More On Free Comp Checks

[JSmith43]

I didn't avoid commenting on it. It's an HVCC requirement, not a USPAP requirement and not a requirement for the assignments involving the MBs that these guys are doing comp checks for.

Not everything goes through the GSEs.

I work for a correspondent lender that went the rotational fee panel route. They aren't comfortable ordering desk top assignments through their fee panel appraisers due to their reading of HVCC. They may not realize MN rules don't allow that type of assignment due to the interior inspection requirement, but that is a side issue for MN only, I hope.

Of the surviving MB's, it is more likely that at least one of their investor relationships is that of a correspondent.

If someone has tried to market a desktop appraisal for $$ and succeeded, I hope they share the info. Don't worry about copycats. Few will have the confidence or knowhow to successfully offer such a product.

 

[George Hatch]

Mr Hatch you can be a master spinner for the republican or democratic party. Your perception has been mono-focused on tryin to connect a comp check to a unethical reporting. You are still looking at this with a very rigid perception.
I agree with all the standards. I am equally principaled as you are.
You take leave of good manners and utilize harsh acusations to make your point.
Yes the value conclusion. That is the point. It is supported by 6 comps 2 block away. A comp check invalidates that? A bunch of Misconduct? What over sell.

There is no misconduct. It is a business decision. See u assume this is for brokers/ used car salesmen. lol. I dont work for those type of lenders. You insist the comp check was done to get the assignment. Your mistaken.
No disrepect, this where your brain cells are going bananas.
Comp check. :Eyecrazy: Must be to get business. Wrong. I don't pay to play. I get the business anyways. Wise up Hatch.
The appraisal foundation:
Is Disclosure of a Free "Comp Check" Assignment Required?
Question:
If I perform a free "comp check" assignment and my client subsequently requests me to perform a "full" (or more "traditional") assignment on the same property, do I have to disclose the free "comp check" assignment as having provided a "thing of value" to procure the new assignment?
Response:
No. The Management section of the ETHICS RULE states, in part:
The payment of undisclosed fees, commissions, or things of value in connection with the procurement of an assignment is unethical.





Are you for real with this Frank Burns?

However, I used to be close to the head of the Santa Ana HUD Appraisal Dept. Kip. Bless her. A good appraiser does more than just type reports, they are craftsman.
In conclusion, I believe you are good man. Fair no. You jump to to many conclusions.
"There is a principle which is bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance. That principle is contemp prior to investigation.

First things first - I am not one of those people who says "never do anything for free". What I've been saying all along is that if you're going to do any kind of appraisal do it properly and keep a workfile. Don't get involved with contingent engagement/compensation schemes. Standard stuff.

Now you guys are sitting here telling us that you need to do free comp checks to survive but there's no contingencies involved. I mean, did you even read that comment before you hit the "enter" button? 'Cause it's possibly the most incredible thing I've ever seen posted on this forum. "Incredible" as in the opposite of credible. You do what, 200+ of those comp checks a year, and you want us to believe that most of them don't involve prohibited contingencies?

I can concede that it's possible, but the type of appraiser who could make it happen would also be the type of appraiser who would keep the workfile and who would be hypersensitive to the risks involved. They wouldn't be prattling on about it not being a problem if nobody can find the smoking gun.

I've seen zero indication that either one of you guys are that appraiser. If you were you'd have the correct answers at your fingertips and you wouldn't be saying dumb stuff like "as long as I don't say a number it's not an appraisal". You'd be telling us why the ends don't justify the means instead of scoffing at it.

Secondly, all anyone here knows about your situations is what you say about yourselves. That's all on you. If you create the conclusions about what you're doing, it's hardly a stretch on our part to acknowledge the obvious.

If you don't like the hole you're in perhaps you should stop digging. I'll be happy to hand you a ladder to climb out, but I'm not going to ignore the fact that the hole itself is a problem.

 

[George Hatch]

I work for a correspondent lender that went the rotational fee panel route. They aren't comfortable ordering desk top assignments through their fee panel appraisers due to their reading of HVCC. They may not realize MN rules don't allow that type of assignment due to the interior inspection requirement, but that is a side issue for MN only, I hope.

They didn't qualify the prohibition by limiting it to mortgage appraisals? That's odd.

 

[JSmith43]

They didn't qualify the prohibition by limiting it to mortgage appraisals? That's odd.

Check out 8c near the bottom of MN Rules/Appraiser Standards of contact (supplement to USPAP, which is incorporated by reference in an earlier section.

C. prior to performing the appraisal, view the entire property, inside and out, as
well as confirm the existence of any contiguous highways, buildings, or other factors that
affect the valuation of the property; and

 

[JSmith43]

Just above the interior inspection requirement, I found this:

(6) use adjustments to the comparable sales that do not reflect the market's
reaction to the differences between the subject property and the comparables, or fail to
make adjustments when they are clearly indicated;

Well, there goes the qualitative/ranking method by regulatory decree

No plusses and minuses only in the grid. I bet the board members would accept a tip of the hat via narrative comment covering the feature difference, for lack of a numerical line item adjustment.:new_all_coholic:

 

[CANative]

Bottom line...

Comp check = Appraiser check.

 

[fifteen]

I like that MN statute Mentor, it's pretty good. Too bad they didn't put in there that only the appraiser can be paid for the appraisal.

 

[Samshile]

First things first - I am not one of those people who says "never do anything for free". What I've been saying all along is that if you're going to do any kind of appraisal do it properly and keep a workfile. Don't get involved with contingent engagement/compensation schemes. Standard stuff.

Now you guys are sitting here telling us that you need to do free comp checks to survive but there's no contingencies involved. I mean, did you even read that comment before you hit the "enter" button? 'Cause it's possibly the most incredible thing I've ever seen posted on this forum. "Incredible" as in the opposite of credible. You do what, 200+ of those comp checks a year, and you want us to believe that most of them don't involve prohibited contingencies?

I can concede that it's possible, but the type of appraiser who could make it happen would also be the type of appraiser who would keep the workfile and who would be hypersensitive to the risks involved. They wouldn't be prattling on about it not being a problem if nobody can find the smoking gun.

I've seen zero indication that either one of you guys are that appraiser. If you were you'd have the correct answers at your fingertips and you wouldn't be saying dumb stuff like "as long as I don't say a number it's not an appraisal". You'd be telling us why the ends don't justify the means instead of scoffing at it.

Secondly, all anyone here knows about your situations is what you say about yourselves. That's all on you. If you create the conclusions about what you're doing, it's hardly a stretch on our part to acknowledge the obvious.

If you don't like the hole you're in perhaps you should stop digging. I'll be happy to hand you a ladder to climb out, but I'm not going to ignore the fact that the hole itself is a problem.

1. Interesting how you stay quiet on the part where you asked me to be un-ethical. You were wrong and attemp to change the focus to diggin holes and word play "credible"
2. "Now you guys are sitting here telling us that you need to do free comp checks to survive but there's no contingencies involved". Factually incorrect. Re-read the post Hatch.
I do not work for Brokers and I do not just survive. The same contingency as any good business service provider would. I say please and thank you. Stop by the office. Return phone calls. Is not any business contigent on being attentive?
Where is your response to the Appraisal board?
It seems you are quite an erudite and reasonable man, then intimate we are Hoes. Comp check = Hoe. lol

"I can concede that it's possible, but the type of appraiser who could make it happen would also be the type of appraiser who would keep the workfile and who would be hypersensitive to the risks involved. They wouldn't be prattling on about it not being a problem if nobody can find the smoking gun."
Im not the prattler. lol.
I am the one who does it in the name of education. I think it needs to be public. We provide a more accurate value range than zillow. Isn't Zillow a big comp checker without the skillz?

 

[Hamlet]

Isn't Zillow a big comp checker without the skillz?

No. A comp check is an appraisal. Appraisals are performed by appraisers. The quality of the appraisal depends on the quality of the appraiser.