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

[Zoe]

Borrowers might not care much about how much an appraiser makes, but the borrower would be interested to see how much the AMC makes from the $ a borrower spent - and wonder WTF an AMC is and why an AMC is making half of what the borrower paid.

Regarding public trust, if we believe the public trust is important ( with transparency), then the breakout of fees should state upfront , the day the borrower applies, HOW THE AMC picks the borrower's appraiser. If they hold bidding wars for orders, THAT should be disclosed.

I bet a borrower would be shocked to learn their home purchase of hundreds of thousands of dollars the collateral worth of it rides on a sleazy AMC auction to find the lowest appraisal bid or fee, often bypassing more experienced appraisers. The borrower should have an opportunity to decline that as a way to pick an appraiser

A borrower getting an appraisal should also have a choice: do you want a PDR data collection done, or do you want the appraiser to go out and inspect? Because the borrower is likely to be paying the same $ amount either way.

Yes and it goes deeper. It would create intense competition on AMC fees and/or PDC fees between players. Who do you think the lender would go with?

The cheapest?

 

[alebrewer]

Who am I to try to dissuade such delusion.

 

[J Grant]

Who am I to try to dissuade such delusion.

It's too bad that transparent disclosure to consumers is called a delusion!

 

[alebrewer]

It's too bad that transparent disclosure to consumers is called a delusion!

Of course it's not. What is delusional is thinking the borrower cares.

 

[George Hatch]

I have never equated a desktop with the conventional 1004. Please show me a link to where I ever wrote anything of the kind. ( I never have )

I was responding directly to what you said. Your even bolded it.



That "for assignments where an inspection used to be done" is a direct reference to the 1004. The second half of that sentence "now they are onboarding non-appraisers to do a version called PDR" is the conflation. The desktop SOW is different than the conventional 1004 SOW, as is the 2055 SOW. Insofar as the meaning of the term "assignment" they are not versions of the same thing, they are different things. Same as if you changed any other element of the assignment like the date or the definition of value or added a HC.

You guys should stop looking at report forms and think in more fundamental terms. What the appraiser did or didn't do, not whatever combination the user is using.

 

[George Hatch]

we also confuse no enforcement with laws not existing. This profession is one of the best examples of scofflaw out there.

You cannot cite one of those laws which prohibit the 3rd party inspection conduct you are complaining about. Not among the current laws and not among the laws of the past.

When are you going to come to terms with the reality? "Personal inspection by the appraiser" is a user-driven requirement, not a law or regulation. It always has been.

 

[George Hatch]

Nobody ever argued that the use of the 2055 posed some big threat to the stability of the SFR markets or the general economy. The main reason appraisers complained about unlicensed runners being used for the 1004 is because of the deception and unfairness in the market.

Everyone understands the money: the fee that goes with an honestly disclosed what the appraiser is doing when they use a runner or Google Street images or a 3rd party PDR is less than the fee that goes with what the appraiser is doing when they personally inspect the subject and drive all their comps. The only way to get the same fee when using a runner is to lie about it and say they didn't use a runner. To leverage the economic advantage between what the appraiser said vs what they did - via deception.



When every appraiser is allowed to operate using a desktop SOW that renders moot (or obsolete) the "unfair and deceptive" argument.

 

[chad hampton]

You cannot cite one of those laws which prohibit the 3rd party inspection conduct you are complaining about. Not among the current laws and not among the laws of the past.

When are you going to come to terms with the reality? "Personal inspection by the appraiser" is a user-driven requirement, not a law or regulation. It always has been.

I have time and time again. You choose to read something other than what is written. Or like your buddy, argue that what is written isn’t what is meant. Sort of like activist judges

This isn’t really a radical position, public forums, LinkedIn, etc. are loaded with people in the know that talk about the issues with regulation, or lack thereof, in this profession. I would say you are in the minority that thinks laws are being followed and enforced when it comes to AMC‘s

Hell, I heard Mark Calabria on a podcast once talked about all the Covid flexibilities that were permitted back then and were meant to be temporary. The use of hybrids and waivers were never meant to be used the way they are now But maybe he doesn’t know what he’s talking about either?

 

[chad hampton]

A desktop, by definition, means that nobody visited the property to gather appraisal information as it relates to property characteristics pertaining to value.

Everything about them is misleading, starting with the name. Who was it that decided to call these things desktops? For the first decade in this profession, a desktop appraisal was a one page form that look nothing like a full 1004URAR. You would think somebody would’ve raised their hand in a conference room and said isn’t this a little misleading?

I remember showing these to a state investigator when they were first coming out, his comment was my God, that looks exactly like a URAR.

Unfortunately, unethical leadership at the top could care less about that word misleading.

 

[djd09]

they want to base a 10 trillion dollar market...on home inspections from paschal

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"