WRE bifurcated Survey

[chad hampton]

Never understood the 2055 argument. It is abundantly clear that no interior inspection was performed. In a hybrid, one is performed.

It makes little sense to argue that since no inspection was performed over here, that means anyone can do an inspection over here. That’s one hell of a leap to make.

 

[djd09]

many posters have provided enough possible USPAP violations that any fee wouldn't matter.

there is no EA that can over ride incorrect (subject) property data.

that's the fact , jack.

 

[Evincere]

I disagree. the SOW is not the same. And most importantly the clients expectations are not the same. The client (does, should) understand that a desktop means there is no inspection. But from everything I've seen the client's expectations of a hybrid is that the inspection by some cheaper 3rd party is going to be equal to that of the appraiser, who, like Fin, believes we just all slop thru with a casual attitude, and that all that inspection information is/was/can be transmitted in toto to the appraiser so that the hybrid is, for all practical purposes, a 1004. Why were the examples almost identical to the 1004 and not the 2055 or a one page summary report of old?... It's because the creators believed that hybrid = 1004 quality for a desktop price.

BINGO!

 

[J Grant]

Never understood the 2055 argument. It is abundantly clear that no interior inspection was performed. In a hybrid, one is performed.

It makes little sense to argue that since no inspection was performed over here, that means anyone can do an inspection over here. That’s one hell of a leap to make.

Exactly. Defenders have no rationale for why having a non appraiser random person inspect is better , or even as good as, an appraiser doing their own inspection for their own appraisal.
Thus they trot out straw dog arguments: , USPAP does not require an inspection, or appraisers rely on third party data for the comp so how is it different?. The last one is especially inane.

"Appraisers rely on third party data for the comps, which they are not appraising - so let's make the appraisal weaker by having the appraiser rely on third party data for the property they ARE appraising. "

 

[J Grant]

Their straw dog fee argument, which they invent but state with god like certainty: "If the fee was $400 we would not hear anything from appraisers ! ""

If fees by fairy dust decree were $400, it would look like this :" We're glad the fees are good, but we are concerned about non appraisers third party inspections because"... (same reasons as now).

 

[Magnum]

One of the most frequent complaints that I have heard about when the appraiser does not inspect the subject and their opinion of value "comes in low" is that the appraiser never saw what he was appraising. While there may be disclosures specifically addressing this in the addendum, that will not stop increased complaints to state boards by borrowers, Realtors, or other non-intended users. Thank heavens I have never had a complaint filed against me, but I know plenty of my peers have and the nightmare that they had to go through to defend themselves for even the most frivolous issue.

 

[Andrei Fin]

Defenders have no rationale for why having a non appraiser random person inspect is better , or even as good as, an appraiser doing their own inspection for their own appraisal.

Said nobody ever. Defenders are saying that there is a spectrum of what reliable means. The client knows damn well that a third party inspection is less reliable than a full appraisal, just like a 2055 is less reliable than that, and a desktop appraisal is even less reliable, followed by a BPO and an AVM. But all of these are still employed at some point, based on the client's needs.

The most reliable would be to get a copy of the contractor and pest inspections for the subject, how many of you do that for a purchase, and why not? The most reliable would be to personally speak to a party involved in each comparable sale, again, how many of you are doing that, and why not? What about going on broker tour every week and actually seeing the inside of your comps, wouldn't that make your appraisals much more reliable? The fact is that the scope of work for your typical 1004 is already abbreviated but appraisers have been conditioned by Fannie Mae to see it as holy scripture.

 

[George Hatch]

^^^ Exactly.

Nobody thinks these are just as good as a 1004, or that the user expectations of the appraiser are the same, just like nobody thinks a 2055 is the same thing as a 1004.

Most people - myself included - don't think these hybrids are sufficient for ANY high LTV deal or ANY oddball property. Unfortunately, some of these lenders disagree with that and are willing to roll the dice.

 

[J Grant]

^^^ Exactly.

Nobody thinks these are just as good as a 1004, or that the user expectations of the appraiser are the same, just like nobody thinks a 2055 is the same thing as a 1004.

Most people - myself included - don't think these hybrids are sufficient for ANY high LTV deal or ANY oddball property. Unfortunately, some of these lenders disagree with that and are willing to roll the dice.

Which I think is scary. Even a low value deal is a couple of hundred thousand, and even a conforming property can have odd aspects. Will see how it plays out but it will take years if they become done in volume to see how they impact markets/loans perform, and the same goes for waivers which do receive an in house valuation from fannie or freddie.

 

[George Hatch]

I agree completely. I think it's a bad plan for all but the low LTV situations. No different that when they go with stated income and employment or are lending to people with really low credit scores.