New Design (Style) and Garage Data Field Requirements from the GSEs
As appraisers, we were trained to be the “eyes and ears” of the client. We were also trained to compose our appraisal reports in a manner that communicated to the client in a clear and concise manner. Overtime, we fine-tuned those communication skills and took pride in the appearance of our reports, both content-wise and cosmetically. We recognized that the objective was to compose an informative as well as easy-to-read report with no typos, misspelled words or improper grammar. Well, so much for days gone by, at least in the world of reports written to comply with the Uniform Appraisal Dataset (UAD).
Measurement and Management
When Fannie and Freddie instituted the UAD in the Fall of 2011, one of their stated objectives was “to improve the quality and consistency of appraisal data for loans delivered to the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs)…” If you look at this statement from another angle, it fits well with the old management axiom that says “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.” In other words, consistency of appraisal data allows the GSEs to “measure” the data and ultimately, “manage” the quality of the data and risk of the collateral. Because of the volume of reports that are sent through the Uniform Collateral Data Portal (UCDP) measuring the data must be done by an automated system of computers, not only by human eyes.
Why Do My UAD Reports Look So Ugly?
The “old-school” training many of us received makes us want to compose reports that are easy for our clients to understand, but that’s unimportant to the UCDP automated system that was developed to “read” our reports. So the GSEs would rather a report state, “2ga2dw” as opposed to “Two car attached garage with two parking spaces in the driveway.” Essentially, the GSEs don’t think in terms of forms and reports anymore, they think in terms of data, and if the data is presented as 2ga2dw it’s easier for their automated system to “read,” to “measure,” and to “manage” the risk.
New codes in the Sales Comparison Approach for Design (Style) and Car Storage
In keeping with their goal of data consistency, the GSEs have standardized the data input for two lines on the sales comparison grid. The Design (Style) and Car Storage lines (both Subject and Comparables) will now be limited to choices that will appear on the pick lists in your ACI software. The cryptic abbreviations that result will make reports more difficult to read by human eyes, but much easier for the UCDP to “measure” and “manage” the data and risk.
Starting January 2, 2014, these new UAD requirements to these two data fields in the Sales Comparison Approach will take affect: Design (Style) and Car Storage. In our next blogs we’ll discuss the additional data field entries for each of these data fields to prepare you for the upcoming revisions in your ACI forms software. To get ready and to improve your understanding of these revisions we recommend downloading your own updated Appendix D: Field-Specific Standardization Requirements – Version 1.6, effective November 22, 2013 and review the specific changes to the two data fields in the Sales Comparison Approach grid: Design (Style) and Car Storage.