Virgina REAB and Portal Petition

[Jonsey]

woodyva,

The FNC conversion software was and still is poorly designed and not able to handle any kind of thorough/extensive report(multipile addendums, maps, drawings, additonal photo pages, etc) . Even on common run of the mill Skippy/trainee 1004 reports the concersion moves verbiage to an addendum YOU THE APPRAISER did not create.

In conclusion one of the REAL PROBLEMS is that the FNC conversion DOES NOT present YOUR REPORT in the manner YOU WANTED or INTENDED it to be PRESENTED. I just dont know how I can be any clearer than that.

Great post Carni,
I disagree, or rather, see the above issue a little differently. Based upon all discussions to date, FNC statments, it would certainly appear that the FNC conversion software was designed exactly as intended. To mine data. For distribution and profit. With the most efficiency. The data FNC thinks to be pertinent to their agenda. After all, what is FNC's primary business? Quality control? The QC was merely the selling point to the lenders, but was not the real agenda or intended purpose of the portal. It is, what it is.

http://www.fncinc.com/Collateral_Management/ncd.aspx

That the viewer was suddenly made availalbe, does NOT necessarily mean that FNC did not always have it at their disposal for distribution, prior to these issues being brought to contention.

 

[George Hatch]

Let me see if I can understand George Ds reasoning on this:

If I send an appraisal report in a file format that requires my client to use a pdf-viewer program or a fax to print it out then that's okay. But if I send the report (w/signature) in a file format that requires my client to use alamode or ACI - or FNC's program - to view it or print it then that's not an appraisal report.

That about sum it up? If so, then I disagree. BTW, as I understand it, a pdf file includes tags installed by the pdf program that are used for conversion and viewing and printing as well.

The term "Report" is defined in USPAP. USPAP also notes that the Standard 2 does not dictate the form, format, or style of real property appraisal reports. It certainly doesn't bless pdf file formats as being an example or exception to any kind of rule about electronic files.


With respect to interpreting Fannie's requirements, it seems to me Fannie has already made that decision. They already accept appraisal reports that have been transmitted in these file formats, and they have been doing so for a long time.


Then there's this:

The FNC conversion software was and still is poorly designed and not able to handle any kind of thorough/extensive report(multipile addendums, maps, drawings, additonal photo pages, etc) . Even on common run of the mill Skippy/trainee 1004 reports the concersion moves verbiage to an addendum YOU THE APPRAISER did not create.

In conclusion one of the REAL PROBLEMS is that the FNC conversion DOES NOT present YOUR REPORT in the manner YOU WANTED or INTENDED it to be PRESENTED. I just dont know how I can be any clearer than that.

If this were a situation where the appraiser was unable to arrange their appraisal reports to fit the FNC template then I might agree with the sentiment here. But I don't think that's the case. Appraisers can do it if they are willing to make the effort.

BTW, the argument about the limitations with FNCs templates can be made about any report format. If I couldn't find the right photo page for my aerial maps in alamode's software does that mean that the software has so many limitations I can't use it to communicate "my report"? Or does it mean I need to figure out other ways to work within its limitations?

 

[Fred]

Mr. Wiley proves the point perfectly. The moment the Appraiser sends the report AIReady, they have violated the USPAP, Supplemental Standards, and likely their State's Rules & Regs. Here is what Fannie states, please try to reconcile this with sending a "data file":

I checked my "copy" of USPAP, which I assume to be a "true" copy, although I don't think it is a "hard" copy; and just couldn't find "supplemental standards" anywhere, George. So, to support your conclusions that there is a violation, you cite a non existent rule.

As to what Fannie states, I don't see anything in there attempting to preclude electronic transfer. Further, since USPAP permits it, Fannie cannot prevent it.

 

[woodyva]

A PDF is not a report, it is a data file too. Without software to read that data file no report exists. The comments you are applying to AIReady are just as applicable to typical PDF file. That PDF software is ubiquitous does not alter the fact it is the same process. You are aware PDF files look different depending on the program used to view them aren't you?

CP:
You are right in a sense, but the difference between .pds and .env conversions and PDF is that the PDF is a much better version of the report. The appraiser has to do many work arounds in order to communicate effectively, unless a true version of the report can be reproduced. I know there are those that would say PDF has it's issues, and it does, but they are not as serious or as limiting as the alternatives. The other version are used to exclusively package the data and the possibility of manipulation is there to a greater degree. There will never be a format that is 100% secure, as there will always be hackers and other cutting edge techies that get off ripping open data. At least with PDF it is a format that is relatively universal, is user friendly and is within the grasp of the people that are using it, from both sides. The PDF still allows the management/interim QC/end user can still convert the file for tolerance control. Everyone wins this wy

The problem really does not simply stop with the version, it has to do with the "containment" of the appraisers and his/her ability to take the problem and apply the appropriate solutions.

Try this one on: Imagine taking the script from the movie "Braveheart" and removing the word freedom from it. The basic concept of the movie would still be realatively intact, but the meaning would be altered. This is what some of these conversions do.

 

[George Hatch]

You are right in a sense, but the difference between .pds and .env conversions and PDF is that the PDF is a much better version of the report. The appraiser has to do many work arounds in order to communicate effectively, unless a true version of the report can be reproduced.

"Much better version"? You're arguing a matter of degree here. A pdf is better than an env.file. A fax is better than an env.file. A lazer-jet hardcopy is better than a fax. A typewritten hardcopy is better than a laser-jet version. A handwritten copy is better than a typewritten version. An oral version is better than a handwritten version. What comes after that I have no idea, but I'm sure it's equally pointless.

Appraisal reports are all about accurately communicating the appraiser's analyses, opinions and conclusions. If those are getting changed or deleted then there's going to be a problem. Otherwise.....

 

[Couch Potato]

We could always go back to snail mail and end this issue-lol

Well no, that doesn't work either. You see paper limits the content of the report and the ability of the appraiser to express an opinion. Their is no way to have a live link on paper or include video like you can in a PDF or other data file.

The bottom line is report format and transmission methods are not, and should not be restricted by USPAP. That is something best left to the client and appraiser to determine what best suits the particular problem at hand.

 

[Carnivore]

Then there's this:


If this were a situation where the appraiser was unable to arrange their appraisal reports to fit the FNC template then I might agree with the sentiment here. But I don't think that's the case. Appraisers can do it if they are willing to make the effort.

BTW, the argument about the limitations with FNCs templates can be made about any report format. If I couldn't find the right photo page for my aerial maps in alamode's software does that mean that the software has so many limitations I can't use it to communicate "my report"? Or does it mean I need to figure out other ways to work within its limitations?

George,

One can not fix it the way you suggested. We are trying to tell people the software not only changes the way the report looks it also deletes or does not convert the intire report.

PDF on the other hand does not drop anyting I put in a report.

The FNC conversion is a flawed program. I dont have a simpler way to say this. So I will demonstrate on this forum what we are saying. It will take some time as I need to create an samlple for you and other to see for yourselves.

 

[George Hatch]

Are you saying that appraisers can't develop a report that fits FNCs templates?

 

[Couch Potato]

PDF on the other hand does not drop anyting I put in a report.

Not always a true statement. It depends on the settings used at conversion (assuming one is not signing the PDF making it the original) and the software used to read the data file may alter the file and how it is displayed. :new_all_coholic:

 

[woodyva]

Mr. Hatch:

On the surface that is a very well stated argument. You mentioned effort using the limited forms allowed by FNC. You also mention Fannies acceptance of the formats.

Fannie has backed off of requiring the .env. They did so after this mess started in Virginia. Fannie is a large corporation and policy decisions are made with the intent to make money, and their own guidelines are not something they seem to have kept close to heart with the direction they originally took with appraisal port. In light of recent media reports and market reaction, I would have to sometimes question Fannie's desire to appear one thing within the public and what they are really about. Many of us have voiced our view of Fannie's immediate acceptance of the HVCC, and we all speculated it was because a full blown audit of their books would result in Enron type problems. Cuomo would take them apart, so they settled for rolling over instead of fighting.

Limitations placed by software choices is something appraisers and end users should look at carefully. Effort can certainly work around communication problems, but why should that be the answer? I don't know about you, but my job can sometimes be difficult and it is nice to develop tools within my software to ease the communication hurdles we all run into. Conversion complicates the appraisers job, and it takes us back 15 years. Why should we be required to use a tool that makes us report similar to windows 95 style formats?

This format also breeds the knuckleheaded appraisers out there that many of you call skippies. These people are not appraisers, they are data gatherers. Their acceptance of these formats make sthe clients happy becuase they are the ones that ok the problematic loans that have happened.