Comment Detail

Comment

I have appraised for 38-years and have been through several cycles. This includes all the various changes within the profession as well as the cyclical nature of real estate itself. When I began reports were one page handwritten on cardboard with a Polaroid photograph stapled in the top corner. Now reports are computerized and formatted. Traveling from the one-page form to automation is a lengthy road, however, the need for individual attention and continuity with each property has never been more important.

It seems that the entities involved in the mortgage industry have always wanted to remove appraisers in one way or another, but we are the only non-biased entity in most real estate transactions. We adhere to safe and sound banking practices. We are professionals and do a job that is not an easy one. While waivers are based solely on statistics and algorithms, these cannot take the place of an actual "boots on the ground" appraiser. With that said, we are the best deal in town for $300 to $500, a highly economical way to consider that an appraisal may be the only way to correct an inflated sales price or keep a borrower from borrowing more than a home is worth.

I strongly believe that keeping full appraisals intact and done by an appraiser, from start to finish, is the best way to adhere to a solid continuity. Splitting up this process is not seeing the bigger picture, especially with liability and efficiency. Physically inspecting a property vs seeing photographs taken by an owner or broker is not even remotely the same. Owners have a bias and brokers are salespersons. Appraisers are neither.

Appraisers are governed and reviewed by state licensing bureaus. We complete continuing education, pay large sums for licensing and E&O insurance, as well as software. Again, we are professionals within a profession that many entities seem to want to always "change" ... often not for the better. Change for change-sake is not always wise (having AMCs has not always been effective, but appraisers have had to accept them, all while giving up more and more of our fees). Changing the forms is one more complication that does not seem necessary, especially having gone through the difficult year with COVID. The URAR forms are already effective, and all appraisers add addendums when necessary. For lenders to actually read an appraisal rather than just see a rating is highly beneficial for each property appraised. It seems that the continued automation is not to allow appraisers more clarity in reporting but to allow more automation, and clearly a rushed appraisal process is not prudent or wise for anyone.

Taking our reports which are done for specific clients and using the data to produce waivers does not seem "fair" in the truest sense of the word, but appraisers have had no choice. The interpreted data submitted into the portal by appraisers are actually creating what appears to be less need for appraisers. This is a sad realization that by complying with the UAD rules and regulations appraisers are not as necessary as we once were, but our continual input is necessary. The portal cannot self-evolve with only waivers, I'm assuming.

Please consider that most seasoned appraisers have loved this profession and want it to continue, but "streamlining," and trying "hybrid" programs is not anything that anyone should consider when lending is involved. Each and every property is important, to both lenders and borrowers, and consistency and continuity within the process should not be rushed or automated.

Thank you for your consideration.