Welcome to the new 1004

[shrubberyvaluation]

I just had a look at this. I was curious on how the cost to cure areas were going to look and they weren't in this sample. I guess if you state "none" for wear and tear, the grid for cost to cure items does not come up.

The sales comparison grid being on separate pages is a mess...so much easier to view it on one page.

"Typical wear and tear" You mean Average?

"Most emphasis is placed on comparables 4 and 5, which although located further away are still within the subject’s market area." That appears to be a subliminal message right there....make everybody equal.

"Most emphasis is placed on the sales comparison approach to value due to an active resale market." Dang.... I've been working way too hard on my reconciliation if that flies.

The comparables provided from the borrower-initiated ROV were reviewed and considered. Two sales were deemed reliable and put in the sales grid, which increased the Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach. One was deemed less reliable and added to Additional Properties Analyzed Not Used. 03/15/2024 Reconsideration of Value Reconciliation Due to the increase in Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach, the Opinion of Value changed.

Here we go.....the reason for the first subliminal message LOL

Use the sales further away, make the value.

Can't say I ever missed 2 sales that were superior to what I had. And I can count on one hand the times I missed one.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

Maybe it will take longer. Maybe not.. What is certain is that appraisers will complain about it for months before finally pulling up their socks and getting on with it. Some appraisers will never stop complaining about it. Just like the last time the form was revised. Just like when 1004MC was required. Just like when ANSI Z765 was mandated.

To be fair none of those things actually did anything to help appraisers or the users, or the public.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

A revision of the 1004 form is long overdue. The form has required add-ons in order to comply with USPAP for a very long time. Yes, it will take more time to complete a report the first and maybe the first dozen times you use the new form. Some will never become comfortable with it and will be posting about how bad it is two or three years from now.

For one, I'm glad to see the change. It will force appraisers to put comments in the logically correct spots in their reports. Hopefully, it will also force appraisers to finally update the template reports they've been using. I still see appraisal reports that invoke Departure. I regularly see appraisal reports that miss one or more USPAP required elements. I see reports that are full of boilerplate comments that don't apply to the subject property.

We whine a lot about not being treated as professionals. Maybe that's because a lot of us don't act like professionals.

I don't think FNMA gives a crap about USPAP, if they did they would of done the forms differently last time.

 

[alebrewer]

Like some people said, designed by "appraisers"who haven't done an appraisal in 20 years and software companies that think anyone can do an appraisal so they'll sell more higher priced software to everyone including companies in India

To your point, I've always been of the persuasion that when stakeholders have buy in to the process, they are much more likely to embrace ownership. Obviously F/F aren't concerned whether appraisers have buy in or not.

 

[alebrewer]

I just had a look at this. I was curious on how the cost to cure areas were going to look and they weren't in this sample. I guess if you state "none" for wear and tear, the grid for cost to cure items does not come up.

The sales comparison grid being on separate pages is a mess...so much easier to view it on one page.

"Typical wear and tear" You mean Average?

"Most emphasis is placed on comparables 4 and 5, which although located further away are still within the subject’s market area." That appears to be a subliminal message right there....make everybody equal.

"Most emphasis is placed on the sales comparison approach to value due to an active resale market." Dang.... I've been working way too hard on my reconciliation if that flies.

The comparables provided from the borrower-initiated ROV were reviewed and considered. Two sales were deemed reliable and put in the sales grid, which increased the Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach. One was deemed less reliable and added to Additional Properties Analyzed Not Used. 03/15/2024 Reconsideration of Value Reconciliation Due to the increase in Indicated Value by Sales Comparison Approach, the Opinion of Value changed.

Here we go.....the reason for the first subliminal message LOL

Use the sales further away, make the value.

Yeah, I'm a bit surprised they put a 'filled out' sample out there. Didn't they know appraisers were going to pick it apart??

 

[alebrewer]

Will that force lenders to disclose it on truth in lending disclosures? What page is that on?

How the hell is the appraiser going to get that data?

some states already require the AMC to break out the fee on the order. My guess is this is going to become standard practice in all states.

 

[Tiffany Gibbons]

Yeah, I'm a bit surprised they put a 'filled out' sample out there. Didn't they know appraisers were going to pick it apart??

Kinda makes you feel all powerful like an underwriter, lol

 

[chad hampton]

I’ll have to check out the one they have filled out. What I saw looks like 43 pages of confusion.

 

[Airstream]

I am taking the McKissock webinar. Will give my feedback after to see how it will work.

 

[Airstream]

1. This is a dynamic form. Apparently, once you state what the property is, the other parts of the form that don't apply drop out from what you see. That will help.
2. The UAD abbreviations are eliminated. Wonderful. The words will be in their entirety, not just N but Neutral in the report. Then an area for comments if necessary.
3. A lot of drop down menus with full words given without the abbreviations.
4. My guess is having a mobile app and making judgments during inspection is going to be critical. That will speed things up dramatically in the office.
5. Much of this is going to depend upon software providers as to ease of use.
6. The Additional Properties Analyzed not Used will not be required by GSE's, but optional. (at this point).
7. Based upon the seminar, it looks like it will be actually easier to use since fields will automatically populate or not show based upon questions in the report.

Those are my initial observations.