The New Appraisal Industry

[Joe Flacco]

The lenders made that choice. Not the AMCs. Same as what happened when many of the lenders decided they only wanted to engage CRs and excluded the SLs. It didn't cost them anything to require the extra so they did it. If it had been the AMCs discretion they would have leveraged the usage of SLs and the usage of "did not inspect" trainees into even lower fees.

We are both speculating. I think it was a AMC thing because outside of AMC, I only know one bank that said they didn't want a trainee to sign.

 

[Joe Flacco]

I disagree. In 2026 I think most lenders still will not accept a "did not inspect" trainee. If they did we'd be adding trainees like crazy again whether there was enough work to support them or not.

Yeah, well, then you are wrong.

 

[George Hatch]

Can you articulate what motivation you think any AMC would have for unilaterally limiting the number of appraisers at their disposal? Contrary to what their lender's appraisal policy requires?

Because I can't think of a reason why any AMC would do that, much less most or all of them. They compete with each other, so if one does it they all basically have to do it or else lose business to their competition.

Lender: "We will accept did not inspect'"​

AMC: "We don't care what you want. We tell you what you will or won't accept because all your assignments are belong to us."​

​

The obvious parallel to

Lender: "We require appraisers to be paid at $600 minimum fees"​

AMC: "We don't care what you want. We tell you what the appraisers will be paid because all your assignments are belong to us."​

 

[Joe Flacco]

Can you articulate what motivation you think any AMC would have for unilaterally limiting the number of appraisers at their disposal? Contrary to what their lender's appraisal policy requires?

Because I can't think of a reason why any AMC would do that, much less most or all of them.

No, I can't.

But I have actual engagement letters and service agreements that do not prohibit the use of trainees and the supervisory appraisers signing did-not-inspect.

I know what I am talking about and you are guessing.

 

[George Hatch]

These are AMC engagements?

The era of cutting off the SLs from any assignment occurred prior to the rise of the AMCs. And it came directly from the lenders. I know this because I was working in the business back then and saw it happen. I had friends who were were SLs and to whom it happened.

 

[Joe Flacco]

These are AMC engagements?

No.

I don't have much experience with AMC. The only AMC I have seen a no trainee requirement before is Clear Capital.

 

[Joe Flacco]

Looks like STARS also had the supervisor must inspect requirement.

 

[George Hatch]

I'm not TRYING to be a wienie about it, but I don't think it unreasonable to make a distinction between

​

lenders who do direct engagement (and are paying much higher fees to appraisers)​

operating the same was as​

lenders who are using the AMCs (and are paying the appraisers much lower fees)​

​

I've done nothing but direct engagement for most of my career and not one of my clients have ever actually accepted a supervisor (did not inspect) on an SFR appraisal assignment. Whether they spelled in out in writing in their policies or not.

 

[Joe Flacco]

This one is US Bank. US Bank does not prohibit "Did not inspect"

 

[Joe Flacco]

This one is Citizens Bank. Citizens Bank is fine with it.