To keep up on what is happening in appraisal businesses, mortgage lending, USPAP, etc. , Plus humor and strange homes, sign up for my FREE weekly appraisal email newsletter, sent since June 1994. Go to Home on the right side of the menu at the top of this page or go to
Sign up in the Big Yellow Boxes

I regularly write about appraisal business management issues
in my paid Appraisal Today monthly newsletter.
$99 per year  or (credit card only) $8.25 per month, $24.75 per quarter or $89 per year.
For more info, go to

Info on Fannie’s “do not use” appraiser list available

Many thanks to appraiser Dave Towne for sending the email below!!

FannieMae distributed this info below on 1/07/14 ….. shown here just as an FYI, because appraisers cannot access the AQM page.

But you can access the LL-2013-10 which describes some of the negative reporting issues the GSE’s have seen since the UAD was implemented.

Your UAD reports are subject to a higher level procto exam if:
–>you often use the same comp in different reports, but the data you report for that property is different between reports
–>you change the Quality and Condition rating for the same property used as a comp in different reports  (The first time it’s used the Q & C ratings should ‘stick’ thereafter)
–>you are contacted by a GSE reviewer who discusses the above item(s), and you don’t have a credible explanation as to why you have done the above
–>you continue to make the same reporting errors frequently

If you wind up on the GSE’s ‘do not use list’ you are effectively out of business – at least for federally regulated mortgage lending reports.  So “let’s be careful out there!”

Appraiser Quality Monitoring Information
Fannie Mae has published a new web page with information about the recently implemented Appraiser Quality Monitoring (AQM) process. The new AQM web page includes FAQs and a link to the AQM list identifying appraisers whose appraisals will be subject to 100% review by Fannie Mae or whose appraisals are no longer accepted by Fannie Mae. The AQM list is protected content, and approved Fannie Mae sellers/servicers may set up access through Technology Manager.

For more information, refer to Lender Letter LL-2013-10: Appraisal Quality, which reminded lenders of Fannie Mae’s appraiser selection requirements, highlighted several data quality issues, and described the AQM process that Fannie Mae has implemented to identify and monitor issues with individual appraisers.

Direct link to Fannie Appraiser Quality Management (AQM) web page at

Dave Towne, AGA, MAA                                                              www.towneappraisals.comMount Vernon, WA


What do I think? This can be good for the appraisal profession!

Appraisers have been complaining for years about the “other” appraisers who are unethical, incompetent, lazy, or stupid. For many clients, since licensing, all appraisers are seen as the same. Why not use someone who gives you what you need – turn time, fee, no problems with underwriting, etc.?

Unfortunately, AMC hassles have driven many very experienced appraisers out of the business, or refusing to do AMC work. This makes the problem more difficult.

Maybe more AMCs will start using appraiser quality rather than fee, turn time, etc. to select their appraisers.

Also, the preference by many AMCs for low fees makes it very tempting to skimp on the time and effort for doing appraisals.

A low fee does not mean that you can do a poor job on an appraisal. I know what it is like to work for a low fee. I tried doing low fee jobs a few times over the years, but found I had a really “bad attitude” about the appraisal and had to force myself to do the same appraisal no matter what the fee. Doing a good appraisal is more important to me than using a low fee as an excuse for doing less work on an appraisal.

It is great to see that Fannie is using objective criteria, rather than a reviewer that gives an appraiser a bad rating, removing them from the list of a major lender. Just like appraising, reviewing is subjective. Particularly with the use of reviewers not familiar with your local market.

Appraisal Today newsletter

Fannie's Appraiser Quality Monitoring(AQM) FAQs July 2014(Opens in a new browser tab)



  1. EBook: Internet Content Extraction and Transformation That Scales.

  2. I constantly spent my half an hour to read this weblog’s articles all the time along with a cup of coffee.

  3. I just like the valuable info you provide to your articles.
    I will bookmark your weblog and take a look at again here frequently.
    I’m slightly sure I’ll be informed many new stuff proper right here!
    Good luck for the following!

  4. FYI – I was able to access the AQM list and saw that it consisted of 4 names. Initially I thought that to be a mistake, however, after several calls/transfers to FNMA they confirmed that. All 4 were on 100% QC review. Nobody was on the “No longer accepted” list.

    • Woody, FNMA has said each lender would only be able to see the names of appraiser’s they have sent in work for and not all appraisers. Since we have no knowledge of who you are and who’s list you saw saying there was only 4 names doesn’t really tell us anything. That means if you accessed a lenders access then that lender has only 4 appraisers on their review list and none on the do not use list.

      • Hi Cynthia – I work for a community bank in S FL and sell to FNMA. The appraisers on the list that I saw were in states outside of FL. We only lend in an area between W Palm Beach and Orlando. I will do some additional digging on potential relationships with these appraisers, but it doesn’t seem correct.

  5. Within 20 years, appraisals on ‘conforming loans’ will no longer be required. Only complex properties as well as C&I stuff and investment grade and estate assignments will need or require an appraisal. Anyone looking to or thinking of entering the field should be keenly aware of this, going forward. Relatives and friends should be so advised. Appraisal gig likely will be most appealing only to those wanting to experience pain and exploitation up close and personal only. Rational folks will be in very short supply, so good luck then.

    FNMA/FHLMC exist for the benefit of Wall Street. No one should be under ANY other type illusion about this, regardless of the high-sounding, well intended supposed ‘mission and charter’ of the GSE’s. In light of this, regulators will ALWAYS act and do according to the best interests of their benefactors, regardless of any hiccups or chicanery Wall Street will engage in or help create. Congress and the White House, regardless of political party, will also act accordingly, and will ‘huff and puff’ and hold hearings and scream for accountability and oversight ad nauseum, but all will simply be smoke and mirrors, a shell game, dog and pony farces, with nothing more beyond lots of regulatory masturbation.

    In 2008, the financial world supposedly was on the brink of ‘collapse.’ Anything happen to any of the banksters or Wall Streeters as a result? Any regulator fired or held to account? Any legislation enacted with some teeth to it? Penalties, sanctions or fines levied ‘personally’ to ANY of the charlatans running the joints? If Wall Streeters looted and plundered to the tune of trillions (what happened to all that money?) and their banks and institutions wound up paying back/settling for billions…..isn’t that a good and juicy return, given what was lost? Where are the disincentives NOT to steal for white collar looters?

    Of course since the individual appraisers were ‘in a position’ to ‘save’ the thieves from themselves, and they didn’t act …..then here comes FNMA/FHLMC to the rescue to show everyone they are on the job. Belatedly after the vaults have been cleaned out, of course, but still…..wanting to show proper outrages and vigilance. And they do so by formulating their UAD’s and UDPA’s and other confusing, nonsensical and trite form revising masticating. Straight from their enlightened and now chastened cubicles. Yep….change the forms and make them ‘evil doing appraisers’ cease their rampant trashing of a beloved housing-lending industry. THAT will cure all that ails this wondrous system. Bring them bad boy and girl appraisers to heel! That’ll fix everything right good.

    My work here is done.

  6. Honestly, I think the only way to deal with this is to speak to your congressmen/women. It wont do us any good its a start.

    • I wrote repeatedly to: State Legislators, Congressmen and Senators, The President, The Govenor the Director of the CA OREA, no one in government thinks this is a large enough problem to address.
      Only when there are no appraisers and AVM’s are deemed inadequate will this issue be addressed.

      • Does anyone remeber the tons of letters we appraisers sent to the government to try to stop AMC. What good did it do us. None.

      • California is among the worst when it comes to C&R fees. Go to the BREA website. It merely says we have no authority to enforce C&R and refers you back to CFPB. I joined my state coalition but didn’t see the progress Id hoped for. That’s why I also joined the American Guild of Appraisers where they ARE making a difference right now. I respectfully submit the following as an alternative method for TRID and AMCs to calculate C&R where no other adopted procedure is in place for that state; OR where the method is disputed as being inaccurate. The conclusion is significantly higher than any amcs are currently offering.

  7. Why would anyone want to be a real estate appraiser. Is there any other field that has this situation? Is this just government overkill. Who thought this up?

  8. This is totally government overreach. This grading system is not fair, not appropriate, not reasonable, even for the best appraiser. What other industry has this hanging over their work? Does the antique dealer have to deal with this? Does the accountant interpreting IRS rules and regulations have this? This is a serious problem and one that should not be accepted by our profession. Appraising is very subjective in many cases and your dealing with information put into a MLS data base that’s very one sided. The listing information is put in by realtors who want to sell a property, and I’m relying on this information to grade and judge a property by a system trying to standardize millions of real estate properties into 6 condition and 6 quality categories. Its a total joke and any appraiser out there that thinks this is for the good of the profession needs his/her head examined. I have trouble with reviewers in my back yard that don’t know what they are doing and now some bureaucrat sitting 1,000 miles away from me is going to say I’m wrong about this property because of some data they accumulated. And if they say my judgment is wrong, on a property they didn’t personally inspect, then that’s asking for real trouble. Why are the appraiser’s under such intense scrutiny, when this whole real estate mess was caused by the banking industry and the mortgage origination process lending people 100% of value. Its a total crime what government is doing.

    • That’s pretty close to how I feel. When is the last time you asked your doctor or plumber for their license and E and O policy ? The UAD rating system is stupid and designed by someone with no experience in the field.

    • And so what can be done? I doubt there are too many appraisers out there in love with the system we have, but what the heck can we do?

      • Contact Jan Bellas of the American Guild of Appraisers or
        1. We are actively engaged in fighting to improve, and reclaim our profession. Right now.
        2. We have testified before TAF/ASB; written to state legislators, and recently helped stop California’s AB 624 after it had already been passed by both houses (its now buried in Appropriations where it will remain for at least two years, or until dead).
        3. We have written and submitted our detailed proposal for C&R fee minimums to FFIEC & CFPB.
        4. We are working to have it adopted in targeted States (or DC).
        5. Improper and outright “illegal” (libelous) blacklists are our next major project.
        Instead of asking :what can be done” or worse, falling victim to the belief that nothing can be done, why not join us in the fight?
        Mike Ford, (714) 366 9404 Chairman, National Appraiser Peer Review Committee, AGA, OPEIU/AFL-CIO.

    • I agree 100%. Personally I think this is what i see is lurking in ALL our futures of tyhe appraisal industry as we know it, the lenders and government is trying to establish that all appraisers are lacking in their abilities, so they can glide in to completing market values all by accumalated statisical data appraising so they can put to an end the appraiser in the mix all together. They will have a person who will perform a simple home inspection whom upon inspecting the interior or exterior will rate the home’s condition, take pictures, and rate the neighborhood’s location. They will pay about $50.00 for this service. With all the data that was agreed to be sold to the lenders and government by the Realtors Association/MLS why do they need us to fill out a form. They are actually doing these procedures now tied in with AVMs to save money and time and some stupid appraisers are doing them, helping them to cut our throats . Technology has become our doom.

    • James, I agree will all you have said. My questions is how did the gov’t have time to come up with this system and they couldn’t follow through on their plan to put a system in place for the appraiser to report undue pressure by the lenders and AMC’s on the appraiser. We were promised that as part of Dodd/Frank but we never got it.

    • Not some bureaucrat Jim. Some computer message from FNMAs copyrighted CU system which in turn is based on their own admittedly flawed historical database! Remember when they recently said too many (most?) appraisers had been appraising to the guidelines, rather than the market for decades? They did away with the guidelines, but THEY KEPT THE FLAWED DATABASE! THAT is what they use to grade us with.

  9. The AMC’s won’t look for “quality” appraisers. They will continue cheap and fast as the criteria. There will just be a couple of appraisers on the “list” that no one will use.

  10. I appraise in a rural area and sometimes use comps up to a year old, and honestly don’t always remember if I rated one (for example) Q3 or Q4, C3 or C4 the last time I used it- sometimes don’t even remember IF I used it.
    Well, I got a certified letter from FNMA between Christmas and New Years, 2 pages long, written in the first person (“I have found…”) but signed by no one and not from any individual. It does not mention any report, subject or comparable specifically (so there is no way for me to respond, even if there was some explanation to be provided).
    Not only does the letter say that my Q & C ratings are “inconsistent” for the same property and transaction in different reports, but also dings me because it has found that there are some unspecified number of my Q or C ratings that “does not match our data sources for those properties” which I take to mean I am rating Q or C on a property different from some other appraiser. How in the heck is THAT supposed to be reconciled?
    And, if there are differences, who is right? If a property is in their database 100 times, and 99 rate it C5 and I rate it C2, I see a legitimate problem. But if out of those 100, 40 rate it C3 and 60 rate it C4, does that mean all of those who rated it C3 are wrong? Where is the line? What is the “rule”? Would the “weighting” be given to any appraisal that was done for the property in question as a subject, since that would involve (usually, assuming 1004) a full interior inspection? If so, and that is the baseline, what if THAT rating is misleading? Any of us who use comps we have never been inside of are making some subjective assumptions and estimates based on what we can find, regardless of how many interior photos the MLS listing has. Is it not possible that some of us may interpret that as a C3 condition rating, and others a C4, all being conscientious and diligent in our work?
    The letter is vague, but the conclusion states “If there continue to be issues with the appraisal data, Fannie Mae will contact you regarding the continued data deficiencies contained in your reports, and take other actions as appropriate.” Not notice of any action at this time, but also very nonspecific and ominous. At least it says they will contact me (not that I am looking forward to that!).
    I like to think of myself as a good and conscientious appraiser, who tries to be consistent, honest, and fair. I am embarrassed by receiving this letter, and have tried to take actions to prevent further attention.
    I have not historically used the “comparables database” feature in my appraisal software because it seemed “lazy” to me, but this letter has encouraged me to start using it, just so I can pull up a past property used as a comp before and insert it with consistent ratings. I have gone back and entered every comp I have used in the past year into this database (was a delightful New Year’s). I “guess” this is a solution to the immediate problem. But in starting to use my software archive comp database, I am finding the database to be very UN-user friendly, difficult, and cumbersome. It is not making my reports any “better” from my point of view, only adding another frustration point to my process. If this is what I have to do, then it is what I have to do, but dread going to the post office now anytime there is a certified letter (is it FHA? is it FNMA? am I “retired” from appraising?).
    Has anyone else gotten a letter like this? I hesitated to post this; as I said, it is embarrassing. But I can’t believe I am the ONLY appraiser who has, in their body of work (since UAD data start being collected, right?) that has used a comp and not rated it exactly the same every time.

    • The letter that you obtained from Fannie should be treated as a learning opportunity and a chance for you to improve your skills before they decide that you are an unacceptable appraiser. They have found your reports to be deficient but are providing you with an opportunity to improve before they
      There is rarely a good reason for an appraiser to change the condition or quality ratings of a comp between appraisal reports since these ratings are supposed to be based on objective criteria as outlined in the UAD spec. and the ratings are not supposed to be relative to the subject property. I don’t believe that the Fannie letter was generated because of a small number of appraisal reports and changeing the UAD Q or C ratings so on a large number of appraisals certainly would cause secondary market participants to be concerned that you may be manipulating the Q & C ratings in order to manipulate appraised values. At the very least it is indicative that you may have been sloppy in your past work. On those few occassions where there is a need to change a rating between reports due to new information that you subsequently uncovered about a comp, it is easy enough to include an explanation in your reports. Additionally, usage of the comps database should make it easy to mange this issue – if you appraisal software has a comps database that is too cumbersome to use, then you should get better software. Regarding the FNMA’s comments about the Q & C ratings not matching their data, my guess is that you are consistently rating properties’s Q & C substantially differently (more than 1 rating off from most of your peers) from your peers and or you are clearly rating properties improperly based on the UAD Q & C rating definitions. Agian, I doubt that this letter was generated based on a small number of appraisal reports. I would suggest that you carefully review the UAD Quality and Conditions definitions on a regualr basis to make sure that you are applying those definitions correctly.
      If the letter sounds ominous to you that is good. It is a serious issue and you need to make changes to avoid being put on their unacceptable list. It sounds like you are being proactive and addressing these issues. I wish you the best of luck and success in your business

      FYI, I am the chief appraiser at a secondary market participant and was formerly employed at one of the GSEs, so I know a lot about this issue

      • I disagree strongly with you and I feel like you have a bias. It appears as if you are accustomed to ” chiding” the under qualified, low cost people the AMCs hire to do your work and are assuming JA is in that position. I have been an appraiser for almost 40 years and have yet to deal with a major bank who cared for anything other than cutting costs and that includes FNMA. If you have been reading appraisal blogs and letters for a while you remember we warned over and over about the corruption and fraud in the lending system and the use of rubber stamp appraisers. Now they are using statistical analysis to find penny ante mistakes and continue to ignore real problems like AMCs forcing shoddy work for low fees. Even ANN admits to this problem. Its akin to arresting drug users while the drugs are flown in by the plane load and the authorities are on the take. ( Think CEO salary and options)

      • I appreciate you taking the time and providing me your response and point of view. Believe me, TD,I do take this very seriously. This is only my career we are talking about here, and at 60 years old, I am not interested in finding something else to do.
        Not to be defensive here (though you have suggested that I may have done sloppy and misleading work in the past in order to manipulate values), but I would just like to make a point- you state several times in your response that you “believe” or you “doubt” , or you “guess”. That is exactly my concern, that we have to believe, doubt, or guess. It seems with a new set of criteria that is theoretically “absolute” in a business that has historically been subjective and is STILL a professionals best “opinion of value”, that there should be some specific published criteria as to what exactly is acceptable, and consequences for unacceptability. I believe the quality and condition ratings as published are still open to individual interpretation, and I would argue that the same property could still legitimately be interpreted as being different conditions at the same time by different appraisers (my issue with discrepancies between my own ratings aside which I am working to address).

        • JA, very classy response! No so easy to speak so well when being attacked.

          It is interesting to see how some see the appraisal world so clear cut rather than the multifaceted nuances we run into daily. I saw a job for a very complex property that was reviewed by an MAI who gave it rave reviews and even saw fit to call the appraiser to tell them good job. This same job was later reviewed by a Certified Residential Appraiser who tore the report apart for what appeared to be a personal opinion on how a report “should” be done. Interesting.

          I agree with many here, this profession is the only one I can think of that allows for such sever measures as taking away one’s livelihood without requiring the “accuser” to prove their case. FNMA should be required to have a separate panel that would review their findings and the appraiser’s response BEFORE they could be put on a “do not use list”. What other industry can one “opinion” have such a devastating result on the “accused”? Oh, right attorneys.

          I commend you JA for being willing to share your experience. Thank you.

      • Don, I have no idea whether your appraisal work is good, bad or somewhere in between. What I do know from your response is that it seems like you did not understand that the UAD condition & quality ratings need to be consistent when the same comps are used in multiple reports and the ratings must not be applied on a relative basis depending on the market area. Not doing it this way on a large number of appraisals is a Red Flag that makes it appear to secondary market participants that you may be manipulating values and/or producing sloppy work. Certainly, your reports have caused a Red Flag to be raised at Fannie Mae and they sent you a letter expressing that they have concerns. While the receipt of that letter understandably has caused you angst the issuance of such a letter to you is certainly not unfair or nefarious…the letter is an attempt to educate you and let you know that they have concerns with your appraisal reports so that you hopefully make changes to avoid being added to their Appraiser Quality Management list. By the way, you most certainly are allowed to respond to Fannie’s letter and there is an appeal process for any appraisers who are placed on Fannie’s Appraiser Quality Monitoring list:

        See the recent published FAQ:

        Q4. Will appraisers have the opportunity to appeal or offer a rebuttal?
        Yes. Fannie Mae will offer a formal rebuttal process for appraisers whose work has been identified as requiring 100% review or whose work product is no longer acceptable to Fannie Mae. Appraisers who are sent letters initially for reports that exhibit a pattern of minor inconsistencies, inaccuracies, or data anomalies will not have a formal rebuttal process because
        the letter is intended for educational purposes to provide them with an opportunity to improve their work; however, the appraiser may choose to respond to the letter

      • TD
        This is a great example of how giving someone the power to condemn works. You got me mixed up with JA.

      • TD THAT is an amazingly condescending and frankly ‘presumptuous’ response to an appraiser that pointed out very real issues. IF you have ever taken the FNMA CU course then you already know how badly it is flawed. If you have not, then you (no disrespect intended) do not know what you are talking about. Lets start with complying with USPAP in an appraisal review; and then in communicating the results of that appraisal review. As a former reviewer you should be aware of those requirements. Chance to ‘improve’ himself? Based on WHAT? A flawed database? Sooner or later appraisers are going to sue to get copies of the SSRs or CU messages. What if the AQM letter was all based on “adjustments out of range of peers”? Hint, no specific peer or peers were used-Just a bell curve of adjustments in their database. They ADMIT the historic database is flawed with adjustments made to guidelines rather than to market. So if Ja comes along and adjusts to market perceptions, now all of a sudden HE is the one out of whack! For doing the job right. Even if he had his own regression analysis; or documented paired sales in the report as support.

      • I am glad to read this. Just another fat cat sitting behind a desk and making judgement for what he really does not understand. I wonder if he still has his job. Unless you regulate mls information or hold the realtors to a higher level nothing is what it is. Go back to front line squeeze into a crawl space for FHA. Do appraisal work where nobody wants to go to. You my friend lack common sense. I bet you are a republican with tea party connections. No common sense.

    • Amen. I have thought the same thing about comp data bases. I do not use that feature either as I look at each assignment as brand new and tackle it with a fresh look at comps. But you are indeed better off using a data base so you do not change the Q & C coding. Also it would be nice if appraisal software comes up with a simple search to see if you ever used a comp before so you can see how it was coded or better yet if you do input a comp into the program that was used before and you code it differently, it will give you a warning message. I need to email Wintotal – Alamode to see if they are working on something like this.

      They just want to make sure all appraisers use the same code for all comps so that thier database is not corrupted as they do intend to replace us in the end. I am glad that I am within reach of retirement like so many other appraisers so I can kick this profession to the curb!

  11. They only give you a license so they can have TOTAL control over you. Someone should tell the folks over at Fannie that we can’t ALL work for the Govt. Some of us have to actually do stuff, hire people and hustle to survive and pay our taxes. More regulations to justify their own miserable existence. I would NEVER encourage ANYONE to enter this field. There is WAY too much uncertainty and WAY too many people chasing you around thinking they should have the right to take your livelihood away, which you may have spent 10+ years building…because of a stupid condition rating inconsistency. PLEASE!

  12. If they don’t plan to notify appraisers of being placed on the list, then this is just another governing body who has no respect for appraisers. My advise, turn your appraisal business into a part time job. Do something else! Create scarcity! This is the only way you will get these people to respect us as human beings!

  13. An appraiser is hired for their professional “subjectivity”, which is for that appraiser’s “personal” opinion of market value. I have yet to find any person, let alone any two appraisers who thought exactly the same about any property. So let us change the name of our job definition from an “Opinion of Market Value” to an “Objective Precise Market Value”. After all this is what they are getting at. Is this reality? No way.

  14. Not only should appraiser’s be notified, but they should have the opportunity to address the situation. UAD is nothing more (or less) than the “robotization” of appraiser’s to meet lender and GSE’s automated (monetary) bottom line. I’ve been doing this long enough to remember reports being delivered on 3×5 index cards. Not so ironically, they made as much, if not more sense then than now.

  15. This is in Brian Davis’ blog:
    •Fannie Mae’s program will notify appraisers, inspectors, and other vendors, prior to being placed on the DNU list, by certified letter.
    •The vendor will then have twenty-one days to respond to Fannie Mae’s letter

    however I could not find a verification on FNMA – does anyone have the actual facts? Is FNMA in fact notifying appraiser’s and giving them time to respond? if so then that is a different story.

      • Thank you. I had not seen this new FNMA release on their process. For me this process as outlined by FNMA changes it to “dare I say it?” a positive thing. The issue is that not only is the appraisal process subjective so are reviews. I also do a lot of work in rural areas which is very different from working in the suburbs or city. When the UAD was pretty new I had underwriters telling me I could not adjust if comps had the same rating and it took educating them with FNMA docs to show them this is not the case. That is not an issue as often now, but still run into it sometimes. I think it would go a long way for FNMA to give actual examples of what they are seeing and why they give notices. Hypotheticals just do not give a good clear picture. For example: comp used in 5 reports and had different ratings in Q, C and site in 4 of the 5. Now that is much more understandable than “inconsistent Q & C ratings.

  16. I don’t like the idea of being “put out of business” without being told. I mean come on people we are human we all make mistakes. This is just stupid.

  17. Personally I think the criteria is terribly wrong. FNMA has established only a poorly designed quality and condition rating that no one is griping about. For example on condition, once you have decided something is C4 (average condition) any comparable property which is inferior must be marked C5 and this may be inaccurate. To say it another way, I use the same comps over and over in my rural area and I know that some of the average condition comps are in better condition than others so I previously would change the rating to show the difference, now that’s a black mark. We all know that C1 and C5 and C6 are taboo so that leaves you with only three condition tools and quality is the same game. I think this was designed by a nonappraiser sitting in a cubicle. It sounds good on paper.
    If consistency is important lets look at how FNMA has done, 1004s to 2055s to desktops and now back to 1004s for mortgage loans. Remember when the CEO of FNMA declared appraisals as unnecessary because there was only a 1% default rate and the appraisals stood in the way of funding loans quickly. He made a bazillion dollars that year and he still has it all but appraisers are being blackballed without notification for switching ratings on comps, my oh my.

    • Yikes Don – this is not correct. you do not rate the comparables based on the subject’s condition. This is written over and over and over in Fannie Mae guidelines. they want the property ratings to be static – there will be a range of Q4 and often two properties are rated Q4 (for an example) and still have adjustments. This gets explained in the addendum.

      • I guess I didn’t explain that well. If the subject is a C 3.5 and the sales are C 3.5 and C 3.0 and C 3.0 respectively they are all C 3 in FNMA eyes and there is no room for adjustment. I know what is written in the guidelines, I am saying that someone who does not have to use this stupid method is the one who designed it. These are subjective judgments you have to make over and over and things are RELATIVE. There is no way to ignore that and make it work correctly.

  18. Yes I agree Cynthia! The best way to learn from a mistake is to know that you’ve made a mistake in the first place.

  19. There are several issues in play. For example the standarization of condition rating results in possible distortions. I have concluded that the best way of dealing with FNMA push to standarize is to rate everything neutrally and deal with condition, quality, etc in a separate line item at the bottom of the adjustment grid in the varying FNMA forms. It is also necessary to address this in the text addendum. I find that in many cases, this results in almost as much time in writing a narrative report, and of course the fees are not commensurate with the work. After 37 years, of attempting to be the eyes and ears of the lending segment I have finally concluded that I will have to leave this field of appraising and find clients that are willing to pay for and respect the appraisal product

    • If you are truly rating everything neutrally for Fannie/Freddie related appraisals, then you are obviously producing a misleading report that does not meet the assignment conditions and you should go ahead an leave the appraisal profession instead of just talking bout it and posting nonsense that makes you look bad. The fact that you think that it having to write narrative comments explaining your report the differences in condition and qualtiy between the subject and comps is too big of a burden speaks volumes about you. Appraisers should have been doing this all along and well before the UAD.

  20. AMC’s ruined the profession of appraising. In this time of downturn in loan originations, I have more pressure to hit a certain value than ever. While I do not agree with Fannie Mae on UAD or many of the UAD additions in 2014, quality and independence are the reasons appraisers are hired. It is telling that Fannie Mae has to be involved in monitoring appraisers, because AMC’s are far more interested in satisfying their client’s demands that the properties appraise and loans are made.
    I believe that not only should appraisers be put on Do Not Use Lists, but AMC’s should also be placed on Do Not Use Lists.
    I am one of the very experienced, highly qualified appraisers who is stepping back from appraising in 2014 because of AMC pressure and non-payment.

  21. It should be a requirement that the appraiser be notified when they are put on the list and why. I did not see this addressed or did I just miss that?

We want to know what you think!! Please leave a comment.