Significant Appraisal Assistance (1004p)

[Addie]

Every single 1004p, desktop of any kind from a lender. Comes with a property inspection report. It has the persons name on it.

So I say, xxxx performed the inspection, blah blah blah.

What other Appraisers do, is not my concern. If you reviewed a 1004p from me (enter all the jokes you want) it would state the inspectors name.

If you reviewed one from J Grant where she did not state the name? Not my problem. Cause not my report. Your free to do as you please.

Problem solved with a 1 second fix of “xxxx” inspected.

That’s why it’s mind boggling this topic is 31 pages long. Put in the freaking persons name and move on with life. Your covered either way now.

Harsh reality. This topic 31 pages long because you have a lot of people speaking on a product they have never even done.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Every single 1004p, desktop of any kind from a lender. Comes with a property inspection report. It has the persons name on it.

Not all do according to some comments in this thread. But the real issue is the sole purpose of the p form is to slash costs and turn time has already proven to be a non issue since it almost certainly will increase, not decrease turn times and almost certainly reduce the accuracy of an appraisal.

 

[J Grant]

Every single 1004p, desktop of any kind from a lender. Comes with a property inspection report. It has the persons name on it.

So I say, xxxx performed the inspection, blah blah blah.

What other Appraisers do, is not my concern. If you reviewed a 1004p from me (enter all the jokes you want) it would state the inspectors name.

If you reviewed one from J Grant where she did not state the name? Not my problem. Cause not my report. Your free to do as you please.

Problem solved with a 1 second fix of “xxxx” inspected.

That’s why it’s mind boggling this topic is 31 pages long. Put in the freaking persons name and move on with life. Your covered either way now.

Harsh reality. This topic 31 pages long because you have a lot of people speaking on a product they have never even done.

How are you doing 1004P if you are not a licensed appraiser? If you are licensed apologies but none shows up on your avatar.

They are in a test pilot phase, why is your company doing so many? ( are you sure it is not another form of desktop since you above say Every single 1004p, desktop of any kind from a lender

I have never gotten a 1004P assignment. It is a form similar to 1004 it has an interior inspection, you are talking about desktop work perhaps.

 

[ucbruin]

How are you doing 1004P if you are not a licensed appraiser? If you are licensed apologies but none shows up on your avatar.

They are in a test pilot phase, why is your company doing so many? ( are you sure it is not another form of desktop since you above say Every single 1004p, desktop of any kind from a lender

I have never gotten a 1004P assignment. It is a form similar to 1004 it has an interior inspection, you are talking about desktop work perhaps.

The couple of hybrid reports I completed a few years ago look nothing like the ACI 1004P form....

 

[DWiley]

The couple of hybrid reports I completed a few years ago look nothing like the ACI 1004P form....

Yeah, I certainly believe that. The two most prominent "hybrid" forms (until the 1004P was introduced) have been the ValueNet series and the DVI series. The companies that do those have both been doing them for over a decade, and the formats used do NOT look like Fannie Mae forms. As has been noted many times, the 1004P, at first glance, looks very much like a 1004 or a 2055.

 

[Dale Floyd]

This whole thread has been one of the very few I've ever kept up with day to day. Interesting concepts out here.

In a nutshell, and back to the original post, the arguments are polar opposites. When a third party does an inspection for the purposes of an appraisal, do we put their names in as significant assistance? The one side says "Yes" - The other says "No".... The arguments have grown from there somewhat, but I think that's the real crux of the discussion.

I suppose I'm an island in the stream. For me, this goes a bit beyond USPAP even, because the majority of our clients don't give a rip about the USPAP guidelines. Whether I am forced to disclose assistance or not, really isn't the point for me. And I do understand the argument to protect my backside from unwarranted liability, but somebody hired us for good reasons that have nothing to do with our insurance premiums. Here's a thought or two - Perhaps we disclose any assistance given, when it is something that impacts the final opinion of value and analysis. Perhaps we simply state, in this argument, that the inspection information was provided by Thaddius Schmuckleberry at LookieThereInspections rather than the appraiser or his/her staff. Perhaps we clearly reserve the right to modify the report if provided information is proven to be inaccurate. Would that be so terrible? Would the lords of USPAP be offended? I doubt it.

Maybe it's just me but, if we must go down this road intellectually, shouldn't we be viewing this from the side of the intended user's perspective? We seem to get stuck in the quicksand of liability protection for the appraiser, and I wonder if we have forgotten how our appraisal reports are viewed and why they are needed. Shouldn't the client who engaged the appraiser see exactly what, where, and why rather than finding some perceived loophole about hidden information from an unknown source?

I still believe, with all my heart, that the appraiser should be able to train their own staff inspectors and ultimately be responsible for the information contained within their report about the subject. I can't swear as to the MLS or public records but, in my firm, we nail down the information about the subject we were hired to appraise barring anything not readily visible. Sometimes that makes a client uncomfortable, but I believe it makes the appraisal more credible. And since the subject property is the "Subject" of the report, we'd better have credible information.

 

[DWiley]

As I said at the ACTS conference last week, USPAP is the minimum. One can do more.

And, as demonstrated in this thread, some very experienced appraisers do not understand some of its concepts. i recently spoke with a sitting state board member who was unaware that under USPAP only an person acting as an appraiser could provide significant real property appraisal assistance.

So, in our our "hybrid" reports we do include within the certification the fact that the property was inspected by a third party. We just do not label that as significant real property appraisal assistance, because, by definition, it isn't. It is also noted in the SOW section, and a copy of the inspection report, and the name and credentials of the inspector are included in the final report. The 1004P does not require that (as of right now), but I know of nothing preventing an appraiser from including that information in a 1004P report if the appraiser desires.

 

[jay trotta]

Dale;
"I still believe, with all my heart, that the appraiser should be able to train their own staff inspectors and ultimately be responsible for the information contained within their report about the subject. I can't swear as to the MLS or public records but, in my firm, we nail down the information about the subject we were hired to appraise barring anything not readily visible. Sometimes that makes a client uncomfortable, but I believe it makes the appraisal more credible. And since the subject property is the "Subject" of the report, we'd better have credible information"

For S&G I agree, but an outside inspector isn't providing anything "Better", in actuality my preference is to personally inspect an interior as a Confidence Factor, I know what I'm looking for. Over many years and an ample amount of Trainees I know what to expect from a Trainee. I have no idea who these so called Inspectors are; if they have any clue as to what to look for and/or their Qualifications. Had some folks not shot themselves in the foot over the years, (Trainees Not Being Allowed the appropriate time to gain Experience) Not One of these products would be necessary.

 

[Dale Floyd]

That's good information to know Danny...

Again, when we are employed - I believe folks want somebody to give them a credible report with credible information. Period.

The quality of that information, including the inspection data, is everything in our reports. If we use data that proves to be bogus, then our reputations and the entire profession will be marred even it is found in a minority of the appraisal reports being discussed in front of a congressional panel.

I believe we can agree on that.

 

[Dale Floyd]

Dale;
"I still believe, with all my heart, that the appraiser should be able to train their own staff inspectors and ultimately be responsible for the information contained within their report about the subject. I can't swear as to the MLS or public records but, in my firm, we nail down the information about the subject we were hired to appraise barring anything not readily visible. Sometimes that makes a client uncomfortable, but I believe it makes the appraisal more credible. And since the subject property is the "Subject" of the report, we'd better have credible information"

For S&G I agree, but an outside inspector isn't providing anything "Better", in actuality my preference is to personally inspect an interior as a Confidence Factor, I know what I'm looking for. Over many years and an ample amount of Trainees I know what to expect from a Trainee. I have no idea who these so called Inspectors are; if they have any clue as to what to look for and/or their Qualifications. Had some folks not shot themselves in the foot over the years, (Trainees Not Being Allowed the appropriate time to gain Experience) Not One of these products would be necessary.

I absolutely agree Jay.