Useful UAD guide

[chad hampton]

I agree with you wholeheartedly, but as a consumer I don't think a typical lay person would care whether the appraiser gets all of the appraisal fee, or whether it is a bundled fee shared by other entities in the chain. {Although I gotta admit that of several properties that I bought or sold prior to becoming an appraiser, I vaguely remember even seeing an appraisal. My bad.]

You could be right, but that’s not the point of truth in lending. We don’t get to make the assumption that well. I don’t think the borrower would care anyway so let’s combine the fees. That’s the exact opposite of the intent of truth in lending.

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

Stand alone rent schedules will persist into the future. As the UAD 3.6 does not include a stand alone rent schedule, the GSEs have indicated that the 1007 may continue to be used. As an appraiser and a USPAP instructor my advice is to make sure you are doing this correctly. An opinion of market rent is a type of appraisal, and communicating the market rent is an appraisal report that needs to comply with STANDARD 2. Many things need to be added to a stand alone form 1007 in order to comply with STD 2.

Thank you very much. Yes indeed I never know which certs to add. Coincidentally I just received my first STR assignment although it is included with a 1004, although the STR via an AMC came with "operating instructions" that included comments regarding an appraiser's ability to become credible on-the-job, presumably included to be compatible with USPAP although unlike any engagement instructions I previously experienced...

 

[DWiley]

Thank you very much. Yes indeed I never know which certs to add. Coincidentally I just received my first STR assignment although it is included with a 1004, although the STR via an AMC came with "operating instructions" that included comments regarding an appraiser's ability to become credible on-the-job, presumably included to be compatible with USPAP although unlike any engagement instructions I previously experienced...

I would never even consider analyzing a STR property on the 1007. The 1007 is designed for real estate rent; not the business income of STRs. YMMV.

 

[Zoe]

You could be right, but that’s not the point of truth in lending. We don’t get to make the assumption that well. I don’t think the borrower would care anyway so let’s combine the fees. That’s the exact opposite of the intent of truth in lending.

Absolutely. It is basically lying to the borrower by commingling fees. Opposite of truth in lending purpose.

 

[Zoe]

Makes you want to question is my interest rate really 7.25%? or is it higher?

Is my title opinion actually $1,000 or higher?

That is commingling fees.

It throws doubt in the whole truth in lending disclosures process.

 

[DWiley]

I can't seem to find any presentations that give a good explanation on how this report is better for appraisers..

There have been a lot of presentations that addressed that.

First and foremost is that the new format eliminates the need for a text addendum. Just look through the posts here and see how many of them are complaints by an appraiser getting a revision request for something that the appraiser had already addressed in the addendum. The problem with the addendum is that no two are alike. So, an underwriter looing for a specific text (e.g., a prior service disclosure) might find that on page 3, page 12, page 20, page 71, etc. They never know where to look. UAD 3.6 fixes that issue in a big way.

 

[djd09]

71 pages...

 

[Lil Rhody]

There have been a lot of presentations that addressed that.

First and foremost is that the new format eliminates the need for a text addendum. Just look through the posts here and see how many of them are complaints by an appraiser getting a revision request for something that the appraiser had already addressed in the addendum. The problem with the addendum is that no two are alike. So, an underwriter looing for a specific text (e.g., a prior service disclosure) might find that on page 3, page 12, page 20, page 71, etc. They never know where to look. UAD 3.6 fixes that issue in a big way.

I like the way that the narrative fields are located on pages specific to the area of the dwelling being addressed. However, this is a more of a change that makes it easier for underwriters or reviewers that don't conduct proper due diligence during their reviews than it does to make things better for appraisers. The overwhelming perception in the industry is that this form is not better for appraisers. I hope nobody tarnishes their reputation by trying to sell anything otherwise.

 

[TerryRohrer]

I like the way that the narrative fields are located on pages specific to the area of the dwelling being addressed. However, this is a more of a change that makes it easier for underwriters or reviewers that don't conduct proper due diligence during their reviews than it does to make things better for appraisers. The overwhelming perception in the industry is that this form is not better for appraisers. I hope nobody tarnishes their reputation by trying to sell anything otherwise.

Of course, no appraiser has ever been known to engage in hyperbole! Watching the discussion of UAD 3.6 unfold over the past year has been embarrassing. The new "hot button" issue of Certification 25 or 26 is particularly stupid and leaves one (or everyone, including our clients) wondering why anyone would continue to rely on appraisers. If we can't be honest about all these insignificant issues, how can anyone trust an opinion of market value?

 

[J Grant]

I posted the guide to be helpful, but imo this form is not appraiser-friendly. It has disjointed segments, and each one might need clicks to expand a field or add a photo - a series of roadblocks set up over the mundane but time-consuming tasks that often involve repeating the same info in duplicate sections.

Imo, neither AI nor the auto-fill aspects of software can change that - it is embedded in the DNA of the 3.6 architecture.

WRT the advantage to appraisers of fewer revisions- appraisers who got frequent revisions due to an addendum issue could have fixed it. The switch to 3.6 was not about making it better for the appraiser; more probably, it was done to facilitate loan packaging to investors or data collection. So much energy goes into the minutiae of the form that it is hard to concentrate on the appraisal aspect. I am hoping that might improve in the future as more software functionality comes about but the format is what it is.

Anyone commenting about 3.6 who has not actually tried to fill one out, start to finish, including saving it to a ZIP file after the E and O comes back with a list of field violations to cure - those people are making assumptions. Many software vendors offer free trials of 3.6 and the appraiser can do a mock appraisal of their own home. Still waiting for one of them to do it ...