• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

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

chad hampton said:
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.
Click to expand...
You are factually and chronically incorrect. The one thing mentioned above that I do agree with is that they should have used a different looking report form so that people like you couldn't claim to be afraid of others being misled by the superficials. I guarantee that if they did use a different looking shell it wouldn't slow your complaints down one little bit.

BTW, a desktop means the APPRAISER never visited the property. This limitation is prominently disclosed and is noted as such in the certification.

And here's a question that you always duck. You never even attempt to discuss this in good faith.

When it comes to misleading, how can you possibly allege that the same users who designed and promulgated the program and are specifically ordering this type of appraisal assignment are being misled WRT what the appraiser did/didn't do? How can they be misled by what they are engaging and using?​

The only parties you can allege are being misled WRT what the appraiser did/didn't do are the off-label 3rd party users like the borrower. Casual and uninformed readers who aren't even reading the entirety of the appraisal report. And who are also not using the appraisal report for its intended use as stated.
 
Last edited:
chad hampton said:
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 :rof:

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?
Click to expand...
Nice speech with absolutely no support for your version of "what is written" . Your entire problem is that what you wish was written has never existed in that form. That's why you can't respond with an example of such and why your claims to have done so in the past are a factual untruth. You can't find it because it doesn't exist. That makes YOU the equivalent of the activist judge who is operating off their feelings instead of their reasoning.

I never said the other appraisal related laws/regs are being followed and enforced. That's another creative strawman of your own creation. Enforcement is always the weakest link. I've been saying that since I first came to this forum. The OGs here will remember the discussions that occurred here many years ago where your state board got way out over their skis while going after Tom Hildebrant.
 
Last edited:
George Hatch said:
I was responding directly to what you said. Your even bolded it.

View attachment 107472

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.
Click to expand...
You act as if we do not understand the difference between a desktop and a 2055 and an appraisal where an inspection is made (often the 1004 form)

The above is a bunch of word salad about things we are well aware of .
 
alebrewer said:
Of course it's not. What is delusional is thinking the borrower cares.
Click to expand...
I think the borrower would care if they were informed. If they are not informed, how can they care? Not informing the borrower misleads them into believing their $ appraisal fee went to the appraiser , and that no AMC is used, since it is not disclosed.

The part that borrowers would care about the most is how their appraiser is chosen by the AMC, by a low fee, in a flea market type bid that can bypass more qualified appraisers.
The lack of discloser wert AMC fee splits is why appraisers doing AMC orders are instructed not to include an invoice. When appraisers get the order directly from the lender, typically, the appraiser includes their invoice.
 
J Grant said:
You act as if we do not understand the difference between a desktop and a 2055 and an appraisal where an inspection is made (often the 1004 form)

The above is a bunch of word salad about things we are well aware of .
Click to expand...
If you don't like it when I point out your internal inconsistencies then perhaps you should reconsider some of those inconsistencies.

Bottom line here is that what everyone is complaining about - even when it's with cause - is that the users are changing some of their own user-driven preferences. Which they are entitled to do. Fannie previously gaveth and now Fannie is taketh away and it's coming out of the appraiser's pockets even if only indirectly.

These changes in these user expectations do incur more risk on their end. Less is always less. The results of taking on these additional risks may turn out to be unacceptable to them and their backers. Bad deals are made during good times. Catastrophe may ensue. They may end up having remorse for their decisions. I have never suggested otherwise.

But the point remains, appraisers have no way to dictate terms to these lenders and the GSEs. No way to resist these changes in these user expectations short of declining to perform those assignments, as is 100% within their rights. Then the lenders will do what they do and find an alternate vendor or exercise one of their other options. But WRT to them migrating to using more of these so-called hybrids? It's going to happen anyway; appraisers may as well just lay back and let it happen. Think of England.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top