Total2000UsersGroup : Messages : 8092-8121 of 144322

#8093 From: "Thomas Woolford" <woolford@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2000 12:22 pm
Subject: RE: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Athena's replacement to the Photos PowerTab woolford@...
Send Email

I like it just the way it is!

Thomas A. Woolford
State Certified Residential Appraiser
Serving Marion, Citrus and Hernando Counties in North Central Florida
352-237-9210 fax 352-237-9211
woolford@...
appraisal.com/woolford

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Unser [mailto:mikeu@...]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 7:51 PM
To: 'Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com'
Subject: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Athena's replacement to the Photos PowerTab

Here's a low resolution screen shot of the direction we're headed for the replacement of the current Photos PowerTab

http://www.alamode.com/beta/athena/PhotosManagement.GIF

This is by no means the final look (unless you all love it). Like other times, I don't want to lead you to any direction by commenting on the changes. I'll do that after some of you have responded or posed questions.

As always, you're feedback is greatly appreciated!

Thanks,

Mike Unser
Product Manager
a la mode, inc.

This is the "Unofficial WinTOTAL 2000 / Pocket TOTAL 2000 list." This list is not sponsored by a la mode, inc., and in no way represents a la mode's views, opinions, or technical support of its WinTOTAL or Pocket TOTAL products. Post message: Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com Subscribe: Total2000UsersGroup-subscribe@egroups.com Unsubscribe: Total2000UsersGroup-unsubscribe@egroups.com List owner: Total2000UsersGroup-owner@egroups.com Users Group Web Page: http://www.home-appraiser.com/WinTotal TOTAL 2000 EDI Appraiser List - http://www.home-appraiser.com/WinTotal/pdf/EDI%20Appraisers%20List.pdf

#8094 From: LOU MUNOZ <LMunz1@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2000 12:32 pm
Subject: RE: Athena's Replacement to Photo Tab LMunz1@...
Send Email

Mike:

Looks good, and much like many other photo editing app's @ software
retail.   This contemplated set-up is more universal, and allows viewing
of more thumb.jpg's on one display over the '3 at a time' now provided.
I like it.

Question:  On some other programs that I've played with, if you choose
one of the thumb .jpg's and enlarge it, whether to enhance/alter or
save, the application 'closes' down the remaining thumb nail .jpg's and
drops you into the editing/view mode of the program.   You can play with
the selected photo/image to your heart's content, BUT:  The other .jpg
thumbs are closed.   If you were not finished picking and choosing the
other photo's still in your camera card/floppy, you are than forced to
repeat the process all over again, i.e. telling Photoshop or Adobe LE/SE
and others to pull the photo's from the camera card.  Result:  You wait
all over again until the thumb .jpg's are extracted, before you can view
them.  If you choose and enlarge one ... here you go again, with these
programs.  The agony of waiting?  You bet.

QuickPix currently allows you to select and enlarge images, without this
grief.   However, it does not enable the 'enhancing' aspect of QuickPix,
whilst you are previewing the images in the camera.  Will the Athena
up-grades (1) allow you to pick/choose/enlarge a thumbnail WITHOUT
closing the photo previewer, and (2) Prior to loading the .jpg, in the
preview mode, if you enlarge it, will we be able to view it 'enhanced'
or will it simply be 'fuzzy' as it is now, and NOT be able to enhance
it, until/if the image is saved into the photo database of Athena.

Inquiring minds want to know.  And me too.

Lou Munoz

#8095 From: "Lawrence G. LaCroix" <AppraisalShoppe@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2000 12:49 pm
Subject: Re: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Athena's replacement to the Photos PowerTab AppraisalShoppe@...
Send Email

Mike, Athena is looking good! I have two questions:

1) I don't see a remove-all button. This would be very helpful for some types of clones or to produce a "lite" archive copy of the report to slip on a floppy.

2) In the bottom window where the file names are listed, will this window scroll if there are more than 5 photos, and also will we have to wait for the right screen thumbnails to redraw as we scroll the list at the bottom, or can we zip to the photo we want and then drag from the bottom window without waiting for the right screen to redraw?

Lawrence G. LaCroix, SRA
The Appraisal Shoppe, Inc.
AppraisalShoppe@...

----- Original Message -----

From: Mike Unser

To: 'Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com'

Sent: October 31, 2000 8:50 PM

Subject: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Athena's replacement to the Photos PowerTab

Here's a low resolution screen shot of the direction we're headed for the replacement of the current Photos PowerTab

http://www.alamode.com/beta/athena/PhotosManagement.GIF

This is by no means the final look (unless you all love it). Like other times, I don't want to lead you to any direction by commenting on the changes. I'll do that after some of you have responded or posed questions.

As always, you're feedback is greatly appreciated!

Thanks,

Mike Unser
Product Manager
a la mode, inc.

This is the "Unofficial WinTOTAL 2000 / Pocket TOTAL 2000 list." This list is not sponsored by a la mode, inc., and in no way represents a la mode's views, opinions, or technical support of its WinTOTAL or Pocket TOTAL products. Post message: Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com Subscribe: Total2000UsersGroup-subscribe@egroups.com Unsubscribe: Total2000UsersGroup-unsubscribe@egroups.com List owner: Total2000UsersGroup-owner@egroups.com Users Group Web Page: http://www.home-appraiser.com/WinTotal TOTAL 2000 EDI Appraiser List - http://www.home-appraiser.com/WinTotal/pdf/EDI%20Appraisers%20List.pdf

#8096 From: "Elizabeth Clark" <clarkappraisal@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2000 2:40 pm
Subject: Re: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Athena's replacement to the Photos PowerTab clarkappraisal@...
Send Email

Mike,

I like the current Place button for placing photos. I find it more convenient than the drap, drop (takes just one click). Also, will this new version be able to find the photos of comps utilized in report and automatically place them (of course, after they have been named by address in Quick Pix)?

Liz Clark
Clark Appraisal Services
Indianapolis, IN
clarkappraisal@...

----- Original Message -----

From: Mike Unser

To: 'Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com'

Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 7:50 PM

Subject: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Athena's replacement to the Photos PowerTab

Here's a low resolution screen shot of the direction we're headed for the replacement of the current Photos PowerTab

http://www.alamode.com/beta/athena/PhotosManagement.GIF

This is by no means the final look (unless you all love it). Like other times, I don't want to lead you to any direction by commenting on the changes. I'll do that after some of you have responded or posed questions.

As always, you're feedback is greatly appreciated!

Thanks,

Mike Unser
Product Manager
a la mode, inc.

This is the "Unofficial WinTOTAL 2000 / Pocket TOTAL 2000 list." This list is not sponsored by a la mode, inc., and in no way represents a la mode's views, opinions, or technical support of its WinTOTAL or Pocket TOTAL products. Post message: Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com Subscribe: Total2000UsersGroup-subscribe@egroups.com Unsubscribe: Total2000UsersGroup-unsubscribe@egroups.com List owner: Total2000UsersGroup-owner@egroups.com Users Group Web Page: http://www.home-appraiser.com/WinTotal TOTAL 2000 EDI Appraiser List - http://www.home-appraiser.com/WinTotal/pdf/EDI%20Appraisers%20List.pdf

#8097 From: "Elizabeth Clark" <clarkappraisal@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2000 2:56 pm
Subject: Re: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Interpraise clarkappraisal@...
Send Email

Brian,

According to the email I received, Interpraise is looking for appraisers to do the 3035's. Have you completed any of these?

I guess what concerns me is

1) How reliable are the persons doing the field inspections?

2) I like to drive by my comparables before giving an Opinion of Market Value

They say the 3035 report is being tested by WElls Fargo, Advanta, Bank United, Litton, and Washington Mutual.

Liz Clark
Clark Appraisal Services
Indianapolis, IN
clarkappraisal@...

----- Original Message -----

From: Brian J. Davis, SRA

To: Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 6:59 PM

Subject: RE: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Interpraise

Liz -

As I understand the Interprise program, it’s a sector of the loan origination business that is NOT currently being serviced by

appraisers. The assignments are/were being completed by Brokers filling out BPOs.

Asset Management
Collateral Analysis
Loan Evaluation

The 3035 is a modified 2055/704 (market grid only) with addenda that clearly spells out the limitations of the assignment. Limited Appraisal – Restricted Use Report. It’s my understanding that there is no requirement under USPAP for an appraiser to inspect the subject property. Property data will be provided with the assignment.   Their 3035 form is filled out over the Internet and a digital signature is kept on file. Only the appraiser has the password to the signature.

These assignments are not “normally” going to appraisers. I tend to view them as “extra” business, rather than a conventional appraisal assignment being downgraded. There’s no inspection required, not photos to take, no forms to print out, no software to buy . . .   If you only have to spend 30-60 minutes in selecting comps and entering the sales data, the fee (on an hourly basis) is fairly attractive.

This is the scenario:

The 3035 assignment e-mail will include a property inspection report, including photos of the subject property.

The appraiser must then:

1) Respond to the e-mail assignment message

2) Review the property inspection report and photos e-mailed to you

3) Gather general market area data

4) Select appropriate comparable sales

5) Complete the 3035 Desktop Appraisal on the Interpraise Internet site

6) Digitally sign the report (password protected)

It’s my understanding that in this model, a third party has inspected the property, providing current photos and data to the appraiser. If the appraiser does NOT feel that the information is “reliable” it would be the appraiser’s responsibility to decline the assignment, as it was ordered, and notify the client of the problems with the data. I suppose they could request a reinspection, upgrade the assignment to include an inspection by the appraiser, or some other alternative.

Their Web site is at http://www.interpraise.com They have an Interpraise Engagement Letter available, which covers the scope of the assignment.

https://www.appraisalfoundation.org/uspap2000/advisoryopinion2.htm

THE ISSUE:

What constitutes a minimum inspection of the real estate of the subject property under the applicable standards of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP)? Under what conditions is an appraisal without the benefit of an interior and complete exterior inspection permissible?

(snip) Where an interior and complete exterior inspection is not possible for any valid reason, physical characteristics information about the real estate should be obtained from reliable third party sources in the form of photographs, public information from local assessors and other governmental agencies, and private information from multiple listing and other data service firms and files of individuals. The same sources that are utilized to research and verify comparable sales data can be used to obtain information about the subject property. An appraisal developed without the benefit of an interior and complete exterior inspection by the appraiser is subject to the same standards that would apply if the appraiser had made a complete personal inspection. (snip)

Brian J. Davis, SRA

-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth Clark [mailto:clarkappraisal@...]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 7:31 PM
To: Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [TOTAL 2000 Group]

Tom, I received an email with attachments from Interpraise in this same vein. They are looking for appraisers for a new product they have developed (Form 3035) with fees based on a 30 minute completion at $35- $45. The subject for which appraisers are to provide (3) comparables have been inspected by a Field Service Inspector (qualifications ? who knows? ). The inspection and photos are made available to the appraiser online and with this info, the appraiser is to evaluate the subject, pull comps, and complete the form 3035 which calls for an opinion of market value. Supposedly, this form is not for lending purposes, BUT the on the form there is a place to put the Client/Lender. Interpraise says they invoke the "Departure Provision" in order to make it USPAP compliant. It states on the form that is is a Limited Appraisal - Restricted Use Report, Departure Provision Invoked. Any comments?! I thought the "drive-by" appraisal was scary enough, but this is really spooky (I received it on Halloween, do do do do). They (Interpraise) are going to call in a couple of days to discuss any questions or concerns I may have! Liz Clark

This is the "Unofficial WinTOTAL 2000 / Pocket TOTAL 2000 list." This list is not sponsored by a la mode, inc., and in no way represents a la mode's views, opinions, or technical support of its WinTOTAL or Pocket TOTAL products. Post message: Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com Subscribe: Total2000UsersGroup-subscribe@egroups.com Unsubscribe: Total2000UsersGroup-unsubscribe@egroups.com List owner: Total2000UsersGroup-owner@egroups.com Users Group Web Page: http://www.home-appraiser.com/WinTotal TOTAL 2000 EDI Appraiser List - http://www.home-appraiser.com/WinTotal/pdf/EDI%20Appraisers%20List.pdf

#8098 From: "Joseph C. Traynor" <jtraynor@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2000 2:10 pm
Subject: RE: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Interpraise jtraynor@...
Send Email

Liz,

If you will email me a copy of the report, I will give it to a member of the Indiana Appraiser's Licensing and Certification board who I share offices with. We can ask his opinion. Just remember under Indiana law if you give a value and get a fee for it (no matter how small), that is an appraisal and you must comply with USPAP.

Joe Traynor

Traynor & Associates, Inc.

jtraynor@...

-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth Clark [mailto:clarkappraisal@...]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 9:56 AM
To: Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Interpraise

Brian,

According to the email I received, Interpraise is looking for appraisers to do the 3035's. Have you completed any of these?

I guess what concerns me is

1) How reliable are the persons doing the field inspections?

2) I like to drive by my comparables before giving an Opinion of Market Value

3) I think the fees should be higher (quoted $35 to $45) as a good comp search, verification of subject/ comps data, sales analysis to determine market value, and report completion..... sounds like at least a third of the work involved in a typical 1004. Interpraise also requests a daily status on all active orders.

They say the 3035 report is being tested by WElls Fargo, Advanta, Bank United, Litton, and Washington Mutual.

Liz Clark
Clark Appraisal Services
Indianapolis, IN
clarkappraisal@...

----- Original Message -----

From: Brian J. Davis, SRA

To: Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 6:59 PM

Subject: RE: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Interpraise

Liz -

As I understand the Interprise program, it’s a sector of the loan origination business that is NOT currently being serviced by

appraisers. The assignments are/were being completed by Brokers filling out BPOs.

Asset Management
Collateral Analysis
Loan Evaluation

The 3035 is a modified 2055/704 (market grid only) with addenda that clearly spells out the limitations of the assignment. Limited Appraisal – Restricted Use Report. It’s my understanding that there is no requirement under USPAP for an appraiser to inspect the subject property. Property data will be provided with the assignment.   Their 3035 form is filled out over the Internet and a digital signature is kept on file. Only the appraiser has the password to the signature.

These assignments are not “normally” going to appraisers. I tend to view them as “extra” business, rather than a conventional appraisal assignment being downgraded. There’s no inspection required, not photos to take, no forms to print out, no software to buy . . .   If you only have to spend 30-60 minutes in selecting comps and entering the sales data, the fee (on an hourly basis) is fairly attractive.

This is the scenario:

The 3035 assignment e-mail will include a property inspection report, including photos of the subject property.

The appraiser must then:

1) Respond to the e-mail assignment message

2) Review the property inspection report and photos e-mailed to you

3) Gather general market area data

4) Select appropriate comparable sales

5) Complete the 3035 Desktop Appraisal on the Interpraise Internet site

6) Digitally sign the report (password protected)

It’s my understanding that in this model, a third party has inspected the property, providing current photos and data to the appraiser. If the appraiser does NOT feel that the information is “reliable” it would be the appraiser’s responsibility to decline the assignment, as it was ordered, and notify the client of the problems with the data. I suppose they could request a reinspection, upgrade the assignment to include an inspection by the appraiser, or some other alternative.

Their Web site is at http://www.interpraise.com They have an Interpraise Engagement Letter available, which covers the scope of the assignment.

https://www.appraisalfoundation.org/uspap2000/advisoryopinion2.htm

THE ISSUE:

What constitutes a minimum inspection of the real estate of the subject property under the applicable standards of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP)? Under what conditions is an appraisal without the benefit of an interior and complete exterior inspection permissible?

(snip) Where an interior and complete exterior inspection is not possible for any valid reason, physical characteristics information about the real estate should be obtained from reliable third party sources in the form of photographs, public information from local assessors and other governmental agencies, and private information from multiple listing and other data service firms and files of individuals. The same sources that are utilized to research and verify comparable sales data can be used to obtain information about the subject property. An appraisal developed without the benefit of an interior and complete exterior inspection by the appraiser is subject to the same standards that would apply if the appraiser had made a complete personal inspection. (snip)

Brian J. Davis, SRA

-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth Clark [mailto:clarkappraisal@...]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 7:31 PM
To: Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [TOTAL 2000 Group]

Tom, I received an email with attachments from Interpraise in this same vein. They are looking for appraisers for a new product they have developed (Form 3035) with fees based on a 30 minute completion at $35- $45. The subject for which appraisers are to provide (3) comparables have been inspected by a Field Service Inspector (qualifications ? who knows? ). The inspection and photos are made available to the appraiser online and with this info, the appraiser is to evaluate the subject, pull comps, and complete the form 3035 which calls for an opinion of market value. Supposedly, this form is not for lending purposes, BUT the on the form there is a place to put the Client/Lender. Interpraise says they invoke the "Departure Provision" in order to make it USPAP compliant. It states on the form that is is a Limited Appraisal - Restricted Use Report, Departure Provision Invoked. Any comments?! I thought the "drive-by" appraisal was scary enough, but this is really spooky (I received it on Halloween, do do do do). They (Interpraise) are going to call in a couple of days to discuss any questions or concerns I may have! Liz Clark

This is the "Unofficial WinTOTAL 2000 / Pocket TOTAL 2000 list." This list is not sponsored by a la mode, inc., and in no way represents a la mode's views, opinions, or technical support of its WinTOTAL or Pocket TOTAL products. Post message: Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com Subscribe: Total2000UsersGroup-subscribe@egroups.com Unsubscribe: Total2000UsersGroup-unsubscribe@egroups.com List owner: Total2000UsersGroup-owner@egroups.com Users Group Web Page: http://www.home-appraiser.com/WinTotal TOTAL 2000 EDI Appraiser List - http://www.home-appraiser.com/WinTotal/pdf/EDI%20Appraisers%20List.pdf

This is the "Unofficial WinTOTAL 2000 / Pocket TOTAL 2000 list." This list is not sponsored by a la mode, inc., and in no way represents a la mode's views, opinions, or technical support of its WinTOTAL or Pocket TOTAL products. Post message: Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com Subscribe: Total2000UsersGroup-subscribe@egroups.com Unsubscribe: Total2000UsersGroup-unsubscribe@egroups.com List owner: Total2000UsersGroup-owner@egroups.com Users Group Web Page: http://www.home-appraiser.com/WinTotal TOTAL 2000 EDI Appraiser List - http://www.home-appraiser.com/WinTotal/pdf/EDI%20Appraisers%20List.pdf

#8099 From: "Tom Pfeiffer" <tommiep@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2000 2:35 pm
Subject: (No subject) tommiep@...
Send Email

Subject: Interpraise


Brian:

  I respect your opinion on this subject however I do feel that these forms
and situations violate USPAP because you do no have control over your
signature and the overall system makes it too easy for someone to change the
contents of a report before affixing your signature which I believe you have
to give to Interpraise. This appears to be the opposite of the PDF
discussions yesterday to protect our work.Also how can you be sure that the
information provided to you by this so-called information provider is
accurate and not what the end user wants it to be?

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#8100 From: "Brian J. Davis, SRA" <bjdavis@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2000 2:51 pm
Subject: RE: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Interpraise bjdavis@...
Send Email

Brian,

According to the email I received, Interpraise is looking for appraisers to do the 3035's.

That's correct. They found that "Brokers" doing these was not yielding the results that they were looking for.

Have you completed any of these? - No.

I guess what concerns me is

1) How reliable are the persons doing the field inspections? - If you find errors in their data, I'd notify Interprise of the problem. They can then have a new inspection done, order a full appraisal, etc. etc. Bottom line, we can't accept an assignment that we know contains erroneous data.

2) I like to drive by my comparables before giving an Opinion of Market Value . There's nothing preventing you from doing that other than time and profit.

3) I think the fees should be higher (quoted $35 to $45) as a good comp search, verification of subject/ comps data, sales analysis to determine market value, and report completion..... sounds like at least a third of the work involved in a typical 1004. This product is truly "3 Comps on a Grid". As I understand it, the subject data is already filled in, based on the 3rd party property inspection. If you complete the assignment within the "Scope of the Assignment" I think that $40 to $80 per hour is not a bad rate. Remember, that this is ALL done on the Internet. No driving, no photos, no printing, etc. It's basically a CMA with USPAP boilerplate.

Interpraise also requests a daily status on all active orders. Log on, update the file. All Internet.

They say the 3035 report is being tested by WElls Fargo, Advanta, Bank United, Litton, and Washington Mutual.

Liz Clark

Brian J. Davis, SRA

#8101 From: "Brian J. Davis, SRA" <bjdavis@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2000 3:02 pm
Subject: RE: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Interpraise bjdavis@...
Send Email

Joe -

I've attached a pdf of the Interprise form. Sorry for the quality . . scanned pdf of a fax (yuk!)

Maybe some of the USPAP para-legals and find fault . . .it actually looks pretty good to me.

Remember, about this time last year, when I and others were giving Dave Biggers such a hard time about the eDomina.com product that he was proposing? Had he proposed THIS sort of product I'd have been in HIS corner. (3rd party property inspection, proper USPAP certification and limiting conditions, etc.)

Brian J. Davis, SRA

-----Original Message-----
Liz, If you will email me a copy of the report, I will give it to a member of the Indiana Appraiser's Licensing and Certification board who I share offices with. We can ask his opinion. Just remember under Indiana law if you give a value and get a fee for it (no matter how small), that is an appraisal and you must comply with USPAP.

Joe Traynor

Traynor & Associates, Inc.

jtraynor@...

https://www.appraisalfoundation.org/uspap2000/statement8.htm

#8102 From: "Brian J. Davis, SRA" <bjdavis@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2000 3:17 pm
Subject: RE: [TOTAL 2000 Group] bjdavis@...
Send Email

Hi Tom -

It's my understanding that access to the signature is password protected and that password is only available to the appraiser. That password could and should be changed periodically. The total report is completed on-line and signed by the appraiser by using the password protected signature. Interprise does not intervene in that process.

At a minimum I'd pull current public record data to verify the basic information. USPAP provides for the use of 3rd party data. Again, I think that the scope of the assignment and the limiting conditions cover this.

REALLY, think about this from their prospective . . . They're getting an INDEPENDENT inspection of physical data AND then an INDEPENDENT valuation.

They probably feel that this eliminates the appraiser from playing games with BOTH the data and value! Right?

Brian J. Davis, SRA

USPAP requires that . . .

An electronically transmitted report is a written report and must meet USPAP reporting requirements.

Appraisers must take reasonable steps to protect the data integrity of transmitted reports.

Any software program used to transfer a report electronically must provide, at a minimum, a digital signature security feature for all appraisers signing a report.

Electronically affixing a signature to a report carries the same level of authenticity and responsibility as an ink signature on a paper copy report.

The Record Keeping section of the ETHICS RULE applies to all reports and permits storage on electronic, magnetic, or other media. A true electronic and/or paper copy of the transmission must be retained by the appraiser.

Signed Certification

Any software program used to transfer a report electronically must provide, at minimum, a digital signature security feature for all appraisers signing a report. The appraiser(s) should ensure that the signature(s) are protected and that only the appraiser(s) maintain control of the signature. This control may be maintained by passwords (e.g., PIN numbers), hardware devices (e.g., secure cards), or other means. Electronically affixing a signature to a report carries the same level of authenticity and responsibility as an ink signature on a paper copy report.

Signature in a signed certification is defined in the DEFINITIONS section of USPAP as follows:

SIGNATURE: personalized evidence indicating authentication of the work performed by the appraiser and the acceptance of the responsibility for content, analyses, and the conclusions in the report.

Comment: A signature can be represented by a handwritten mark, a digitized image controlled by a personalized identification number, or other media, where the appraiser has sole personalized control of affixing the signature.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Pfeiffer [mailto:tommiep@...]

Subject: Interpraise Brian: I respect your opinion on this subject however I do feel that these forms and situations violate USPAP because you do no have control over your signature and the overall system makes it too easy for someone to change the contents of a report before affixing your signature which I believe you have to give to Interpraise. This appears to be the opposite of the PDF discussions yesterday to protect our work.Also how can you be sure that the information provided to you by this so-called information provider is accurate and not what the end user wants it to be?

Reply | Messages in this Topic (2)

#8103 From: "Elizabeth Clark" <clarkappraisal@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2000 4:39 pm
Subject: Interpraise Web Site clarkappraisal@...
Send Email

Interpraise has a web site at www.interpraise.com which may explain the different uses for their product.

Liz Clark
Clark Appraisal Services
Indianapolis, IN
clarkappraisal@...

#8104 From: "Elizabeth Clark" <clarkappraisal@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2000 4:49 pm
Subject: Re: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Interpraise Web Site clarkappraisal@...
Send Email

After a quick tour of their web site, the inspection provided is "somewhere between a drive-by and a no-contact inspection" with a 4 photo addendum.

Why not just us a 2055 exterior to begin with?

Liz Clark
Clark Appraisal Services
Indianapolis, IN
clarkappraisal@...
www.edomina.com/clarkappraisalservices

----- Original Message -----

From: Elizabeth Clark

To: Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 10:39 AM

Subject: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Interpraise Web Site

Interpraise has a web site at www.interpraise.com which may explain the different uses for their product.

Liz Clark
Clark Appraisal Services
Indianapolis, IN
clarkappraisal@...

This is the "Unofficial WinTOTAL 2000 / Pocket TOTAL 2000 list." This list is not sponsored by a la mode, inc., and in no way represents a la mode's views, opinions, or technical support of its WinTOTAL or Pocket TOTAL products. Post message: Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com Subscribe: Total2000UsersGroup-subscribe@egroups.com Unsubscribe: Total2000UsersGroup-unsubscribe@egroups.com List owner: Total2000UsersGroup-owner@egroups.com Users Group Web Page: http://www.home-appraiser.com/WinTotal TOTAL 2000 EDI Appraiser List - http://www.home-appraiser.com/WinTotal/pdf/EDI%20Appraisers%20List.pdf

#8105 From: "Elizabeth Clark" <clarkappraisal@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2000 4:52 pm
Subject: Inspection provided by Interpraise clarkappraisal@...
Send Email

After a quick tour of their web site, it looks like the inspection is "somewhere between a drive-by and a no-contact inspection" with a 4 photo addendum.

Why not use an exterior only 2055 to begin with?

Liz Clark
Clark Appraisal Services
Indianapolis, IN
clarkappraisal@...

#8106 From: "Brian J. Davis, SRA" <bjdavis@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2000 4:01 pm
Subject: RE: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Interpraise Web Site bjdavis@...
Send Email

-----Original Message-----After a quick tour of their web site, the inspection provided is "somewhere between a drive-by and a no-contact inspection" with a 4 photo addendum. Why not just us a 2055 exterior to begin with?

Liz Clark

Hmmmmmm? COST!? (g)

Seriously (and maybe I'm being naive) but they may want to be keeping the inspection and valuation process separate.

There would be no benefit to the inspector to "fudge" condition, size, quality, etc. since they don't have any say in the valuation side of the process.

Brian J. Davis, SRA

#8107 From: "Matt Krodel" <matt@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2000 4:23 pm
Subject: Re: Distiller vs Writer matt@...
Send Email

I usually let Mike Unser do all the posting, but I thought I would
throw my 2 cents in for this.  We have a tech doc that describes how
to use our PDF Publisher application in conjunction with Distiller to
send secured PDF files in a somewhat more automated fashion.  It's
probably the best use of PDF Publisher in an appraisal office.

Here is the URL:  http://www.alamode.com/tech/pdf/9421.pdf

The setup is a page or so, but once it is configured, there is only
one added step to sending EDI through WinTOTAL.  It may be easier for
those that aren't comfortable with sending attachments in an e-mail
program.  It's fewer steps per report, too, and the only tradeoff is
that receipts aren't an option.  (In Outlook, receipts depend on the
recipient's e-mail program anyway and aren't guaranteed.)

The document also has my special secret Distiller settings that give
a great balance between quality and size for the PDF documents.

Matt Krodel
a la mode, inc.

--- In Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com, "Richard Ferris"
<Richard@h...> wrote:
> Lawrence,
>
> I actually use the PDF Writer printer, yet I changed the driver to
be the
> distiller.  Under you printer setting, go to details.  Under "Print
using
> the following driver:" I chose "AdobePS Acrobat Distiller".
>
> Under "Print to the following port" I have "C:\My Documents\PDF
Files\*.pdf
> (PDF Port)"
>
> If you do not have a PDF port configured, click on "Add Port" and
select the
> Other category on the bottom of the screen.  You should see "PDF
Port"
> there, and then you can tell the print driver where to create the
PDF files
> when printing with this printer.  I have mine in a file folder
called "PDF
> Files" in my "My Documents" folder.
>
> This allows me to print to PDF from Total 2000, and have Acrobat
> automatically open up.  From there, I assign my security settings
and "Save
> as" and then I just go back to "File-Send Mail" and my Outlook
window pops
> up.
>
> This gives me the control to send through Outlook to request read
receipts,
> etc and have a record of when and what I sent to the client.
>
> I hope this helps.  If you need more information, I can email you
privately
> with some screen shots of my printer settings.  By the way, I don't
even
> have the PDF Distiller icon in my printer settings.  I only have
the Writer
> (which I modified).  I also have Acrotray running in the background
in my
> systray.
>
> Richard D Ferris
> Heck Enterprises
> www.heckenterprises.com
>
> 315-336-7582 Office
> 516-908-3856 Fax

#8108 From: "Gary Chase" <chaselws@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2000 5:09 pm
Subject: Re: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Interpraise Web Site chaselws@...
Send Email

Brian,

This bothers me a lot. It seems to really bring home the point that I have complained to others

around here for years. We, as appraisers & appraisal organizations (A.I. for example) seem to

orient towards report writing as the core of our business, not valuation. The shorter the report,

the lower the fee.

The restricted report means to me that we have to maintain in our files all the supporting info

that supports our conclusion. Will you or I have the data & research maintained with each of

these " 3035" reports to support our adjustments & sales selection 5 years down the road?

IF WE DO, HOW CAN WE AFFORD TO PROVIDE ANY REPORT FOR $35 -$45?!

$35 to $45 provides nothing to support the overhead of maintaining the data base, market

research, etc. that we need to stay in business long term.

The lenders are cutting the report format back & back each year to cut the fee. The fee is

being based on report length, not complexity or time required for valuing the property. I

do not know what the answer is, but I am open to suggestions.

I know MAI's & A.I. remind us that the length of report does not indicate the cost of the analysis.

But, the people who make the statements are usually the same ones who double/triple space &

use extra wide margins to make their reports weigh more. Weighty opinions you know. ; )

Gary Chase

chaselws@...

----- Original Message -----

From: Brian J. Davis, SRA

To: Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 8:01 AM

Subject: RE: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Interpraise Web Site

-----Original Message-----After a quick tour of their web site, the inspection provided is "somewhere between a drive-by and a no-contact inspection" with a 4 photo addendum. Why not just us a 2055 exterior to begin with?

Liz Clark

Hmmmmmm? COST!? (g)

Seriously (and maybe I'm being naive) but they may want to be keeping the inspection and valuation process separate.

There would be no benefit to the inspector to "fudge" condition, size, quality, etc. since they don't have any say in the valuation side of the process.

Brian J. Davis, SRA

#8109 From: Randall Brice <rhb@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2000 5:38 pm
Subject: Re: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Interpraise Web Site rhb@...
Send Email

I got this:

The requested object
   (http://www.baylor.edu/~Lariat/Archives/2000/20001027/weekend1.html) does
not exist
   on this server. The link you followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or
the server has been
   instructed not to let you have it.






At 11:09 AM 11/01/2000, you wrote:
>Brian,
>
>This bothers me a lot.  It seems to really bring home the point that I
>have complained to others
>around here for years.  We, as appraisers & appraisal organizations (A.I.
>for example) seem to
>orient towards report writing as the core of our business, not
>valuation.  The shorter the report,
>the lower the fee.
>
>The restricted report means to me that we have to maintain in our files
>all the supporting info
>that supports our conclusion.  Will you or I have the data & research
>maintained with each of
>these " 3035" reports to support our adjustments & sales selection 5 years
>down the road?
>IF WE DO, HOW CAN WE AFFORD TO PROVIDE ANY REPORT FOR $35 -$45?!
>
>$35 to $45 provides nothing to support the overhead of maintaining the
>data base, market
>research, etc. that we need to stay in business long term.
>
>The lenders are cutting the report format back & back each year to cut the
>fee.  The fee is
>being based on report length, not complexity or time required for valuing
>the property.  I
>do not know what the answer is, but I am open to suggestions.
>
>PS
>I know MAI's & A.I. remind us that the length of report does not indicate
>the cost of the analysis.
>But, the people who make the statements are usually the same ones who
>double/triple space &
>use extra wide margins to make their reports weigh more.  Weighty opinions
>you know.  ; )
>
>Gary Chase
><mailto:chaselws@...>chaselws@...
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:bjdavis@...>Brian J. Davis, SRA
>To: <mailto:Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com>Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com
>Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 8:01 AM
>Subject: RE: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Interpraise Web Site
>
>-----Original Message-----After a quick tour of their web site, the
>inspection provided is "somewhere between a drive-by and a no-contact
>inspection" with a 4 photo addendum.   Why not just us a 2055 exterior to
>begin with?
>Liz Clark
>
>Hmmmmmm?   COST!?  (g)
>
>Seriously (and maybe I'm being naive) but they may want to be keeping the
>inspection and valuation process separate.
>
>There would be no benefit to the inspector to "fudge" condition, size,
>quality, etc. since they don't have any say in the valuation side of the
>process.
>
>Brian J. Davis, SRA
>
>
>eGroups Sponsor
>
>This is the "Unofficial WinTOTAL 2000  / Pocket TOTAL 2000 list." This
>list is not sponsored by a la mode, inc.,  and in no way represents a
>la  mode's views, opinions,  or technical support of its WinTOTAL or
>Pocket TOTAL products.
>
>Post message: Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com
>Subscribe:  Total2000UsersGroup-subscribe@egroups.com
>Unsubscribe:  Total2000UsersGroup-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>List owner:  Total2000UsersGroup-owner@egroups.com
>
>Users Group Web Page:
><http://www.home-appraiser.com/WinTotal>http://www.home-appraiser.com/WinTotal
>
>TOTAL 2000 EDI Appraiser List -
><http://www.home-appraiser.com/WinTotal/pdf/EDI%20Appraisers%20List.pdf>http://\
www.home-appraiser.com/WinTotal/pdf/EDI%20Appraisers%20List.pdf
>
>

#8110 From: "Elizabeth Clark" <clarkappraisal@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2000 6:47 pm
Subject: Re: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Interpraise Web Site clarkappraisal@...
Send Email

Randall,

www.interpraise.com


Liz Clark
Clark Appraisal Services
Indianapolis, IN
clarkappraisal@...

----- Original Message -----
From: "Randall Brice" <rhb@...>
To: <Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Interpraise Web Site


> I got this:
>
> The requested object
>   (http://www.baylor.edu/~Lariat/Archives/2000/20001027/weekend1.html)
does
> not exist
>   on this server. The link you followed is either outdated, inaccurate, or
> the server has been
>   instructed not to let you have it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 11:09 AM 11/01/2000, you wrote:
> >Brian,
> >
> >This bothers me a lot.  It seems to really bring home the point that I
> >have complained to others
> >around here for years.  We, as appraisers & appraisal organizations (A.I.
> >for example) seem to
> >orient towards report writing as the core of our business, not
> >valuation.  The shorter the report,
> >the lower the fee.
> >
> >The restricted report means to me that we have to maintain in our files
> >all the supporting info
> >that supports our conclusion.  Will you or I have the data & research
> >maintained with each of
> >these " 3035" reports to support our adjustments & sales selection 5
years
> >down the road?
> >IF WE DO, HOW CAN WE AFFORD TO PROVIDE ANY REPORT FOR $35 -$45?!
> >
> >$35 to $45 provides nothing to support the overhead of maintaining the
> >data base, market
> >research, etc. that we need to stay in business long term.
> >
> >The lenders are cutting the report format back & back each year to cut
the
> >fee.  The fee is
> >being based on report length, not complexity or time required for valuing
> >the property.  I
> >do not know what the answer is, but I am open to suggestions.
> >
> >PS
> >I know MAI's & A.I. remind us that the length of report does not indicate
> >the cost of the analysis.
> >But, the people who make the statements are usually the same ones who
> >double/triple space &
> >use extra wide margins to make their reports weigh more.  Weighty
opinions
> >you know.  ; )
> >
> >Gary Chase
> ><mailto:chaselws@...>chaselws@...
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <mailto:bjdavis@...>Brian J. Davis, SRA
> >To:
<mailto:Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com>Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com
> >Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 8:01 AM
> >Subject: RE: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Interpraise Web Site
> >
> >-----Original Message-----After a quick tour of their web site, the
> >inspection provided is "somewhere between a drive-by and a no-contact
> >inspection" with a 4 photo addendum.   Why not just us a 2055 exterior to
> >begin with?
> >Liz Clark
> >
> >Hmmmmmm?   COST!?  (g)
> >
> >Seriously (and maybe I'm being naive) but they may want to be keeping the
> >inspection and valuation process separate.
> >
> >There would be no benefit to the inspector to "fudge" condition, size,
> >quality, etc. since they don't have any say in the valuation side of the
> >process.
> >
> >Brian J. Davis, SRA
> >
> >
> >eGroups Sponsor
> >
> >This is the "Unofficial WinTOTAL 2000  / Pocket TOTAL 2000 list." This
> >list is not sponsored by a la mode, inc.,  and in no way represents a
> >la  mode's views, opinions,  or technical support of its WinTOTAL or
> >Pocket TOTAL products.
> >
> >Post message: Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com
> >Subscribe:  Total2000UsersGroup-subscribe@egroups.com
> >Unsubscribe:  Total2000UsersGroup-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> >List owner:  Total2000UsersGroup-owner@egroups.com
> >
> >Users Group Web Page:
>
><http://www.home-appraiser.com/WinTotal>http://www.home-appraiser.com/WinTo
tal
> >
> >TOTAL 2000 EDI Appraiser List -
>
><http://www.home-appraiser.com/WinTotal/pdf/EDI%20Appraisers%20List.pdf>htt
p://www.home-appraiser.com/WinTotal/pdf/EDI%20Appraisers%20List.pdf
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> This is the "Unofficial WinTOTAL 2000  / Pocket TOTAL 2000 list." This
list is not sponsored by a la mode, inc.,  and in no way represents a la
mode's views, opinions,  or technical support of its WinTOTAL or Pocket
TOTAL products.
>
> Post message: Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com
> Subscribe:  Total2000UsersGroup-subscribe@egroups.com
> Unsubscribe:  Total2000UsersGroup-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> List owner:  Total2000UsersGroup-owner@egroups.com
>
> Users Group Web Page: http://www.home-appraiser.com/WinTotal
>
> TOTAL 2000 EDI Appraiser List -
http://www.home-appraiser.com/WinTotal/pdf/EDI%20Appraisers%20List.pdf
>
>
>
>

#8111 From: "Brendan McLaughlin" <maddog@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2000 6:09 pm
Subject: RE: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Interpraise Web Site maddog@...
Send Email

----Original Message-----
From: Gary Chase [mailto:chaselws@...]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 1:10 PM
To: Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com
Subject: Re: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Interpraise Web Site

The restricted report means to me that we have to maintain in our files all the supporting info

that supports our conclusion. Will you or I have the data & research maintained with each of

these " 3035" reports to support our adjustments & sales selection 5 years down the road?

IF WE DO, HOW CAN WE AFFORD TO PROVIDE ANY REPORT FOR $35 -$45?!

$35 to $45 provides nothing to support the overhead of maintaining the data base, market

research, etc. that we need to stay in business long term.

I looked at the form Brian uploaded, and even though it is simpler than the BPO and the 2055, I don't see how you could competently complete it without at least a drive-by. I don't do any kind of inspection for less than $75.

When BPO's first started coming to our area none of the brokers would do them because they weren't willing to do the work for $50-$75. A large part of this was because the forms had to be hand written because brokers didn't have appraisal software. And the few that did them over inflatedd the value in hopes of getting the listing. The companies that wanted these done had to turn to appraisers. I started doing them, but for the same fee I charge for URARs. The companies bithced, but they paid

I also had an issue where a bank ordered a condo appraisal on a foreclosure when they were supposed to order a BPO per Fannie Mae's instructions. Fannie Mae found a broker to do it and came in with a value $30,000 over FMV and what the property sold for at auction. Fannie Mae was going to force the bank to make up the difference, but because my information was more accurate and detailed they were able to discredit the broker.

When the banks wanted to start using the 2055 forms most of the appraisers in my area refused to do them. I took the work but not for the $125 that they wanted to pay. I charged a little less than I do for a URAR.

So... would I start doing 3035s? Yes, but not at that fee. We get paid for our time and there is only so much time in one day. Don't give yourselves a pay cut just because its what the big guys want. If appraisal fees are too high for the customer, then maybe banks should cover the costs since we are the ones covering their asses!

http://www.home-appraiser.com

#8112 From: "Brian J. Davis, SRA" <bjdavis@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2000 6:20 pm
Subject: RE: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Interpraise Web Site bjdavis@...
Send Email

Gary -

I know that this type of valuation assignment (Interprise) isn't going to be for everyone.

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate. I've never done one of these and I'm not necessarily promoting it.

You mention ". . . the shorter the report the lower the fee." I usually tell folks that it's "The higher the form number, the lower the fee" <G>

First and foremost we have to be business people. That means making a profit at whatever we do. Jokingly, I've characterized myself as the the StartTrek "The Next Generation" character . . The Ferengi. They're the big eared trolls that MUST see profit in EVERYTHING or they can't understand it's purpose.

If you can't adequately complete the assignment and create a work file in 30 - 60 minutes then I wouldn't take this sort of work. It's my understanding that you must let them know if you accept the assignment and fee. If it looks like it's more work, ask for more money.

A while back there were some posts on how long it takes to complete a URAR. For arguments sake lets say it's 4 hours and the fee is $300.00. That's $75.00 an hour. Maybe a bit less if you include travel expense to see the subject and photo the comps. Say $70.00.

On the other hand if you could do one of these in half an hour (analysis only), your hourly rate would still be $70.00-$80.00.

If we can support our business at the URAR rate, why shouldn't we be able to support it at the 3035 rate?

With CompsXchange and maybe a good (improved) comps selection utility, we ought to be able to grid out all of the sales in a neighborhood (geocoded) in a matter of seconds!

Besides my residential practice, I'm a commercial appraiser for the City of Bloomington. Can I come up with the same value on a warehouse in a couple of hours that would take a fee appraiser a week? Sure. Why? Cause I don't have to spend days writing blah, blah, blah about stuff that we all know. We both spend a similar amount of time on analysis, the difference is in the scope of the assignment and report requirements.

Brian J. Davis, SRA

-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Chase [mailto:chaselws@...]

Brian,

This bothers me a lot. It seems to really bring home the point that I have complained to others

around here for years. We, as appraisers & appraisal organizations (A.I. for example) seem to

orient towards report writing as the core of our business, not valuation. The shorter the report,

the lower the fee.

The restricted report means to me that we have to maintain in our files all the supporting info

that supports our conclusion. Will you or I have the data & research maintained with each of

these " 3035" reports to support our adjustments & sales selection 5 years down the road?

IF WE DO, HOW CAN WE AFFORD TO PROVIDE ANY REPORT FOR $35 -$45?!

$35 to $45 provides nothing to support the overhead of maintaining the data base, market

research, etc. that we need to stay in business long term.

The lenders are cutting the report format back & back each year to cut the fee. The fee is

being based on report length, not complexity or time required for valuing the property. I

do not know what the answer is, but I am open to suggestions.

I know MAI's & A.I. remind us that the length of report does not indicate the cost of the analysis.

But, the people who make the statements are usually the same ones who double/triple space &

use extra wide margins to make their reports weigh more. Weighty opinions you know. ; )

Gary Chase

chaselws@...

#8113 From: "Browne Appraisal, Inc." <appraise@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2000 6:22 pm
Subject: Re: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Re: Distiller vs Writer appraise@...
Send Email

Matt.

Glad to see the info regarding distiller vs. writer. However, here's an
observation.

I have gone in and configured from writer to distiller per the tech
document. However in my case, I had just printed a report to PDF via writer
and the size was 1118K. The same report printed after configuring my system
to the tech document INCREASED the report size to 1736K.

What's going on ? I thought we were looking at smaller file sizes ?

Also, if I print out a hardcopy of the photos, there are lines running
horizontally through the picture page ?

Thanks.



Matt Krodel previously discussed:
>I usually let Mike Unser do all the posting, but I thought I would
>throw my 2 cents in for this.  We have a tech doc that describes how
>to use our PDF Publisher application in conjunction with Distiller to
>send secured PDF files in a somewhat more automated fashion.  It's

#8114 From: "Matt Krodel" <matt@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2000 8:38 pm
Subject: Re: Distiller vs Writer matt@...
Send Email

I forgot to mention the quality and size comparison depends on what
your settings in PDFWriter were.  By default, PDFWriter has
relatively low quality @ "screen" resolution and heavy JPG
compression on images.   The printouts are "ok", but there is
noticable degradation from what you would get from WinTOTAL.

It's likely that the settings I have for Distiller could create a
larger file than the defaults for PDFWriter since they should be
higher quality.  (They looked better on my test system.)  You can
experiment with compression settings in the Distiller setup and find
a file size/quality tradeoff that works best for you.

Without knowing your printer model and settings, I couldn't comment
on the lines in the printout.  Feel free to contact me personally and
we can find some sort of cause.

Matt

--- In Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com, "Browne Appraisal, Inc."
<appraise@i...> wrote:
> Matt.
>
> Glad to see the info regarding distiller vs. writer. However,
here's an
> observation.
>
> I have gone in and configured from writer to distiller per the tech
> document. However in my case, I had just printed a report to PDF
via writer
> and the size was 1118K. The same report printed after configuring
my system
> to the tech document INCREASED the report size to 1736K.
>
> What's going on ? I thought we were looking at smaller file sizes ?
>
> Also, if I print out a hardcopy of the photos, there are lines
running
> horizontally through the picture page ?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> Matt Krodel previously discussed:
> >I usually let Mike Unser do all the posting, but I thought I would
> >throw my 2 cents in for this.  We have a tech doc that describes
how
> >to use our PDF Publisher application in conjunction with Distiller
to
> >send secured PDF files in a somewhat more automated fashion.  It's

#8115 From: "Brendan McLaughlin" <maddog@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2000 9:15 pm
Subject: NAR Convention & a la mode maddog@...
Send Email

Is a la mode planning on attending the NAR convention at the trade expo? I
they were there last year and I was able to get a lot of good info... even
bought stuff!

Are any appraisers on this digest attending? I'll be at the NAR appraisal
meetings on Friday.

Brendan

#8116 From: "Ken Verrett" <kverrett@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2000 10:19 pm
Subject: 3055s, a.k.a. desktops kverrett@...
Send Email

Brian, that 3055 form you sent to us as a PDF looked like the form I tested with a California AMC two years ago. A desktop product that was similar to a 2065. The company was US Appraiser Network or something similar and they were testing for a national bank who I did work for. It was limited/restricted and had plenty of disclaimers, and they added a few more at my suggestion. I did a couple of hundred over a 3 month period. I only did them in subdivisions that I was personally familiar with. Fee arrangements were similar to what I read here. I think I told you about that product privately.

I thought the product had potential, and I felt with tweaking it would be pretty profitable. I talked to alamode at the time about incorporating the form into their software (it was internet based or email based as I recall) but they were working on a new release of Total and couldn't make room for the project if my memory is correct. I also was looking into software that would take the data from the mls search and populate the comp grid...anything to make the process more efficient. I did some that did not arrive at a value, some that suggested a range, and some that arrived at a point value. My preference was for the first two options.

The product makes sense to me, even more so today. I did time studies on the clerical and appraiser time it took to do them, and it had to potential to meet my revenue per hour requirements. The product also generated a certain percentage of upgrades to 2055's and 1004's, depending on the overall credit analysis of the loan.

Contrast that with what is happening in my market today. I still do work for that national bank, a lot of it. Almost 80% 2055's, the rest 1004's. The fees are above average for this market from what I can tell, and my time studies that I am conducting right now tell me that it is very profitable business, especially with the improvements in efficiency that Olympus has provided; digital maps and PDF for instance were not available two years ago.

HOWEVER, I'll bet I'm missing the opportunity to do a desktop on 5 times the current assignments I'm doing. Here's what is happening. Banker gets a home equity loan request (new product in this state as of 2-3 years ago). Banker orders a Metroscan AVM on the property. If the value comes in above the threshold level, they do the loan and I never get a call. If it is below that threshold, they order a 2055 without interior inspection. If for some reason they need more comfort, the bank orders a 1004 with interior inspection. I estimate that with this banks customer base, 80 percent never need more than the AVM.

If the 3055 product were available for this bank client, I might be the one getting the desktop request instead of Metroscan, and my values and ranges would probably out perform the AVM, as long as I continue to stick to only those subdivisions that I am familiar with and visit at least a couple of times a year. From what little I read, bankers are coming to that conclusion now, and that's why the 3055 product was born.

Now I would never do a desktop for an individual. But a sophisticated bank doing volume lending with a credit scoring system is a different story. I know and they know the desktop ain't as accurate as a 2055 with interior inspection, and the disclaimers state that. But they don't need that level of assurance, they just need to be in the ballpark.

A triage system has been installed in the lender industry. The first cut AVM at $5-15 is stage one. A desktop like the 3055 at $35-50 is stage two. A 2055 is stage three. And eventually the 2055's and 1004's will be done at a premium price (like I am doing now) because the property didn't meet the early thresholds, and the credit scoring system is telling the banker/underwriter that the value of the real estate has become more important in the loan decision for this particular case.

As I see the business, if I can put together a range of products that meets the triage need, and deliver each of them at a profit, I just might stay in business.

Now I don't really expect to be able to convince a national lender to do it my way. But on the other hand, if the good folks at alamode would add a 3055 type product and an AVM to the product line (the AVM being one that each of us could use and apply to subdivisions in our markets), and if they would expand their software to allow populating the various grids from the major MLS databases and from the comps data base for those in smaller markets, we would have a nice set of competitive arrows to add to our individual quivers.

AND THEN, if the alamode users and alamode could approach the national lenders with a functioning eDomina portal, the national coverage that we represent, and that product mix....we might be able to get back in the ball game with eDomina being the center of the business.

Just a thought....

Ken Verrett

kverrett@...

Acorn Appraisal Associates

P.O. Box 795

Cypress, TX 77410

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian J. Davis, SRA [mailto:bjdavis@...]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 10:02 AM
To: Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com
Subject: RE: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Interpraise Web Site

Liz Clark

Hmmmmmm? COST!? (g)

Seriously (and maybe I'm being naive) but they may want to be keeping the inspection and valuation process separate.

There would be no benefit to the inspector to "fudge" condition, size, quality, etc. since they don't have any say in the valuation side of the process.

Brian J. Davis, SRA

This is the "Unofficial WinTOTAL 2000 / Pocket TOTAL 2000 list." This list is not sponsored by a la mode, inc., and in no way represents a la mode's views, opinions, or technical support of its WinTOTAL or Pocket TOTAL products. Post message: Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com Subscribe: Total2000UsersGroup-subscribe@egroups.com Unsubscribe: Total2000UsersGroup-unsubscribe@egroups.com List owner: Total2000UsersGroup-owner@egroups.com Users Group Web Page: http://www.home-appraiser.com/WinTotal TOTAL 2000 EDI Appraiser List - http://www.home-appraiser.com/WinTotal/pdf/EDI%20Appraisers%20List.pdf

#8117 From: "Brian J. Davis, SRA" <bjdavis@...>
Date: Wed Nov 1, 2000 11:14 pm
Subject: RE: [TOTAL 2000 Group] 3055s, a.k.a. desktops bjdavis@...
Send Email

Ken -

DITTOS! EXCELLENT POST!

Brian J. Davis, SRA

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Verrett [mailto:kverrett@...]
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 4:20 PM
To: Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com
Subject: [TOTAL 2000 Group] 3055s, a.k.a. desktops

As I see the business, if I can put together a range of products that meets the triage need, and deliver each of them at a profit, I just might stay in business.

Just a thought....

Ken Verrett

kverrett@...

Acorn Appraisal Associates

P.O. Box 795

Cypress, TX 77410

#8118 From: "Daniel E. Feasel" <defeasel@...>
Date: Thu Nov 2, 2000 2:06 am
Subject: Storm clouds defeasel@...
Send Email

Although some of you may have already seen this in Ann O'Rourke's Appraisal
Today, I thought the rest of the group would want to as well since it seems
that Freddie Mac is going to forgo appraisals under certain conditions.

Quote: "Freddie Mac anticipates that three out of five purchase money
mortgages with downpayments of 20 percent or more will qualify for the
enhancement."

News release here:
http://www.freddiemac.com/news/archives2000/lpcollateral.htm

#8119 From: "Ken Verrett" <kverrett@...>
Date: Thu Nov 2, 2000 1:36 am
Subject: RE: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Interpraise Web Site kverrett@...
Send Email

Gary, I feel your pain. Frustration too.

I'm sure you already thought through this, but it's not the fee. It's the revenue per hour. And if those little desktops can be done at a revenue rate per hour that is profitable, then I'll do them, and do them gladly. There is a HUGE cost difference in my business if I never have to leave the office. When I ran that test a couple of years ago using a similar report to this 3055, I wasn't losing money. It wasn't my most profitable product, but it met the minimum requirement. And with tweaking, it could be pretty profitable.

I look at each of these new products as an opportunity. I try to design my business approach to achieve a greater increase in efficiency than the percentage decrease in the fee per assignment. In other words, I try to take each new product and make better margins than I made off the product it replaced. Doesn't always work. And if I can't make a profit with the product, I withdraw from the market until things change. That strategy worked with commercial summary reports and then with commercial limited appraisals and restricted reports. It worked with 2055's. It didn't work with Commercial Complete Appraisals with Self Contained Reports. I withdrew from that market a several years ago, and am currently looking at it to see if I could return now. It doesn't look promising.

But boy, it's really worked with 2055's! I'm in the process of doing time studies on 2055's and 1004's in my market for the purpose of deciding what business I will be in next year. I've built a little model to measure the revenue per hour sensitivity to changes in the fee structure, and the revenue per hour is calculated based on the results of the time studies I am doing. The model calculates these numbers as each time study assignment is added. So it changes each week.

The little grid that follows is copied from the current 2055 portion of that study, with the first line being the revenue per hour that I earned on the assignments included in the study and the following rows being the impact if the fee had been at different rates. (I am in a market that is full of appraisers...check out the eDominia list of appraisers in Harris County Texas...and I foresee that to get more business next year, I may have to lower my fees.) The data is preliminary, but darn promising!

My target revenue per hour has been $100. I changed my business significantly at the beginning of this year, and my cost structure is different. Hopefully lower. I'm just at the point of accumulating enough data to determine what efficiencies I've achieved, and once I determine that cost structure, I'll know if my target revenue per hour can be lowered. But what my time studies have shown me so far is that I could lower 2055 drive bys fees significantly and still achieve my current revenue per hour target.

What that little grid also shows me is that I have increased productivity significantly in the last year, partly due to changes in my business made early in the year, but mainly because of the productivity enhancements alamode has given me in the improvements to Olympus. And I didn't realize how much until I started looking at the results. It also tells me that I have significant leeway to lower my fees if necessary and still achieve my profit requirements. That's encouraging.

The desktop product offers significant efficiencies, much more than are possible with the 2055. I think that the 3055 desk top type product could possibly be designed in my business to achieve a pretty good revenue per hour, given sufficient volume. It might do the same in your business.

I'm starting to look at the entire appraisal market with this kind of analysis to determine how I should react to changes product by product. Some things I may continue to do, some new products I might adopt, and some I will just drop, or at least withdraw until the market returns to a level I can compete in profitably.

Sounds like you are doing the same thing. And that is why I keep encouraging the alamode staff to continue to make their product more efficient. They help keep me in business so that I can help keep them in business.

And imagine what we could do if alamode added an AVM and desktop product to Olympus for our use and we then approached national lenders with our national list of Olympus users, the eDominia web portal, and a product line that helped lenders make more efficient loan decisions.

It just might keep me in business.

	Acorn revenue/hour		Clerical cost		Appraiser billing/hr

		$137.38		$9.93		$189.06
IF Fee Was
275		$123.36		$9.93		$169.12
250		$112.15		$9.93		$153.17
225		$100.93		$9.93		$137.22
200		$89.72		$9.93		$121.27
175		$78.50		$9.93		$105.32

Ken Verrett

kverrett@...

Acorn Appraisal Associates

P.O. Box 795

Cypress, TX 77410

#8120 From: LOU MUNOZ <LMunz1@...>
Date: Thu Nov 2, 2000 2:16 am
Subject: RE: PDF & Security LMunz1@...
Send Email

This was on Ann O'Rourke's e-mailing.   Some may already be familiar
w/the process.  Others may have opted for the tech doc from Alamode,
cited by Matt Krodel.  And of course, many may have done something even
more refined and straight forward.  Whatever.  Hope this helps and gives
others a quick 'how to.'   I don't know, but sometime I will try this
myself.


>>>>>>>>>>>>> ADOBE PDF SECURITY <<<<<<<<<<<<<
Here's how to secure your PDF appraisals from tampering:
- Process your appraisal using Acrobat Distiller
- Click on File, Save As
- At the bottom left of the screen will be a Security pull down menu
- Select Standard
- Then choose your Security options - "Don't allow Changing the
Document"
is probably best for appraisals
- You can also set up a password.

http://www.alamode.com/beta/athena/Newer_PhotosManagement.GIF

#8121 From: Mike Unser <mikeu@...>
Date: Thu Nov 2, 2000 2:45 am
Subject: Another photo management view for Athena mikeu@...
Send Email

I'd like to get everyone's thoughts on another photo management screenshot. It may or may not be something you think is easier to use. For reference, I've pasted my original message. That way you can compare yesterday's screenshot to today's. Here's the link to the newer look:

It's important to note that your comments now will affect the final look and feel of Athena. For those of you that took the time to comment on the screenshot from yesterday, thanks for the help!

Mike Unser

Product Manager

a la mode, inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Unser [mailto:mikeu@...]
Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 7:51 PM
To: 'Total2000UsersGroup@egroups.com'
Subject: [TOTAL 2000 Group] Athena's replacement to the Photos PowerTab

Here's a low resolution screenshot of the direction we're headed for the replacement of the current Photos PowerTab

http://www.alamode.com/beta/athena/PhotosManagement.GIF

This is by no means the final look (unless you all love it). Like other times, I don't want to lead you to any direction by commenting on the changes. I'll do that after some of you have responded or posed questions.

As always, you're feedback is greatly appreciated!

Thanks,

Mike Unser
Product Manager
a la mode, inc.