FANNIE bonds with AMCs, over your dead low paid body.

[J Grant]

Not sure how you were able to deduce who did the inspection from doing a review, but ok.

I see those as two separate issues. One of the primary reasons the # of trainees were restricted - at least in Texas - is because of the amount of appraisers who were using trainees as undocumented runners/inspectors. Personally know of SEVERAL folks who found themselves in the hot seat over that issue. And know MANY more who just never got caught.

The other issue you're discussing is waivers - which has zero to do with the first issue. Unless, of course, the thought process is that, if appraisers were sending unlicensed folks out to do inspections, why not just cut the appraiser out of the inspection piece. Which, if you think abut it, is not illogical...

Fine, we agree a number (how do YOU know how many btw>? ) a number of supervisors signed "did inspect" when they did not inspect. I trained with 3 different supervisors , ALL of them inspected. It was high risk not to, therefore, I doubt it was a widespread practice.

Why are past wrongs of a segment used to rationalize the decision to send a mass influx of non-appraisers out into the field? Is the argument that some supervisors did a dishonest thing in the past, so it excuses a mass decision to send non-appraisers out to the property without supervision, while the licensed appraiser responsible for valuing the property does not go out to see the subject of their appraisal?

 

[Zoe]

Joan Trice was pushing doing away with licensing a long time ago.
I'll touch on that later.

Okay, who is getting the runner fee now? - I think now they're calling it a PDC and PDR, Zoe. Not really in that space, but I assume it's similar to the appraisal space - the fee is split between the PDMC (property data management company) and PD inspector.

The GSE? I believe the GSE's business model is securitizing RMBS. If they're in the property inspection space, I was unaware.

Does the GSE own part of the AMC? If they do, I was unaware - but you might be onto something there, Zoe.

Does the lender own part of the GSE and the AMC and the runner? I'm unaware of any lender owning part of the GSE's (other than buying stock in said entities). As to who owns the runners, it was and is my understanding that no one 'owns' individuals any longer.

Who is paying the fee on truth in lending disclosures? Huh??

Melt it down to where the rubber meets the road.

Get back to 1+1.

I have commingled fees in my statement to my customer. Think about it. Trust me many companies have paid millions on commingling of fees on statements to customers.

Let's assume for your benefit .

#1. On truth in lending disclosures, fees are separated.

#2, On truth in lending disclosures, all the fees you mentioned are disclosed separately to the borrower on truth in lending disclosures.

#3. On truth in lending disclosures, whomever collects any kickback or any income money from any party is disclosed on truth in lending disclosures.

#4. Disclose buyer fee to GSE when bank sells loan to GSE.

#5. Don't think lenders are not scalping the consumer on public trust with AMCs and getting kickbacks with part ownership. If lender owns stock in GSE, they are not getting much kickback but could.

 

[Zoe]

Dr Chance with Appraisal Institute was touching on some of these things and got fired. DWiley is member of Appraisal Institute.

DWiley might as well be in straight jacket with all the ropes he has tied on him.

Don't bring up independence to @DWiley

Separate fees on truth in lending disclosures and the whole market structure changes. Some Chains are broken.

Different market if fees were not commingled. The markets don't even resemble each other.

Appraisal Fee $X

AMC Fee $X

PDC Fee $X

PDMC Fee $X

GSE FEE $X

etc..etc....etc.

GSEs don't have much competition, but it would force intense competition with borrowers and lenders and providers. It would be a totally different market structure. It would help public trust.

It would also help credibility and accountability (liability too).

 

[alebrewer]

Why are past wrongs of a segment used to rationalize the decision to send a mass influx of non-appraisers out into the field?

They're not that I'm aware of. It's my understanding that - at least based on what is being iterated by those folks - the inspection piece of the scope of work was a piece that: (1) involved a LOT of time - more especially when appraisers were backed up during 20-21, (2) could be credibly completed by a combination of technology and user interface - IOW, no appraiser needed, and (3) the appraiser's true value was/is in their ability to analyze data, not inspect properties.

I tend to agree with them.

 

[alebrewer]

Joan Trice was pushing doing away with licensing a long time ago.
I'll touch on that later.

Melt it down to where the rubber meets the road.

Get back to 1+1.

I have commingled fees in my statement to my customer. Think about it. Trust me many companies have paid millions on commingling of fees on statements to customers.

Let's assume for your benefit .

#1. On truth in lending disclosures, fees are separated.

#2, On truth in lending disclosures, all the fees you mentioned are disclosed separately to the borrower on truth in lending disclosures.

#3. On truth in lending disclosures, whomever collects any kickback or any income money from any party is disclosed on truth in lending disclosures.

#4. Disclose buyer fee to GSE when bank sells loan to GSE.

#5. Don't think lenders are not scalping the consumer on public trust with AMCs and getting kickbacks with part ownership. If lender owns stock in GSE, they are not getting much kickback but could.

Now you've spun out of my atmosphere, Zoe. Just not sure how to respond to all that - or if you're even expecting one.

 

[Zoe]

Now you've spun out of my atmosphere, Zoe. Just not sure how to respond to all that - or if you're even expecting one.

My brain runs in waves. I made straight A's majoring in marketing and minor in economics. I made a B or two in economics. I had minor in it.

I had great Econ professor that let me watch his house while he traveled overseas for his daughter's wedding. He would blow your mind. He blew my mind. I still got an A out of his class but many failed it. He was grading on curve. A B+ became an A.

 

[Zoe]

He had a cat he couldn't take with him that was sick. I babied that cat and tried and tried to get it to eat. It had cancer. He was italian and made best italian spaghetti I have ever ate. He came back early Thank God and that cat survived until he got home. I had the house spic and span because I was worried he might come home early. I was already through with his classes by then. It wasn't to get bonus points. He was one teacher in economics where you did not want to miss class.

 

[J Grant]

They're not that I'm aware of. It's my understanding that - at least based on what is being iterated by those folks - the inspection piece of the scope of work was a piece that: (1) involved a LOT of time - more especially when appraisers were backed up during 20-21, (2) could be credibly completed by a combination of technology and user interface - IOW, no appraiser needed, and (3) the appraiser's true value was/is in their ability to analyze data, not inspect properties.

I tend to agree with them.

Considering our past discussions where you did not believe in a point value, I am not surprised!

 

[Sandra Koutsopoulos]

OK, so looking into the future, assume AI & Property Data Collectors are the main sources of GSE assumption of value of a piece of property.

Buyer trying to get a mortgage on a property after looking at many similar properties in the marketplace at that time, has decided from similar properties he's seen, that his negotiated accepted offer reflects the value at that point in time. Then AI/PDC/GSE says NOPE! Robot says value is significantly lower. Will the GSE's allow an actual appraiser to put eyes on the property, evaluate the upgrades and condition, gather & analyze the real comparables to produce a report that they will accept to override the no-touch, no-contact robo-report? Or will the sale be blown because AI "thinks" it's # is more accurate? I can foresee a LOT of transactions in jeopardy, particularly when the market is not plain vanilla. Would sellers sue?...who? for costing them the sale? or Borrowers? Will the robot AI actually create and perpetuate it's own "market" regardless of how humans evaluate the property? It's not all about sticks and bricks. Condition, maintenance, noise, ugly neighboring property, odors etc have an impact in real life.

If GSEs say "OK" to having human appraisal override their robot valuation, will borrower have to pay for both? Or will GSEs say their robo-appraisal is THE ONLY ONE valuation they will use?

 

[J Grant]

They're not that I'm aware of. It's my understanding that - at least based on what is being iterated by those folks - the inspection piece of the scope of work was a piece that: (1) involved a LOT of time - more especially when appraisers were backed up during 20-21, (2) could be credibly completed by a combination of technology and user interface - IOW, no appraiser needed, and (3) the appraiser's true value was/is in their ability to analyze data, not inspect properties.

I tend to agree with them.

Where did this idea come from that the appraiser's true value is in analyzing data? The appraiser finds tremendous value in inspecting themselves, even if it takes up time-

A role of analyzing data divorced from field work puts the appraiser at a disadvantage. It is, imo, corporate spin to justify this decision, which maximizes profit - you are aligned with that end of the business, which is fine, but it puts your comments into perspective.