New 1004

[George Hatch]

George, I agree, but I did not design the report, they did; they also invented the addendum. I would think they would have thought about that when making the fill in the blank report.
When their new invention comes out, I would almost guarantee it won't be flawless. Like the CU and algorithm, only as good as the secret sauce at McD's

I'm sure that you will recall. At one time most SFR appraisal reports actually only consisted of the front/back of the URAR + the Assumptions/Certification addenda and the maps and exhibits (2 pages of pics for the subject/comps + location map + diagram + assessor plat). So maybe 9 pages when it's 3 comps or 11 pages when there are 4-6 comps. Aside from that the expectations of the readers was that the form itself was sufficient in detail for whatever the appraiser had to write for that assignment.

At whatever point these assignments started requiring more "reporting" than would fit on the base form then that's when the URAR's current format became inadequate to purpose. If it takes 10 pages of written report (+6 or 7 pages of exhibits) to meet the requirements of an SFR assignment then that's how many pages should have been incorporated directly into the URAR. In order as relates to the SR1 process of problem identification, HBU analysis, market segment analysis and the approaches to value and final reconciliation.

That way, an appraiser could write the entirety of their report from front to back in a structured order without having to divert to narrative addenda, and every reader could read that report in the same manner. Every comment field being sufficient in length to accommodate the appraiser's summaries without having to divert to an addenda. When a reader wants to know something about the subject site then all that info is found in the one section of the report, regardless of who is writing that report. If it's not addressed where it's designed to be addressed then its most likely not in the report at all.

The amount of writing is the same, the summaries are the same. What's different is that it's all presented in a uniform order with no real discretion on the part of the appraiser as to where to address the specifics. Appraiser Smith's format is identical to Appraiser Brown's format because there is no option or discretion or work-arounds involved with that format. Leastwise not for most appraisal problems.

 

[George Hatch]

What exactly are they looking for?

Just as an example, where do include your subject's market analysis or HBU summary or your exposure time summary or your disclosures about water heater straps and smoke detectors and whatever other trivia are on some clerk's checklist? Because a form COULD be structured in a manner that addresses all those elements in whichever section in the report they pertain. If the GSEs want Bert's methodology incorporated into their assignments then that reporting would logically fit into the SC section of the report. Not in an addenda as if its an afterthought.

 

[Mark K]

Some appraisers are going to have a tough time figuring out what section to put their 5-6 pages of boilerplate BS. It is currently so easy just putting in "see addendum" in all of the sections.

 

[George Hatch]

IMO the main reason that happens is because probably most appraisers are trying to build the ACME one-size-fits-all widget instead of fitting the workproduct to the specific user.

I've been saying for years that Fannie/Freddie should post "sample" reports on their websites to demonstrate the level of analysis and reporting they consider appropriate. A handful of variations to fit different types of scenarios, each showing the common order and formatting of the reporting they're looking for. Then everyone can actually see how much is enough, vs too little or too much. Easier for everyone to review, easier for appraisers to proceed with confidence about the amount of writing they're doing and less paranoia about it being impossible to write an acceptable report.

 

[Tom D]

The more direct categories you can get on the form, then does that give fannie avm more data points. Maybe form being designed for AI, which may be not be so easy to get done. But once solved, bye bye.

 

[Charles West]

IMO the main reason that happens is because probably most appraisers are trying to build the ACME one-size-fits-all widget instead of fitting the workproduct to the specific user.

I've been saying for years that Fannie/Freddie should post "sample" reports on their websites to demonstrate the level of analysis and reporting they consider appropriate. A handful of variations to fit different types of scenarios, each showing the common order and formatting of the reporting they're looking for. Then everyone can actually see how much is enough, vs too little or too much. Easier for everyone to review, easier for appraisers to proceed with confidence about the amount of writing they're doing and less paranoia about it being impossible to write an acceptable report.

I used to complain about the same thing. Show me the desired goal, an example of a well-written report, and it never happened. Why, I have no idea.

 

[Fernando]

You seem to have a constsnt issue with having to note the color of someone. I believe that is racism attaching a color to any person about any subject. Do you have an internal self hating white person complexe. Although, you are usually spot on appraising answers, when not being a race baiter.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who notice that. I keep reminding him that (is it unconscious bias?) he makes appraisers look bias and that's an understatement.

 

[Dublin ohio]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who notice that. I keep reminding him that (is it unconscious bias?) he makes appraisers look bias and that's an understatement.

Pot meet kettle

 

[Fernando]

Pot meet kettle

Do I post photos of Black people?

 

[Fernando]

Come to think of it, he likes to post photos of Black people especially ones with eyes bulging out.