No bias here - keep moving

[alebrewer]

I just don't see the point. You have two people that don't know each other relaying information to the other. One has no liability and no incentive to do a thorough job, the other has all the liability.

And that's ok. That doesn't mean you're not in the 'most experienced and knowledgeable appraisers' group. It simply means that you don't believe you can produce credible results given the restricted scope of work.

 

[alebrewer]

From the Scope of Work Rule:
For each appraisal and appraisal review assignment, an appraiser must:

1. identify the problem to be solved;
2. determine and perform the scope of work necessary to develop credible assignment results;

The fact that someone determines they can't develop credible assignment results if they haven't made a personal inspection of the property just means they're following USPAP. It doesn't make them a crap appraiser.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

And that's ok. That doesn't mean you're not in the 'most experienced and knowledgeable appraisers' group. It simply means that you don't believe you can produce credible results given the restricted scope of work.

So what is the point of the restricted scope of work? Fraud? I have seen on these forums say when they have more reliable sources than the rando person with no incentive to do a good job they are told they have to use the information from the rando, even if the pictures differ from the information.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

From the Scope of Work Rule:
For each appraisal and appraisal review assignment, an appraiser must:

1. identify the problem to be solved;
2. determine and perform the scope of work necessary to develop credible assignment results;

The fact that someone determines they can't develop credible assignment results if they haven't made a personal inspection of the property just means they're following USPAP. It doesn't make them a crap appraiser.

I don't believe that, I just don't believe a random person with a quick 30 minute training of the app and no incentive to do a good job is reliable information. There are other sources of information besides a personal inspection. Why the bifurcated though? It takes longer and its two people, why are they celebrating this? I can understand drive bys or desktops as it is quicker. There must be a reason they don't want someone experienced or accountable to the appraiser to do the inspection, and I don't think its just the fee.

I'm not against a hybrid where an appraiser sends their trainee or something.

I just can't see what the point of having this in their matrix helps anything except for fraud purposes. What function does it serve that other ones don't serve better.

 

[alebrewer]

So what is the point of the restricted scope of work? Fraud? I have seen on these forums say when they have more reliable sources than the rando person with no incentive to do a good job they are told they have to use the information from the rando, even if the pictures differ from the information.

Fraud?? I don't think they're introducing the alternative products in the hopes of increasing fraud...

You'll remember that waivers became a big deal during the appraiser shortage of 20/21. That was, initially, the impetus for the alternative products - time savings. It's morphed a bit, although time savings is still a big deal. It's a triage approach now: no PDR (which Fannie calls 'Value Acceptance'), PDR, PDR+hybrid appraisal, full appraisal. The different tranches are (theoretically) triggered based on risk factors as defined by the GSE's. And - honestly - it makes sense, even though it hurts our industry. Who needs an appraisal on a refi (established payment history) in a cookie cutter neighborhood where even Zillow can get the value right? The reason they're going overboard in February (waivers on 97% LTV's) is (IMO) because only the 'good' borrowers were being offered the waivers. That's a disparate impact lawsuit waiting to happen - so they are opening it up to the 'not so good' borrowers as well.

 

[alebrewer]

I don't believe that, I just don't believe a random person with a quick 30 minute training of the app and no incentive to do a good job is reliable information.

And it's perfectly ok for you to hold this opinion. It's also perfectly ok for someone else to hold a different opinion.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

Fraud?? I don't think they're introducing the alternative products in the hopes of increasing fraud...

You'll remember that waivers became a big deal during the appraiser shortage of 20/21. That was, initially, the impetus for the alternative products - time savings. It's morphed a bit, although time savings is still a big deal. It's a triage approach now: no PDR (which Fannie calls 'Value Acceptance'), PDR, PDR+hybrid appraisal, full appraisal. The different tranches are (theoretically) triggered based on risk factors as defined by the GSE's. And - honestly - it makes sense, even though it hurts our industry. Who needs an appraisal on a refi (established payment history) in a cookie cutter neighborhood where even Zillow can get the value right? The reason they're going overboard in February (waivers on 97% LTV's) is (IMO) because only the 'good' borrowers were being offered the waivers. That's a disparate impact lawsuit waiting to happen - so they are opening it up to the 'not so good' borrowers as well.

Time savings with 2 people? Seems more like getting 3 mulligans, if pure value accept acceptance doesn't work you get a mulligan, if PDR + value acceptance fails you get another shot. if PDR + hybrid fails you get another shot again, then your last hope is the full appraisal also falls short of contract or you get lucky. Of course it doesn't go the other way, if 3 fail and one succeeds thats good enough as far as I know.

I can understand about cookie cutters that even a moron (zillow) could get right, but it still doesn't explain why you want an unexperienced person doing the inspection with no incentive to do a good job.

 

[alebrewer]

ut it still doesn't explain why you want an unexperienced person doing the inspection with no incentive to do a good job.

According to the suits at the GSE's, the level of quality provided by the folks who will be (and already are) doing the PDC's is sufficient for their purposes. I mean, honestly - I've seen some pretty horrific appraisals from (theoretically) well trained appraisers who do have incentive to do a good job.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

And it's perfectly ok for you to hold this opinion. It's also perfectly ok for someone else to hold a different opinion.

I don't know, it may be someone's opinion that a vault is not a good idea at a bank, and the doors shouldn't be locked at night. It may also be someone's opinion that a car mechanic only needs 30 minutes of training before working on their car.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

According to the suits at the GSE's, the level of quality provided by the folks who will be (and already are) doing the PDC's is sufficient for their purposes. I mean, honestly - I've seen some pretty horrific appraisals from (theoretically) well trained appraisers who do have incentive to do a good job.

Fair enough, there are clients that do want appraisers like that. FNMA does't seem to mind either.