The Appraiser Shortage Myth Part 43

[Deleted member 130081]

And just when this might get good, I gotta get some work done. I'll be wondering about the responses all day. Cant wait to read them, or note a lack of response.

 

[hastalavista]

Do any of the appraisers you spoke with who make the AMC fees work for them have trainees?

There was one trainee at a residential symposium (different event) I chaired about a month ago and another two appraisers who had a trainee; I cannot say for sure, but I believe the two appraisers that had a trainee did take work from AMCs.

I'm giving another residential CE class next month in the North Bay (SF area). I expect about 30-40 attendees. If I can remember, I will ask how many have trainees and if they are able to use the trainees for AMC work; that is a neutral way to ask the question.

 

[J Grant]

Finally, something I can agree with you on; with an emphasis (that you may or may not agree with)....
I don't work for AMCs because I charge a higher fee and require a longer turn-time than most are willing to accept. I'll assume that you (and many others on this thread) feel the same way and are in the same boat.
But I'm not going to stop anyone else from quoting a fee they think is sufficient for their business model and accept a turn-time that is much faster than I am willing to do if (a) it works for that appraiser and (b) it meets the minimum standards. If they are quoting an unsustainable fee, they'll have to change or go out of business. If they are producing substandard work, they'll eventually get removed or find out that it costs more to correct the mistakes at the low fee than it would to quote a longer turn time, complete fewer jobs, but get them right the first time.
I was at a local appraisal meeting a few weeks ago. About 45-appraisers (I might have been the only commercial appraiser in the room). Many of them work for AMCs and are succesful. Many of them work for a fee that is less than I'm willing to take. Why shouldn't they be able to price their service and quote their workflow as they see fit (just as I am able to do)?
m.

My view is the segment of appraisal woprk for lenders in using FHA, FAnnie, Freddie, aka tax payer backed , is not a normalbusiness due to public trust issues, and treating it as a normal business can have severe consequences for the eocnmy and housing markets ( the crash after the boom, volatility and bubbles )

The third party firewall of HVCC was supposed to be the correction , instead turned into a disaster with third party for profit AMC's having a conflict of interest due to the way they make their money off fee splits around appraiser selection. As reason to "stop " someone from running their business model by charging less, or delivering faster, etc above, what does that mean to the public trust- are more competent, experienced appraisers shut out from access to borrower orders from this model? Is taking on volume and pumping out fast food style serving the public trust? Did competing by offering comp checks and pushed values in the mtge broker days help the pubic trust? And I have zero proof, how can I , but common sense tells me that for a certain segment of those working for AMC's , pushing value to make a deal work is also in the mix, because the AMC likes to keep their lender client happy, and how can an appraiser pumping out volume keep stopping to address a pesky ROV-

If the appraiser is producing substandard work and eventually will get removed- why should it be allowed at all on the tax payer funded side? AMC profit interests are diametrically opposed to public trust interests such as seeing the more qualified, rather than the cheapest but barely adequate appraisers get the work. The fact is that the lender tax payer backed funding appraisal work needs to have certain protections and regulation around it- it does, but it is full of loopholes, lack of enforcement, and even enforcement would be clean up after the problem, is not a prevention of the problem.

The rest of appraisal work can be normal business- compete on fees, turn times, etc But for lender work, there has to be, if public trust and soundness of investor purchases of mortgages to be of prime importance, then AMC profitability hs to come second.

IF lenders like using AMCs fine, let the lender pay them. The blended fee should go, the borrower paid 100% to the appraiser, or make a cost plus, disclosed up front, with uniform fees paid to panels in a region for work, so the appraisal work is not distributed by one appraiser bidding $10 less than another, or with 15 orders a week going to the cheapest while a very qualified appraiser on the panel who charges $50 more gets nothing or one a week. There is only so much "efficiency" any appraiser has with volume before shortcuts must be taken. Well, I better get back to work now....

.

 

[Meandering]

Certainly I know that. And all the C&R processes we have in place now were in place then. But I do appreciate your concern

Some like to sit in here and play lawyer. That's nice - but I rely on actual lawyers, not appraisers who highlight only the parts of the laws that they like

And some here like to whine to the moderator when they can't take the heat.

Which by the way, you never did produced that "law" that you claimed says you are entitled to select a presumpton to follow. Eventhough, I did provide you with the changed RESPA regarding charging the borrower the average cost, that you requested.

 

[DWiley]

And some here like to whine to the moderator when they can't take the heat.

Which by the way, you never did produced that "law" that you claimed says you are entitled to select a presumpton to follow. Eventhough, I did provide you with the changed RESPA regarding charging the borrower the average cost, that you requested.

Does providing something proving you were wrong count?

The C&R rules have been posted multiple times. No need for me to post again

 

[timd354]

Does providing something proving you were wrong count?

The C&R rules have been posted multiple times. No need for me to post again

I think that I will just sit back and enjoy the entertainment as you try to carry on a rational and informed conversation with some of these people, lol

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

Beginning to think that Marion is D. Trump's sister and they were separated at birth. Neither can admit to a mistake. (not intending to be political but the personality trait is certainly shared).

 

[TRESinc]

Beginning to think that Marion is D. Trump's sister and they were separated at birth. Neither can admit to a mistake. (not intending to be political but the personality treat is certainly shared).

hope her hair is better...

 

[DWiley]

I think that I will just sit back and enjoy the entertainment as you try to carry on a rational and informed conversation with some of these people, lol

Sorry to make you waste that popcorn. As I indicated earlier, I will not be engaging M on any discussion of regs or laws. It is a waste of time.

 

[timd354]

So try reading the few lines underlined in red and tell Denis and Tim to stop posting HALF what the law says.

And stop beliving the shills are telling you the truth, and do the research and verification yourselves.

View attachment 32922

Marian, you are sadly mistaken about what the actual regulation actually includes, yet you have the audacity to accuse us of being dishonest and posting half of what the law states.

You ignorance on the subject is so utterly profound that you think that you posted the actual regulation when what you posted is the staff interpretation of the regulation/law, not the actual regulation itself. If you had bothered to read the entire text, and not just the snippet that you posted you would realize that what you posted is actually part of Supplement I, which includes the staff interpretations or the regulation but is not the actual regulations itself.

The actual regulations regarding C&R are on page 66582 of Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208, not page 66586 where the "interpretation" is listed. Below is a copy of the actual regulation regarding C & R (which is a part of Reg. Z), all relevant parts of which I had previously provided. By the way, this same regulation is also posted right on the cfpb website, which anyone can check for themsleves here: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/eregulations/1026-42/2013-30108_20150718#1026-42-f

It is more than a little pathetic that you accused Denis and myself of only posting half of the law/regulation when you don't even have the ability to figure out what parts of the federal register are the actual regulation and which are parts are comments and/or interpretations.