Milton, did you catch the links posted on the blogs regarding CU patents which described many software functions? Those were indeed interesting. They changed the landing pages but I put up some new links today. Thank you.
Well, the link feature did not work, edited here. Trying again. The direct link to a very interesting fnma patent for the cu system.

http://www.patentbuddy.com/Patent/20150302419

FNMA learned long ago (and both accepted, and promoted the concept) that most residential appraisals are performed ‘to the form’ as a guideline, with relatively few appraisers either knowing, or practicing appraising to standards.

For those that learned under MAI’s, SREA/SRPAs, ASAs and similar designated appraisers, we learned USPAP before the feds did. (Some also learned that it wasn’t a black and white enforcement issue as states see it now; but a perceptual issue).

Others learned from the Henry S. Harrison books which several form changes ago were actually great learning tools and report writing guides; paying attention to both USPAP and FNMA (as well as Freddie & HUD Guidelines).

Sometime after the extremely deficient URAR form was designed by FNMA as a one size fits all (sfr; condo, PUD, 2-4 units, mobile home) was introduced, ‘old’ standards  started disappearing, as many of us struggled to make a required form, that simply did not ‘fit’ work for the other purposes. Then when FNMA realized their horrible error and re-invented new condo (1073) and 2-4 units forms (1025), they still tried to ‘make them consistent’ with the one size fits all URAR and they ‘lost’ a lost of check boxes and sections that forced a bit more neighborhood, market and site analyses.

Additionally the Institute (AIREA back then) and the Society were great advocates of pre printed boilerplate. Either cut and paste from old reports (literally) or “one from pile A, B or C, etc.” for different specific markets and time trends (quarterly or semi annual updates).

Fast forward to FIRREA and TAF. As originally written, a clear and easy to understand and follow set of standards and practices were adopted. For reasons TAF is still not willing to fully and openly (widely) disclose, ‘business decisions’ were made to ‘tinker’ with USPAP every few of years (or so)- predating the current like clockwork mandatory changes. The original phony argument promulgated was that because real estate changes, so too must appraisal; and logically so too must standards. (Think on that one for awhile). Fundamental standards must change? I think catering to the ‘changes’ desired and dictated by the TAF special interest lending related sponsors is a more accurate explanation.

So Preservation of the Public Trust started to become more of a furball style dogfight.

Some advocating strict USPAP adherence; others saying it only counted if you could prove something was a violation, lenders saying nothing is a violation if they ask for it, TAF confused about how to best fix the confusion they were creating published statements that weren’t opinions and advisory opinions that weren’t statements to clarify their needless wordsmithing and selective parsing of the English language. (Y’all remember the distinctions that USED to exist between extraction and abstraction… before they became the same thing?), state regulators that included non appraisers as well as appraisers not knowing the difference between a USPAP violation and permissible deviation from a FNMA ‘guideline’.

Add in TAFs deviation from their Congressional mandate and rewriting USPAP to become another one size fits all system to cover accounting and business valuations, and a prevalence in use of narratives by those trying to hide USPAP NON-compliance more than they were trying to achieve any degree of self containment.

Appraising to forms started to make more sense than it had before. As bad as the forms were and are, they are still superior to 90% of the purely narrative written reports in play today.

In 1991 we all knew what the appraisers obligations were under USPAP, whether the report was narrative or form. If form, then it had to be added to until the report was compliant. If narrative, at a minimum it should have included the same analyses of a form…hopefully in greater detail.

Did I mention lenders and other special interests STILL wanted something that was ‘less than‘ an appraisal for a much lower fee; but it still had to be able to be called an appraisal? Hence bring the almost unknown ‘evaluation exceptions out. Already permitted by the feds, they merely required tweeking of all those states laws that had foolishly incorporated USPAP as minimum standards. Standards that made no provision for ‘less than” evals.

As that process started (remember California AB 624; and later SB70?); states like Tennessee and Illinois possibly Texas were adopting revisions to permit evaluations, NOW covered by a much more flexible scope of work in lieu of report use restrictions. This particular bandwagon is so popular that states are falling all over themselves to adopt permissive hybrid language now.

Hence the third party inspection hybrid. Its promoters and huckers insist it IS “an appraisal” and object to it being called a hybrid. My preferred term is much more descriptive, and accurate:

Sophists

Huckster, hybrid

Inadequate

Trash

So, long way around, does FNMA set USPAP? Indirectly, yes. Look at who the Directors are of MISMO; and MISMO’s historic relationship with TAF and the incestuous relationship of CoreLogic and FNMA with FHFA and each of the other MISMO and TAF sponsors.

Though in fairness, calling USPAP Uniform today is probably a misnomer. Suggesting ‘standards’ are some form of higher level of performance is simply no longer true. Practice(s) is really the only part that still means what it says. Unfortunately it means it in all of its possible definitions.

So, it probably doesn’t really matter anymore who sets ‘standards’ in appraisals for GSE lending purposes. They change more often than the tides along a shore do.

Fannie Mae needs to get their heads out of their rear ends and fix their own issues. The tax payers did not bail them out because they made good sound decisions! And from the looks of things, still are not making good sound decisions. Probably why they are still in conservortorship.

Of the two topics you identified, they were only prepared to address one and the summary of that appears to be.

1. Fannie Mae has pledged to leverage stakeholder input (whatever the hell THAT means);
2. “modernizing” the processes involved in producing a valuation including the inspection process, data collection, etc., up to the delivery of the completed report.

May we assume the “etc.” involves continued theft of appraisers professional work product?

Did vaCAP remind them THAT is not their job? Congress already directed TAF to set the standards. That has been done.

FNMA is nothing more than a client. They do NOT get to direct the fundamental principles and standards of our profession. They have over stepped their bounds and it could be credibly argued THEY are in violation of appraiser independence requirements.

The ONLY thing FNMA has a right to do is raise, or lower the standards of performance that they will accept. It’s clear reading between the lines that they have decided further LOWERING of their standards in a carefully camouflaged manner is the course they have chosen. Everything we read and hear from the flawed FHFA working paper, and all the background ‘noise’ is that they have already decided the unreliable, low quality of AVMs / hybrids are completely acceptable in lieu of appraisals. No wonder they can’t get out of conservatorship.

For it’s part, TAF was kind enough to redefine what an appraisal is so that the hybrid fraud-formats desired by FNMA can also be called ‘appraisals’ instead of what they really are.

Another fine example of their ‘preserving the public trust’. There are a lot of self serving culprits degrading our profession these days. From MISMO, to TAF, to FNMA to REVAA. All under the guise of euphemistic feel good slogans like value added; modernizing, leveraging, big data, and expediting ‘for the consumers.’

Respectfully VaCAP, I think you just got patted on the fanny by FANNIE as token outreach.

AMC’a are NOT stakeholders. They are suppose to be a firewall, nothing more.

Amcs are supposed to be a firewall. Why are they hiring staff appraisers? Why are they talking to Congress? Why are they talking to Fannie and Freddie? Why are they talking to Moody’s? Why are they developing alternative products? Who gave them any authority? Do amcs think they are industry disruptors?

Fannie Mae is in consvertorship because of poor decisions on their part. Are they really the best source to initiate change of the appraisal process? Shouldn’t their priority be to get their own house in order? What makes them the authority on the appraisal process anyway? Certainly not their colossal disaster they call Collateral Underwriter. Why isn’t Fannie focusing on fixing Collateral Underwriter?