They should have to wear nascar style outfits so we know who sponsored them and controls their decisions. Certainly the interest of protecting citizens of the republic is no longer the primary directive.

You are spot on regarding new form facilitating AVM or other alternative methods. FHFA made a decision long ago to adopt and promote AVMs. Their entire “working paper” on the subject proves their bias in favor of AVMs even thought the paper itself is fully refuted.

Doesn’t phase them a bit though. They keep moving forward just as if their working paper had made sense. The last paragraph above from Dave’s article is bureaucrat-speak for “We’ve already made up our minds after consulting with the likes of REVAA, Corelamode and other vested interest software sellers.”

Condo HOA’s and Home inspectors are out of the lenders reach and control. We aren’t.

I’d appreciate standardized condo questionnaires, incorporated and standardized home inspection summary result forms, for the other guys of course. How come only the appraisal needs to be ‘standardized’?

Sounds good. Im sure there will be near universal agreement on what is needed…just like there was or is for minimum C&R fees.

Worth a shot though.

It would be a horrifically bad decision to put 1025’s into UAD format. Many appraisers have a tough enough time understanding all the nuances associated with income property that are not usually found in SFRs.

Now trying to pretend that “absolutes” will result in more rather than less confusion; OR to suggest that units and room counts are as recognizable as GLA is would be a bad mistake.

Most ‘peer’ or model adjustments in their database are simply wrong. On a 3/4 million dollar triplex the market value  difference between 2, 3, or 4 units is usually a function of the difference in rent received…not arbitrary $25k or even $50k per unit adjustments or $5k or $10k room count adjustments. (OK, I know-there are always exceptions).

Many appraisers as well as reviewers have never seen or used an income reconciliation grid within the sales comparison. (If I knew how to spell “McKesson Grid” I’d have called it that). Anyway, its a more useful tool than most for 216’s will ever be. IF they redo the 2-4 unit form, then putting something like that kind of grid in (with formulas) could be helpful. I prefer one that also gives me Income multipliers; realistic operating expense ratios and OAR ranges though the ultimate summary focuses on values per unit; sf, room and GIM for the sales comparison. Use of this tool eliminates (most of)the line item adjustments aside from deferred maintenance (repair needs); incentives or market conditions).

Rent control and a host of other issues will result in so many CU kickouts that it will bog the process down rather than speed it up.

Not sure this spreadsheet will post; (Nope! had to delete in edit) Trying as pdf now:Nope

“Make sure the info correlates to the subject property, irrespective of non-comparable properties that don’t have a bearing on prospective purchaser decisions for the subject…….which is the fallacy of the present forms and how the data reporting was originally taught.” – Properties in heterogeneous neighborhoods (Subject surrounded by unlike properties) do impact decisions by prospective purchasers when compared to homogenous neighborhoods. Plop a turd in clean water or a rose in sewage and watch the reaction. The real fallacy comes from only analyzing comparable properties without considering the surroundings and thinking it reveals something significant. Try analyzing one of a few detached homes in a subdivision of attached homes, or a Cape Cod surround by Colonials, or oversized McMasion with indoor pool surrounded by small Ranch homes, and then say location does not play a role in the market analysis. Put the same dwelling in different locations, you get different results. Location, Location, Location exists for a very good reason. I agree, market condition reporting and analysis needs to be its own section and not scattered to distant pages. 1004MC is a joke with its limited, uneven timeline that fails to recognize real estate market trends often do not reveal themselves when standing too close to the trees that the extent of forest can not be perceived.

One thing I really hope is that the GSE’s will carefully review the interrelationship with all parts of the forms. To currently allow the “banned words” on page one (INDIVIDUAL COMPONENT condition ratings) but refuse them on page two (OVERALL condition rating) is absurd. The people who wrote and mandated the UAD did not take that into consideration.

Secondly, if they want market conditions reported, get the info standardized into one part of the form, not scattered in two separate pages. Make sure the info correlates to the subject property, irrespective of non-comparable properties that don’t have a bearing on prospective purchaser decisions for the subject…….which is the fallacy of the present forms and how the data reporting was originally taught.

Coach I was just thinking that; GSE’s: We have enough tech input so appraisers need not reply! ;-{)

Time for the coalitions to get involved in a big way. After all, appraisers ARE stakeholders.

Seek the truth.