Significant Appraisal Assistance (1004p)

[J Grant]

GH- You're just making the point that it's the *extent* of the data collection that is affected. No different than if you were to compare the appraiser's activities in a 2055 vs a 1004.

An inspection of a subject by the appraiser is not simply "data collection"! Do you honestly think that is all that it is? Do you robotic ally record "data" when you inspect, with zero other brain activity present?

Even for the non appraiser, inspection is not simply "data collection", though the 1004P wants to call it that to evade the appraisal practice or named as significant assistance aspect.

These inspectors are not merely collecting data as they would from a computer or set of documents. They are on site at properties comprised of site, dwelling, amenities and ext influences and a host of different conditions, adverse or positives etc.

The diligent inspectors might struggle with what to include or exclude , how to convey what they see - whatever the result, they are not merely there recording black and white "data". Whereas the speedster inspectors will be deadline oriented, striding along, jotting down whatever fast or easy option as their version of "fact" or"data",.

 

[J Grant]

duplicate

 

[George Hatch]

I never said that's all an appraiser does onsite; the question at hand here is how much of that *must* be done onsite by the appraiser vs the appraiser's other alternatives.

As for the speedsters, it is my assumption they can cut just as many corners on this type of assignment as they've ever cut on the other types of assignments they perform. That's not a problem relating to what our minimums are, that's a problem with them not complying with our minimums.

 

[J Grant]

I never said that's all an appraiser does onsite; the question at hand here is how much of that *must* be done onsite by the appraiser vs the appraiser's other alternatives.

As for the speedsters, it is my assumption they can cut just as many corners on this type of assignment as they've ever cut on the other types of assignments they perform. That's not a problem relating to what our minimums are, that's a problem with them not complying with our minimums.

The above is more word salad,and a rhetorical questions. You have not made a case why outsourcing the inspection to a non appraiser /other is better, or even equal to , having the appraiser who will develop the appraisal do their own inspection

 

[J Grant]

So what? The inspection isn't the appraisal and the appraisal isn't the inspection.

And what did I tell you about the foolishment of citing Fannie as a relevant reference in an appraisal standards discussion? Fannie knows what they want and what they think is meaningful to them. That's what a Fannie reference is good for.

The results of the appraisal is heavily reliant on the inspection. The two in fact become intertwined. Moreover, the development of the appraisal is influenced by what an appraiser sees at inspection. A weak proxy for that will be had from the second hand version.

Fannie has decades of history which would be rather embarrassing if they try to explain why the sudden 180 shift..but they simply avoid it..

 

[Mr Rex]

Some appraisers are over representing their "inspection" and importance that they are the only folks qualified to the "inspection" while at the same time disclaiming the level of "inspection" they have done but can't accept that there is another level of "inspection" that is clearly described in the SOW but don't want to accept that SOW is not set in stone with only 1 acceptable work product. I hope the 1004P concept falls/fails face first, but some of the dissension here is laughable with no basis other than it "feels" like its wrong for appraisers. I personally don't think the 1004P concept will ever be successful, except in the areas where AVMs or Mass valuations for tax purposes are almost always within a reasonable margin of error from afar. Major metropolitan areas with cookie cutter subdivisions don't require an Einstein appraiser to determine a reasonable opinion of value relative to a reasonable LTV given a credit score...

 

[George Hatch]

The above is more word salad,and a rhetorical questions. You have not made a case why outsourcing the inspection to a non appraiser /other is better, or even equal to , having the appraiser who will develop the appraisal do their own inspection

Well, I sometimes do use rhetorical questions in order to prompt you to think. See, I have no intention of attempting to tell you or any other appraiser what to think. I expect you to come to your own conclusions.

As for the "better or equal to" strawman the reason I didn't attempt to make that case should be obvious; it's because I don't believe that to be the case. Nor have I ever said otherwise. Nor have I implied otherwise.

 

[George Hatch]

The results of the appraisal is heavily reliant on the inspection. The two in fact become intertwined. Moreover, the development of the appraisal is influenced by what an appraiser sees at inspection. A weak proxy for that will be had from the second hand version.

Fannie has decades of history which would be rather embarrassing if they try to explain why the sudden 180 shift..but they simply avoid it..

So the results of an appraisal are reliant on the "subject data" which is "collected" during the inspection. So what?

IRL, however badly you might think these RE agents or aluminum can collectors are going to screw these inspections up, I've also seen happen with licensed appraisers.

Myself included. One time a few years ago I screwed up the GBA calcs on an industrial condo by accidentally extending the partial mezzanine all the way across the frontage of a rectangular unit instead of just part way. IRL, appraisers sometimes screw up, too; so that's not an argument.

 

[J Grant]

Yes as an appraiser we can "screw up" , but at least we have a chance of realizing when we do...

BTW I've never made this about appraisers are perfect and can never screw up. You won;t find that statement in any of my posts.

My objection is less about the chance of these inspectors "screwing up" ( though they can) then the lack of my own observations will have on results. I am working on one now, in a so called "cookie cutter" condo -over priced relative to the upgrades and thus coming in below SC price. There is no way I could have evaluated those upgrades from notes and photos- they were clearly photographed on MLS yet their quality (or lack of it was only apparent in person. I've had it go the way, a purchase or refi comes in higher due to the better upgrades or site /other I observed at inspection.

I suppose if nobody cares if we get it right or wrong due to a second hand inspection then I can't care either...But you;ve said several times you don;t advocate for 1004 P or think it is "better" , or even equal to the appraiser themselves inspecting, so I wonder why then you keep posting what amounts to a defense of it? (I predict you will deny making a defense! But what else are the cumulative posts rationalizing it's use?)

 

[George Hatch]

These users are *choosing* to take the additional risks. As is their right, leastwise from an appraisal standards perspective. Of course, having made that choice they can't very well come back and complain about the errors that would have been avoidable had they engaged the appraisers to do the full monty.

We can't force these lenders to act more wisely.

And you need to calm yourself WRT my comments about what is and isn't in USPAP, and refrain from loading into those comments an intent that I am neither expressing or implying. User decision issues are a user's responsibility. I am never going to attribute to the appraiser's side an obligation that belongs squarely on the user's side.

AFAICT if we want to outlaw the use by these lenders of the 1004P then the venue to argue that and the basis for us arguing it is at the regulatory level with their regulators. Not with the ASB on the basis of mischaracterizing what these definitions mean or trying to change what they mean for the purpose of maintaining the fee appraiser lifestyle to which we have become accustomed.