Valligent

[Donny1234]

Regarding the field reviews and asking for extra comparables (Pauls post), this is happening alot. I want to know WHY they can do this and Who is making the decision to ask the appraisers for this. It says right on the form only fill out that extra comp section of the form if you check the box that you disagree with original appraised value. The people you talk to at AMCs say "the client" wants this, "the client" wants that. Alot of time "the client" is FNMA (especially in those retrospective field reviews) So why does a government entity FNMA get to ask for more work than is required on the appraisal forms?

Like Paul I only take this type of work if other people have rejected it so they pay a reasonable fee. And yes, I bet alot of people just agree also. They make so difficult to disagree.

Thank you for the info on Valligent and fees!

(Roy no Problem Apology accepted)

 

[fractal7221]

Regarding the field reviews and asking for extra comparables (Pauls post), this is happening alot. I want to know WHY they can do this and Who is making the decision to ask the appraisers for this. It says right on the form only fill out that extra comp section of the form if you check the box that you disagree with original appraised value. The people you talk to at AMCs say "the client" wants this, "the client" wants that. Alot of time "the client" is FNMA (especially in those retrospective field reviews) So why does a government entity FNMA get to ask for more work than is required on the appraisal forms?

Like Paul I only take this type of work if other people have rejected it so they pay a reasonable fee. And yes, I bet alot of people just agree also. They make so difficult to disagree.

Thank you for the info on Valligent and fees!

(Roy no Problem Apology accepted)

In my experience, many underwriters do not know the difference between a short form desk review, an enchanced desk review, and a field review. All they know is their Desktop Underwriter findings sometimes have a red flag for excessive valuation and they're supposed to order something before they sell the loan.

 

[Fritz in NY]

YUP, cover their butt.

 

[Charlie]

This is disgusting

Boo! to all these blood sucking, parasitic review companies that are offering pathetic wages for licensed and certified appraisers to fill out review forms. Sure, you can do it an an hour...if you just check all the boxes and send it in. But not if you actually do what you are supposed to. It amazes me that these companies are still getting away with this garbage after everything the U.S. real estate industry has been through. Have we learned nothing? Where are the regulators to put an end to these foul practices? $30? No thanks.

Are financial auditors expected to work for next to nothing when they review accounting documents and financial statements?

 

[Riick]

Boo! to all these blood sucking, parasitic review companies that are offering pathetic wages ...... Have we learned nothing?....

People rarely learn anything, if we did we wouldn't go through
these absurd cycles - the depression of the 1930's, the recessions in

• 1973-75,
• 1980-82,
• 1990-91,
• 2001-02,
• 2007-09 (that is if you think it ended in 2009!)

So you think "This time it's different" ? That we learned something?
Soon you will be telling me stories about when Politicians were honest and cared about the people they represented.
As if that fantasy ever existed in the real world

Please excuse me whilst I go outside to m2: against the wall and ROTF&L

/

 

[NORTON]

this firm supposedly is about 10 minutes from my house....never heard of them. If I'm in the area, I might knock on their door. FYI..they are also within a driver and 3 iron from clear capital!

http://www.valligent.com/valligent/contact_valligent.html

 

[ddnma]

In my experience, many underwriters do not know the difference between a short form desk review, an enchanced desk review, and a field review. All they know is their Desktop Underwriter findings sometimes have a red flag for excessive valuation and they're supposed to order something before they sell the loan.

Can you tell me what is the difference between a short form desk review and an enhanced desk review? I could not find it in USPAP or the FNMA guidelines...or for that matter, the Interagency Guidelines.

 

[Robert Burke]

... So why does a government entity FNMA get to ask for more work than is required on the appraisal forms?

...

They are asking for it because they are going back to the original lender and asking to be compensated for a bad loan that was done because of a bad appraisal. And the reason they want all the extra documentation is to verify the Field Reviewers work. It is one thing to agree with the value. But many of the Field Reviewers doing this type of work are the same ones that did a fraudulent appraisal on a different property five years ago. How would anyone know the difference unless you were able to verify it. Just today I QC'd a file where the Reviewer agreed with everything in the original appraisal. He agreed the sales were adequately reported, the data was adequately reported, the adjustments were correct and he threw two additional sales to support it. Just from the surface it looked pretty good. Then you look at the original report-The subject was 70 years old in Chicago with no updating at all. All the sales used in the original appraisal were described in the MLS (provided in the Field Review) as total rehabs. Meanwhile the alternate sales used by the Reviewer were total rehabs that sold ten months earlier. The OA nor FR mentions anything about the sales condition. Meanwhile the CMA list of sales has two sales on the same street as the subject with no updates with sale prices within three months of the original appraisal at prices 30% less. Not only that the sales dates of the original sales were only off by 12 months. Instead of the fall and winter of 2007 when the appraisal says the sales were closed, they actually used the same month and day but the year was 2006. There is no way I would have known that without the data. And of course we send it back to the Reviewer to address. (not a lot of confidence) Now I anxiously await his response.

The reason FNMA wants the data is to make their case against the original lender if it is warranted. It would suck for them to go after the lender for a bad loan when the Field Review they are using as a guide is found to be just as horrendous.

You agreeing and supporting the value might be as legit as it gets but believe me when I tell you, there are a lot of Reviewers that will rubber stamp the heck out of an original appraisal and nobody would not know it without the data they are requiring. I look at Reviewers with just as much caution as I do the original appraiser.

 

[DTB]

They are asking for it because they are going back to the original lender and asking to be compensated for a bad loan that was done because of a bad appraisal. And the reason they want all the extra documentation is to verify the Field Reviewers work. It is one thing to agree with the value. But many of the Field Reviewers doing this type of work are the same ones that did a fraudulent appraisal on a different property five years ago. How would anyone know the difference unless you were able to verify it. Just today I QC'd a file where the Reviewer agreed with everything in the original appraisal. He agreed the sales were adequately reported, the data was adequately reported, the adjustments were correct and he threw two additional sales to support it. Just from the surface it looked pretty good. Then you look at the original report-The subject was 70 years old in Chicago with no updating at all. All the sales used in the original appraisal were described in the MLS (provided in the Field Review) as total rehabs. Meanwhile the alternate sales used by the Reviewer were total rehabs that sold ten months earlier. The OA nor FR mentions anything about the sales condition. Meanwhile the CMA list of sales has two sales on the same street as the subject with no updates with sale prices within three months of the original appraisal at prices 30% less. Not only that the sales dates of the original sales were only off by 12 months. Instead of the fall and winter of 2007 when the appraisal says the sales were closed, they actually used the same month and day but the year was 2006. There is no way I would have known that without the data. And of course we send it back to the Reviewer to address. (not a lot of confidence) Now I anxiously await his response.

The reason FNMA wants the data is to make their case against the original lender if it is warranted. It would suck for them to go after the lender for a bad loan when the Field Review they are using as a guide is found to be just as horrendous.

You agreeing and supporting the value might be as legit as it gets but believe me when I tell you, there are a lot of Reviewers that will rubber stamp the heck out of an original appraisal and nobody would not know it without the data they are requiring. I look at Reviewers with just as much caution as I do the original appraiser.

So, again there is a lot of money to made/recaptured based on the result/adequacy of the appraisal and still nobody cares to charge enough for this apparentyl very valuable documentation.

Same old song and dance, we need these things and no we won't pay (properly) for it.

Still crazy after all these years.

 

[melissa995]

So, again there is a lot of money to made/recaptured based on the result/adequacy of the appraisal and still nobody cares to charge enough for this apparentyl very valuable documentation.

Same old song and dance, we need these things and no we won't pay (properly) for it.

Still crazy after all these years.

Why are you wasting your time.
They call me I tell them I love appraising property not grading paper would have been a school teacher