Where are the orders!

[George Hatch]

I don;t get it - you would sign a petiotn to help consumers, but not to help appraisers ?
Unlike yourself, most companies do not like to see the already modest fees of a worker ( appraiser ) taken from them as a government perk, and that is why the fee amount reaching the appraiser in an AMC-sent order is so obscenely low.

The GSEs"s and the AMC/lender overlords have no problem using the government to protect THEIR fees, their role and their and profit !!! Which is exactly what they re doing here, by not stepping forward and redtiivyjng this and allowing the lender to evace paying appraisal related costs in either running their own order dept or by paying th eAMC management fee as a cost item.

Get a grip. When have I ever even hinted that I don't support the legitimate interests of appraisers - including their fees - or that I don't want what's best for appraisers? Never. I won't ignore the manner in which the current conditions have evolved or the true sources of these problems that doesn't mean that I don't support appraisers. I'll sign any petition anyone wants to write up so long as omits some of the sheer stupidity in its reasoning.

Don't forget - my preferred solution would have limited lenders to direct engagement with no MBs and no AMCs. I fully supported the original intent of the C&R regs. Etc, etc. But the decision makers decided otherwise, leaving appraisers to figure out how to thrive in the environment that "is" rather than the environment they think "should be".

 

[George Hatch]

The reality is that self-employed residential license fee appraisers are very limited in their employment engagements. Nobody said a single source, but the reality is a very limited set of sources for residential lender work, wrt where the large volume is . THAT is why the normal supply and demand is not possible on the AMC side of the aisle; they have enormous leverage over fees, which only worked in the appraiser's favor in the one brief period when things were very busy during a window of time post-Covid. In normally busy times, appraisers have no leverage over fees due to the extreme limitation of sources with large volumes in the AMC realm.

The regulators allowing the second version of C and R for AMC's to decide is a corrupt travesty.

Here you are protesting government intervention on behalf of appraisers, yet you think it is vine the the government has intervention or protein on behalf of stakeholders - the AMC/lender arrangement for appraisers to be compensated from the HUD fee split, with no cap on the amount or percent an AMC can take.vIf there was a cap, the lendres could vontnirly pay additionally to the AMC if they want to, since you are so concerned about protecting THEIR profit.

Nobody needs your lectures about choices and a nine-to-five job, etc. Thisis about stakeholders ecplositng a govt perk of fee split.

Stop. Just stop. I'm not protesting *further* govt intervention on behalf of your economic interests. I'm telling you that it's an argument that isn't going to resonate with anyone other than appraisers. If you think otherwise I'd be fascinated to see how you articulate that. Especially when you already know that most people think appraisers are overpaid for what they think appraisers do.

IDGAF what happens to the AMCs or to the profit margins at the banks. I'm just not stupid enough to believe they'll volunteer to take one step past whatever is legally permissible in furtherance of some moral virtue of protecting appraisers' economic interests. "what's good for the appraisers is good for the general economy" is an argument that only the appraisers will make.

Meanwhile and IRL, refer to tagline below. I didn't coin that cliche, but the guy who did coin it was way more savvy about appraising than either you or me.

 

[OSU Beavers]

Have faith, the repos are coming in 2025!

 

[J Grant]

Stop. Just stop. I'm not protesting *further* govt intervention on behalf of your economic interests. I'm telling you that it's an argument that isn't going to resonate with anyone other than appraisers. If you think otherwise I'd be fascinated to see how you articulate that. Especially when you already know that most people think appraisers are overpaid for what they think appraisers do.

IDGAF what happens to the AMCs or to the profit margins at the banks. I'm just not stupid enough to believe they'll volunteer to take one step past whatever is legally permissible in furtherance of some moral virtue of protecting appraisers' economic interests. "what's good for the appraisers is good for the general economy" is an argument that only the appraisers will make.

Meanwhile and IRL, refer to tagline below. I didn't coin that cliche, but the guy who did coin it was way more savvy about appraising than either you or me.

I agree; they won't volunteer. Only adverse publicity exposing the problem or regulatory change would make them.

Whether one blames the AMCs or blames the lenders, it does not matter; they both are to blame when working in sync to take advantage of the AMC-enabled free-of-cost-to-lender system at the expense of appraisers -appraisal fees for res mortgage work is in the hundreds $. not thousands, so the fee split on the backs of the lowest paid member of the food chain is not defensive.

Teh issue I have with your posts is that you chastise appraisers for caring about their fees, but everyone is allowed to do so without the same criticism. As far as consumers being harmed, whatever gets more attention but the greater harm is to appraisers and, along with them, consumers and investors and RE markets since AMC's no longe has a higher purpose of a firewall wrt lender pressure - .the AMC just passes it along - even a well-intentioned AMC can not act independently since they need to keep their lender customer "happy" to keep their business,

 

[George Hatch]

I never chastise you guys for fretting about your fees. I chastise you for the gaslighting on your motivations that some of you use for the purpose of diverting from your rent-seeking tendencies. Saying it's all about the societal good when it's really about your fees. And the main reason that's even a problem isn't because its wrong to fret the fees, but because the transparency of the gaslighting lie makes it counterproductive to your interests to use it. You're not going to change any hearts and minds by using a lie those minds can see you using. Everyone has to be smarter than that, at least with each other.

As for the guilt of the AMCs, I'll put it to you this way. If Wells directed the AMCs they work with to pay out a minimum fee to appraisers and to bill separately for their services then every one of those AMCs would proceed as directed and without uttering a peep. They only grind on appraisers for the fees because the lenders are leaning on them to do it.

 

[Surf Cat]

They only grind on appraisers for the fees because the lenders are leaning on them to do it.

I don't think the lenders are grinding on the AMCs to grind on the appraiser's fees.

I think the lenders are paying the AMCs their standard fee of what they're willing to pay. As long as their criteria are met.

I think the lender looks the other way to what the AMC's are working out with the appraisers in regards to the fee splits. The lender gladly lets the AMC deal with the appraisal problems. They don't want to go back to having Chief appraisers in house, paying their salaries and insurance.

If things go south, just like before, the taxpayer will bail the lenders out anyways.

I feel that the lenders think that appraisers are less and less important to help them gauge the risk of making a sound lending decision. But they have to follow the laws in the books. So, they're just going through the motions.

 

[Dublin ohio]

I'm really not sure how many lenders actually pay the AMC. Many of the AMCs I am familiar with collect directly from the borrower before the appraisal is even ordered.

 

[Ricky LaFleur]

I never chastise you guys for fretting about your fees. I chastise you for the gaslighting on your motivations that some of you use for the purpose of diverting from your rent-seeking tendencies. Saying it's all about the societal good when it's really about your fees. And the main reason that's even a problem isn't because its wrong to fret the fees, but because the transparency of the gaslighting lie makes it counterproductive to your interests to use it. You're not going to change any hearts and minds by using a lie those minds can see you using. Everyone has to be smarter than that, at least with each other.

Rarely do I read every page of a thread this far in (time and priorities, ya know), but I did my best. I had a local banker tell me that they had hired an appraiser to appraise a simple SFR in a small town near the bank, only to come back at a value that he believed was obviously too low. So they had their in-house valuator/estimator/best guesser go out and assigned a value that he thought was way, way too high. He was just surprised at how there was such a discrepancy in a basic SFR, and asked why there weren't any reasonable values produced out of that situation. I think you can already imagine what I said. Sometimes you get what you pay for, and sometimes not even then. If a local bank is concerned because they hold the loan in-house, then we could say (in an ideal and opposite to reality world) that the government should also care about having tax payer funds at risk when sub-par appraisals are performed and utilized. Of course they don't in reality, but it isn't wrong or gaslighting to point it out that the users are simply getting what they pay for (or maybe not even that). Not that it will change the CR fee/demand situation.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Banks want to get results as quickly as possible because frankly they're unconcerned about the value except that it allows them to proceed with the loan. They give exactly zero weight to the appraisal. That's why they don't care. Banks with skin in the game (what Taleb calls SITG) do want a reasonable value although the person's job history and credit score is more important to them. Only in a 'bad' economy do they worry about the value of the collateral.

 

[David S]

Let's examine that scenario

Right now there is nothing preventing the lenders from setting the bottom for fees. I have one client that does just that. I have no idea what they pay the AMC

If the lender sets the minimum fee and pays the AMC "X" per appraisal. Do you think the lender is going to absorb that cost?

The answer to the above is probably not. They will just pass it along to the consumer as an additional processing fee or the like.

So the question remains. Why haven't the lenders done so.

Last month I had a assignment quote about 30 miles away. I request $100 more fee. The AMC said sorry, client/ lender set $650 as appraisal fee cap, after they took $200, I only can get $450. Otherwise, the borrower has to restart the loan application with new LE. Since contract is 21 days closing, no time to restart. I lost the bid.