Sense is Like Courtesy It is No Longer Common!
I dealt with an old question recently that I felt was pertinent and worthy of repeating.
The question arose in Brooklyn, NY when an underwriter demanded that the appraiser include the basement area as part of the gross building area when comparing the subject to the comparable sales.
After all they reasoned, Fannie Mae guidelines, i.e. Property and Appraisal Guidelines, XI 405.07 state, “Gross building area, which is the total finished area (including any interior common areas, such as stairways and hallways) of the improvements based on exterior measurements, is the most common comparison for two-to four-family properties. The gross building area must be consistently developed for the subject property and all comparables that the appraiser uses. It should include all finished above- and below-grade living areas, counting all interior common areas (such as stairways, hallways, storage rooms, etc.), but not counting exterior common areas (such as open stairways).
We will accept the use of other comparisons for two- to four-family properties (such as the total above-grade and below-grade areas as discussed above in Section 405.06), as long as the appraiser explains the reasons he or she did not use a gross building area comparison and clearly describes the comparisons that were made.”; however, within this definition of gross building area was the appraiser’s response. Although the “appraisal gods’ have clearly mandated that gross building area must include the area below grade, this only applies when this space is also generally included by the market area.”
The basic problem, as I see it, is that there are way too many people trying to decide how to apply the guidelines that really are very straight forward. Fannie Mae set forth guidelines because there are no hard and fast rules that would uniformly apply across all states in the Union. The guidelines attempt to address what is considered to be the norm for the country; however, attempting to find a norm for 50 states is the height of hubris in a of itself. Still it is better to have guidelines in place rather than have none at all, but not at the expense of replacing common sense. In fact if you were to actually have the benefit of interviewing a Fannie Mae review appraiser you would find that they are very down to earth and understand that their guidelines are not hard and fast. They provide a framework of acceptability but with the proper analysis and explanation Fannie is very open to appraisals that must report outside of their guidelines. On the other hand, many underwriters (especially the relatively new batch which have recently hatched out of the most recent debacle of the ongoing mortgage lending saga) simply do not understand that appraisers are given the flexibility to present an appraisal that is reflective of the subject property and its market area which may, or equally may not, conform to Fannie Mae guidelines.
My point is simple, and fairly consistent (I believe), common sense needs to take the place of algorithms and automated valuation models. In the case of Gross Building Area versus Gross Living Area; it is imperative that lenders allow their local market experts report the market reaction to the properties that are being submitted as collateral; and not attempting to dictate a set of general guidelines that were designed to enable an appraiser to report their findings in a consistent manner.
The root of this problem, of course, is one of responsibility and enforcement. Our long honored legislators decided long ago that the lender had the ultimate responsibility to select, review and audit the real estate appraiser that was submitting the assignments to the bank. The problem is that this has never been a good idea. Then we wrap this notion is the most current legislation that dictates that the lender is able to use appraisal management companies to direct appraisers, but appraisers no longer have the ability to reach out to their actual client (the lender). This simply places the appraiser in the worst possible position. Now they must try to develop a business without any personal contact with the client and must attempt and defend their reports without any chance of actually communicating their findings except in writing.
The report is now cloaked in the use of UAD which is a format and series of codes designed to dehumanize the process of analysis and decision-making all for the purposes of making money. Personally I am all for making money, but not a the cost of disabling appraisers from promoting and growing business relationships.
There really needs to be a modification of thinking that Lenders are responsible for the appraisers conduct or performance. The thinking that a management company can solve this is naïve, because a management company has no authority or power. They themselves try to wield a “sword of authority” by controlling work flow; however, this is a quasi-legal practice and very soon you will find appraisers begin to figure out that their rights are actually be diminished by economic sanction. This type of pressure was supposed to be eliminated by the Frank Dodd Act but instead it has simply been exacerbated.
It is time that appraisal organizations actual engage in re-engineering the foundational concepts of direction and control when it deals with mortgage lending. Appraisers never should have been controlled by lenders; in fact lenders should have to deal with an appraisal report once. If the report has passed the clearing house (so to speak) then the report should be accepted once and for all and move on. Of course this is naïve because loan officers will never go quietly without a fight, this is how they generate their 6-figure income, while appraiser deal with ever diminished fees and are asked to provide evidentiary support for each word provided within an opinion of value (aka an appraisal).
See you around the water cooler!
By John Reynolds aka UncleZev ~ Source Appraisers Speak Out