A Mind Blowing Trend
Harmful trend implemented by Collateral Underwriter and AMCs…
There is a new trend starting in our industry! Phil Crawford with Voice of the Appraisal exposes it. The trend is being implemented by Collateral Underwriter and AMCs. It is extremely harmful to the consumer and local communities.
VaCAP recommends each appraiser, residential and commercial listen to his show. His show is 42 minutes long and worth every second.
Listen to the Voice of Appraisal E138 Manipulating Chucky and Alexis Craig!!! 1/28/2017
Great Webinar from Network of State Appraisal Organizations!
On January 18th, NSAO sponsored a webinar with Jim Parks with the Appraisal Subcommittee and David Bunton with The Appraisal Foundation. The webinar received glowing reviews by those who attended and is available to those who missed it. The NSAO looks forward to other webinars in the future. These webinars are only possible because of your membership with VaCAP and other State organizations. To find out more, click here.
Click here for the audio of the webinar, and here for PowerPoint presentation. The YouTube presentation is below at the end of the article.
A Word of Thanks to our Friends and Partners….
There are many individuals, groups, organizations and regulatory agencies that support the appraisal profession. We all share information and support one another; many of which are volunteer and nonprofit. THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU DO!
Many of our partners receive funds when a visitor clicks on an advertisement. Please remember to support our partners and their advertisers.
Important Reminder: VaCAP has learned some appraisers are having difficulty collecting payments from AMCs. Please be mindful of your receivables and do not let any one client, AMC or not, owe you money you can not afford to loose.
Guess what February 14th is? That’s right… The Virginia Real Estate Appraisal Board Meeting!
Tuesday February 14, 2017
9600 Mayland Dr
Richmond, VA 23233
A Sweetheart of a deal…… 2 hours of CE credit for attending!
- We the People… - April 9, 2023
- Federal Valuation Agency Impact on Appraisers & the Public - July 22, 2022
- Is Georgia Going Rogue? - June 13, 2022
Excellent referral re Phil Crawford. Thank you VaCap!
Readers that have followed my past CU articles already know my opinion of it. It was flawed system design starting with its underlying database. Designed by seven people that did not have a valid appraisal license between them!
Setting aside the basic database flaw in CU, it was and is a system that’s highly susceptible to manipulation. The CU scoring parameters can be modified at the lender-user end. Even if that were not possible, it is still subject to manipulation.
As Phil Crawford points out, FNMA first came out with a flawed collateral risk scoring system, ostensibly to promote trust in the underlying collateral its notes or mortgages are secured by. NOW it has published an incentive for lenders to manipulate that very scoring system! FNMA has announced that loans with collateral risk scores of 2.5 or lower will be free from collateral recourse risk to the lender in the event of default.
Think about that.
Now consider the following; FNMA CU is (in part) by default a census tract based locational rating system. The default setting is for all sales in closest proximity to the subject, going back up to two years to be used as a base against which any other ‘comparable’ sales are scored. The FNMA sales are NOT NECESSARILY comparable properties!
Lets assume we are either in a rural area or a suburban area in which very few sales take place. People with comparable houses to your subject (1,650 sf) simply do not move out of the area. You do an appraisal for a refinance. Necessarily, you are forced to use comparable sales more distant to the N., S., E., & W. in competitive areas. Your comparables are from 1/3 mile to a mile distant. The CU score is 3.75.
CU also provides up to ’20 alternate purported comparables‘. Some are 2 year old sales. Most (in this example) are 850 sf to 1,150 sf in GLA). The lender “directs you” to use one or two of these more proximate sales and simply give no weight to them. You do so, even though not one of them is truly ‘comparable’ to your subject. The CU score drops to 2.45.
That’s a best case scenario. Try justifying inclusionary use of dissimilar sales when the report hits the state complaint desk after the loan defaults. Especially if FNMA or FDIC represents that the original CU score of 3.75 was ‘manipulated by the appraiser to produce a lower 2.75 score!)
In the real world, the lenders seeking low CU scores will also look at your condition ratings not only for the subject, but for the comparables. You’ll see pressure to change that c4 to a c3 or the other way around. That too may drop the CU score to an “acceptable” amount. FNMA holds the lender accountable for assuring that the appraisers pictures support the Q&C ratings assigned by the appraiser. Photos are now to be used for purposes never intended by appraisers. No longer will living room; kitchen and bath be acceptable. You will have to provide a dozen or two photos that clearly demonstrate the c3; c4 or c2 condition and quality ratings. Non appraiser “reviewers” at AMCs or lenders will now argue or harass the appraiser into ‘proving’ their condition and quality opinions (beyond the printed FNMA UAD descriptions).
I’ve accused the CU system of being tantamount to fraud from day one, after having studied the FNMA CU Patent Application. On the basis of its flawed database alone, it is a gross misrepresentation of “risk” to investors.
Now, only two years after its roll out FNMA itself has undermined any possible credibility CU might have held with investors by providing the very incentive that will induce lenders to circumvent CU! Inducement to try to harass appraisers into modifications or amendments that will result in lower CU scores.
FNMA CU was never a good risk scoring tool for FNMA OR lenders. The ONE USE it could have proven beneficial for was a forbidden use. It would have made a good tool for appraisers to use either before selecting potential comparable sales OR to apply during their draft report writing. It provides a graphic of potential report anomalies requiring possible further explanation.
FNMA simply assumed appraisers could not be trusted with such information. They wrongly assumed we’d now appraise ‘to CU’ rather than to market. Where we COULD have used it as an additional checks and balance against our own perceptions of market data, it was denied to us. At a minimum it would have been a good tool to identify areas that require more elaboration and explanation for factors known to be outside “peer models”.
Rather than allowing it to be used where it could help the appraisal process, FNMA has restricted its use to those engaged in the contingent or commission side of the transactions. The lenders.
No risk there, right? As far as I’m concerned this is the final nail in the coffin of FNMA as a GSE. It is long past time for the federal government to STOP UNDERWRITING BAD POLICIES at FNMA! IF FNMA wants to play in the international securities markets, then let them do so as a purely private, uninsured (by government) entity and let the SEC regulate them!
Let the investor market prove how trusted CU is once the underlying inferred guarantees of the full faith and trust of the USA are removed.