Welcome to the new 1004

[CGinMN]

Surely some of these fields will be optional?

 

[djd09]

Fannie was told at the outset that their wording was going to be misinterpreted by the uninformed (like you) but they said the ASB was in error (!!!). So since they didn't correct their error the ASB issued advice that appraisers should clarify. If you haven't been doing that then you're the one who is in non-compliance.

But this time around they made it donkey-proof so that not even you can get away with the mischaracterization of what intended user means. GSE -1; djd09 - 0.

well duh...modifying or deleting is not allowed

 

[Mike Ault]

Surely some of these fields will be optional?

Hopefully, "the additional properties analyzed but not used, and reason why" section will not turn into an appraiser shooting gallery. "This appraiser DIDN'T EVEN ANALYZE any sales in the neighboring subdivision (where values are higher), nor explain the reason why!"

 

[alebrewer]

Surely the GSE's have artificial intelligence resources for that sort of information however they're going to want appraiser input regardless to "fine-tune" them.

Just more exposure for the appraiser. I always state EXACTLY where I get CTC's from, as well as the disclaimer that those estimates aren't worth the time it took to type them in.

 

[Charles West]

I just finished reviewing the new format, and I don't know why anyone would trust a report of this type when the appraiser's fee is only $350.00, which is pathetic. They are asking for credible repair estimates, land value methodology, and support for adjustments to the sales grid which means rudimentary statistical analysis. I paid $350 to a couple of housekeepers to clean the house the other day, and they worked their butts off but were out of there in 4 hours. Think about that.

 

[alebrewer]

For anyone interested - here's one of the samples DW mentioned in a prior post.

 

[George Hatch]

well duh...modifying or deleting is not allowed

A clarification of the appraiser's intent is neither a modification nor a deletion. The thing is that if Fannie had worded it then like they worded it now people like you wouldn't have been able to "misunderstand" what the form was saying.

 

[djd09]

so when marin city relied on the appraisal...did the appraisers clarifications help...you are out of touch

 

[alebrewer]

Cert #4 on the current form:
"I developed my opinion of the market value of the real property that is the subject of this report based on the sales comparison approach to value."

Cert #14 on the new form:
"I based my valuation on the available properties that are most similar to the subject property."

Count on our good friends to make things as esoteric as possible. Were they sold properties or active listings? How do you base your valuation on an available property that hasn't sold?

Another interesting aside: while the current Cert #4 does touch on a CA (even though it doesn't state that the appraiser is free to weigh the CA in the reconciliation), the new certs make no mention at all of the IA or CA (that I can find).

 

[Mike Ault]

For anyone interested - here's one of the samples DW mentioned in a prior post.

A cursory read indicates no "support" of any sort for adjustments, no reasoning behind why comps four and five were given the most weight (presumably because they were borrower supplied), no site value, no cost approach, and, most important of all, NO DISCUSSION OF WINDOW SURFACE AREA!