Would Adding A 1004mc To A Completed Appraisal Comply With USPAP?

[CANative]

Most of the lender clients I work with insist on the 1004MC (or at least their AMC does but they usually state "our client requires the 1004MC..."

A lender clients have specific loan programs where a 1004MC is not required. I do it anyway... NTTAWWT.

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

I will take a crack at this.

The scope of work is the work needed to be done to, as they say in USPAP, "solve the problem"; provide an opinion of market value for (I presume) mortgage lending. Part of that scope, as noted in the industry and your "peers", is developing a market analysis that not only identifies trends but sales, listings (inventory), and ratios of listing price/sales price, DOM, relevance of REOs, etc. This is EXPECTED.

What you are questioning is providing the 1004MC addendum, which is an appraisal CONDITION, something that the client requires. The DATA in the 1004MC addendum contains only information that you would have (should have) done in the expected scope of work. It is the form itself that is an appraisal CONDITION. Now, you can argue that since it was not listed in the engagement letter, you shouldn't have to provide it (or at least for free). That is not the road I would take but that is your business, not mine. However, it (providing data to fill it out) is not a change in scope of work.

----------
Should the SOW be included verbatim in the Engagement? (Among other things that confuse me is that the SOW appears tantamount to a "contract," but if so, how can the SOW be a living document throughout the course of an assignment, if the client fails to have an opportunity to agree to subsequent changes?)

 

[CANative]

The scope of work is what YOU do to solve the appraisal problem, including the client's assignment conditions.

You're not thinking of it the right way.

 

[Have Laser-Will Travel]

Funny that you chastised someone else for ad hominem, yet resulted to the same thing yourself. In case you do not have one handy, here are the instructions printed right on the 1004MC:

Instructions: The appraiser must use the information required on this form as the basis for his/her conclusions, and must provide support for those conclusions, regarding housing trends and overall market conditions as reported in the Neighborhood section of the appraisal report form.​

So, again I would wonder, why would a properly completed 1004MC cause any conflict with a properly completed main form? Can you answer that, or will you simply result to more ad hominem? I find that the majority who denigrate the 1004MC are/were not completing it correctly

I’ve already answered.

 

[Have Laser-Will Travel]

Maybe HLWT's point is that page 1 represents all sales in a neighborhood....
Page 2 represents all sales in the neighborhood which is considered comparable to the subject....
General data vs specific data....

It’s just that the 1004MC requires that it’s results are to be used as the basis for the trends on p. 1 and since it wasn’t ordered originally, I relied on different inputs and models which may or may not agree with the added 1004MC.

 

[Have Laser-Will Travel]

Funny that you chastised someone else for ad hominem, yet resulted to the same thing yourself. In case you do not have one handy, here are the instructions printed right on the 1004MC:

Instructions: The appraiser must use the information required on this form as the basis for his/her conclusions, and must provide support for those conclusions, regarding housing trends and overall market conditions as reported in the Neighborhood section of the appraisal report form.​

So, again I would wonder, why would a properly completed 1004MC cause any conflict with a properly completed main form? Can you answer that, or will you simply result to more ad hominem? I find that the majority who denigrate the 1004MC are/were not completing it correctly

I was teasing! See that smiley face?

 

[ucbruin]

It’s just that the 1004MC requires that it’s results are to be used as the basis for the trends on p. 1 and since it wasn’t ordered originally, I relied on different inputs and models which may or may not agree with the added 1004MC.

I agree with you....

 

[Have Laser-Will Travel]

-----
I'm going to take advantage of the scenario to address long-standing issues I've never been able sufficiently to understand:

-- Was client input elicited when the SOW was being determined?
-- Was the SOW, per se, incorporated in the Engagement Letter?
-- To what extent is it necessary for the 1004MC, per se, to be addressed in the Engagement and/or SOW, i.e., does the SOW indicate that a market analysis will be conducted, as well as the neighborhood boundaries desccribed, the HBU determined, zoning determined, photos included, etc.; or is the 1004MC excluded by default?

My questions that might appear to be sophmoric are sincere as I try to obtain a better understanding of the absolutes and parameters of a solid SOW.

Regards.

p.s. I'm also questioning the validity of the term "of one's peers" that more and more appears to be entirely meaningless because taken literally it can't be defined; consequently, I would prefer comments that describe the SOW inherently to be based upon that nebulous group of like-minded professionals, who don't exist in reality, to be referenced.

There’s no mention of a 1004MC in the engagement letter. It’s an AMC and the tide is toward doing what the lender wants and not questioning. SOW is only incidentally defined but compliance with FNMA and USPAP is stipulated.

Considering what peers do traditionally might fill in the gaps left by all the written rules but it also seems like it could be very arbitrary.

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

Technically, this is not a SOW issue. As defined in USPAP, SOW entails only development issues, not reporting items. The OP addresses a reporting issue. Market analysis would have been required as part of the development - with or without a 1004MC being part of the report

--------------------

My primary disconnect with USPAP is the exclusion of SOW reporting. Would you be so kind as to briefly describe the model.

 

[DWiley]

--------------------

My primary disconnect with USPAP is the exclusion of SOW reporting. Would you be so kind as to briefly describe the model.

I am sorry - I do not understand the question. The model for what, exactly?