only + EAs regarding the areas not personally observed.

The use of ANSI specs is another example of user-driven in the inspection component, where some users require it and others don't.

 

[alebrewer]

You decided to make it about comparing 2055 to a hybrid. That is not the comparison appraisers are making aain, for the majority of appraisers, 2055 orders were a very small part of their business. If they did a lot of them, it is still not the comparison.

A hybrid with a PDR collection does not replace a 2055. A hybrid replaces a 1004 with inspection by the appraiser (or signed with a trainee), and replaces it with a 1004 with the on-site visit done by a data collector who is often not an appraiser .

Yes, appraisers typically like a 1004 hybrid more than a 2055, but again, the 1004 hybrid does not replace the 2055 in most cases. It replaces a 1004 with the inspection done by the appraiser.

No one ever said the 1004 hybrid replaced the 2055, but thanks for the straw man. What I said is that the scope of work is no different. Pay attention, J.

In the hybrid 1004, the appraiser is not making personal inspection of the property, but instead is relying on 3rd party data RE the subject improvements. For the 2055, the appraiser is not making personal inspection of the property, but instead is relying on 3rd party data RE the subject improvements. See the similarity, J?

Now: why weren't appraisers up in arms about not inspecting the subject for 2055's, but they ARE up in arms about not inspecting the subject for hybrid 1004? That is duplicitous logic.

Why stop now, though? Lack of logic hasn't stopped you yet.

 

[George Hatch]

WRT the extent to which the PDCs are trained, that's another discretionary decision being made at the user level. The user can choose to use untrained individuals. Or even felons. Or kids. That's their prerogative to exercise and the validation by the appraisers for that decision is not required. It doesn't matter if we disagree. What matters on our end if we think the info is accurate enough to rely upon in our assignment, or else withdraw from the assignment.

 

[J Grant]

No one ever said the 1004 hybrid replaced the 2055, but thanks for the straw man. What I said is that the scope of work is no different. Pay attention, J.

In the hybrid 1004, the appraiser is not making personal inspection of the property, but instead is relying on 3rd party data RE the subject improvements. For the 2055, the appraiser is not making personal inspection of the property, but instead is relying on 3rd party data RE the subject improvements. See the similarity, J?

Now: why weren't appraisers up in arms about not inspecting the subject for 2055's, but they ARE up in arms about not inspecting the subject for hybrid 1004? That is duplicitous logic.

Why stop now, though? Lack of logic hasn't stopped you yet.

I explained why appraisers were not up in arms about the 2055- it was a very minor part of most appraisers' practice and almost never done for a purchase origination loan.

You did not say the 1004 hybrid replaced the 2055, but you keep comparing them about outrage-when the two had nothing to do with each other., Whereas the hybrid inserts a third-party person into the 1004 as a data collector and cuts off the appraiser from their own inspection.

Your continually insulting me makes you look weak as a debater - or just rude.

 

[ddnma]

Appraisers are taught that unless a repair issue presents a safety or health problem to the property and thus needs to be made subject to inspection or repair...

What is a health problem to the property?
Do you mean safety, soundness, and structural integrity of the property?

 

[alebrewer]

Your continually insulting me makes you look weak as a debater - or just rude.

You really shouldn't try to wear that hat, J. With your history, it just adds to the duplicity.

 

[J Grant]

WRT the extent to which the PDCs are trained, that's another discretionary decision being made at the user level. The user can choose to use untrained individuals. Or even felons. Or kids. That's their prerogative to exercise and the validation by the appraisers for that decision is not required. It doesn't matter if we disagree. What matters on our end if we think the info is accurate enough to rely upon in our assignment, or else withdraw from the assignment.

We get it, George; the discretionary decisions are made at the user's level. The users who want to remove the speed bump and friction of appraisals. That is their language, not mine. .

A lot of lenders are sleazy, and even if they are not, they have no mission of public trust; only the appraisers via USPAP have that mission stated, as do the GSEs. Because they are the gateway to taxpayer-backed-funded loans. They keep loosening appraisal, valuation, and in some cases borrower qualification standards.

You continually repeat yourself and remind us it is the users' expectations. Well, the users as lenders consist in large part of the same slime who combined C and D paper for toxic loans and performed high-risk and predatory lending in the past, so the fact that they are driving the bus now wrt appraisals and the GSE;s are changing standards to accommodate them, evokes a reaction from appraisers.

 

[Zoe]

Who has argued that "anybody" can do the inspection?

Some might want to argue that the required training for data collectors is not rigorous enough, but they don't seem to wish to discuss that there is absolutely no formal training in inspections required for appraisers. An appraiser can actually get certified without ever personally visiting a single home.

And, by the way, there is no requirement for an appraiser to rely on a PDR if he/she thinks the PDR is wrong. It is like choosing to use any other data source - it is up to the appraiser. And, if someone decides they will never trust a PDR, that is fine too. But, if one chooses to not accept hybrid appraisal assignments, then that person should recognize that for what it is, a personal choice.

Okay. Who approves the PDR? I assume the PDR is licensed and has liability insurance. Correct me if I am wrong. But who approves them?

 

[Zoe]

Another problem I have working in a very heterogeneous market is a PDR is not going to see what impacts market value like I do.

My grandfather was a builder. My father in law was builder. I have no problem diagnosing the subject. My daddy could plumb electritcy, etc.

Inspection is no problem to me. It is what is around the subject is what matters in very heterogeneous market.

One side of Street can make difference in market value in Memphis.

 

[J Grant]

Looking it up multiple sources report the "formal training" and "professional training" for a PDR collector is a 5-6 hour online course.