The Appraiser Shortage Myth Part 43

[J Grant]

Please note neither Mich CG or TMD is responding directly to the examples . Clearly, the examples show the price is not fixed, that the only "fixed" portion of the price is the cap percent , the total price can be anything the AMC wants to charge lender and lender is free to pay it.

Mich CG and TMD just repeating snark about absurd, no logic etc show they fail to address, or fail or comprehend the specific $ amount breakdown examples I put forth ,

 

[J Grant]

That is just a priceless comment coming from you, lol.

Funny, but another evasion on your part. You refuse to answer me addressing the specific dollar amount price examples I Set forth in the posts.

 

[J Grant]

Once again, the examples: Price is for AMC management service

A price AMC charges the lender,: $200. Lender pays AMC $200. ( $100 of the $200 came from the fee split cap %) Since the lender paid to AMC the $200 price AMC wanted how is that price fixing?

A price AMC charges the lender: $300 Lender pays the AMC $300. ( $100 of the $300 came from the fee split cap %) Since the lender paid to AMC the $300 price AMC wanted, how is that price fixing? (Fill in any different amounts for price you want, it works the same.)

 

[DWiley]

Funny, but another evasion on your part. You refuse to answer me addressing the specific dollar amount price examples I Set forth in the posts.

Well, if you want to go down this road, would you also support capping the actual appraiser fee that a lender could pay to a percentage of the fee collected by the lender as well? I mean you could still charge whatever you wanted, right?

 

[J Grant]

Well, if you want to go down this road, would you also support capping the actual appraiser fee that a lender could pay to a percentage of the fee collected by the lender as well? I mean you could still charge whatever you wanted, right?

If there is a cap on % appraiser can charge from the total borrower paid, but the total appraisal fee the appraiser can charge can go as addition $ from the lender, it would work the same.

However, the abuse is on the AMC side as % paid out to them relative to the service they provide to the primary appraisal, for the blended fee that borrower pays.

 

[Deleted member 130081]

LOL.

 

[timd354]

Well, if you want to go down this road, would you also support capping the actual appraiser fee that a lender could pay to a percentage of the fee collected by the lender as well? I mean you could still charge whatever you wanted, right?

Yes, let's just start capping this fee and that fee, whether we do it as a dollar amount or cap it as a percentage of something because once we start down that road, nobody will want to cap appraiser fees, right?

I bet that not a lot of appraisers are aware that there was a serious attempt by some members of the Oregon legislature to pass a bill tthat would have capped appraisal fees in that state (the bill was drafted and sponsored by a group of legislators with ties to the realtors). Fortunately for Oregon appraisers, this bill was beaten back and did not pass...however, once appraisers start advocating for caps on the AMC fees chargeable to the borrower or other things(whether that cap is a fixed dollar amount or is poorly disguised as a percentage), then appraisers lose all credibility when it comes to arguing that their fees should not also be capped.

 

[J Grant]

Years ago there used to be on the HUD statement, verbiage relating to blended fees , to prevent over charging for what was called secondary services in a blended fee, about a reasonable percent proportionate paid out for secondary service ( such as processing or management ) vs the primary service (such as title work or appraisal). That language is no longer present in the HUD statement far as I know

The fact that an appraisal is part of a blended fee on the HUD is the root of the problem.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

LOL.

Laugh out Loud or Lots of Luck?... both?

 

[J Grant]

Yes, let's just start capping this fee and that fee, whether we do it as a dollar amount or cap it as a percentage of something because once we start down that road, nobody will want to cap appraiser fees, right?

I bet that not a lot of appraisers are aware that there was a serious attempt by some members of the Oregon legislature to pass a bill tthat would have capped appraisal fees in that state (the bill was drafted and sponsored by a group of legislators with ties to the realtors). Fortunately for Oregon appraisers, this bill was beaten back and did not pass...however, once appraisers start advocating for caps on the AMC fees chargeable to the borrower (whether that cap is a fixed dollar amount or is poorly disguised as a percentage), then appraisers lose all credibility when it comes to arguing that their fees should not be capped.

What I wrote is not capping of a total fee, or price, it is capping of a percent of the borrower paid amount that goes toward the fee. And what I wrote about has its roots in the old HUD statement about proportionate fee relative in worth of the secondary service ( management or processing ) to the primary service ( such as appraisal or title ) to the total in a blended fee.

Though I put it forth as one option, there are lots of options, (I'd like to see elimination of the blended fee on the HUD- fee for appraisal, fee for processing or management if AMC is used.