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

[George Hatch]

After all these years, everyone knows how the bankers act. What their values are regardless of the talking points coming out of their mouths. They'll refer to you as a "valued partner" in one breath and then lean on you for a 24hr turn at minimum wage in the next.

I don't understand why any appraiser would actually argue with some expectation that most of these bankers will somehow stop acting like anything but just another banker. A fish has gotta be a fish and a frog has gotta be a frog.

 

[DWiley]

More deflection-

As a consumer, I have a CHOICE of which car dealer, grocery store, restaurant etc to go to. And if one of these places is underpaying people and it shows up in lousy service or an inferior product, I might choose to go elsewhere. People do get what they pay for in the end.

The consumer borrower has no choice about which appraiser gets hired - they enturst the bank or lender to do it for them. They should be informed when that bank or lender outsources their choic of an appraiser to an AMC , who then conducts a sleazy flea market auction to find a cheap fee or bid - even if that appraiser has less experience or competence for the assignment. toohyruaruavctoil

The "consumer" for an appraisal is the lender, not the borrower. And the lenders certainly have lots of choices in selecting the AMC. They pit the AMCs against each other on turn time and price the same way the AMCs do with appraisers. It is commonly called competition.

The borrower is free to engage any appraiser they choose if they want an appraisal for their own use. For lender use, the lender must select; which is only right since the lender is the one held respoinsible.

 

[Zoe]

The "consumer" for an appraisal is the lender, not the borrower. And the lenders certainly have lots of choices in selecting the AMC. They pit the AMCs against each other on turn time and price the same way the AMCs do with appraisers. It is commonly called competition.

The borrower is free to engage any appraiser they choose if they want an appraisal for their own use. For lender use, the lender must select; which is only right since the lender is the one held respoinsible.

Separate it on Truth in lending disclosures and I am fine with it for public trust.

 

[Zoe]

I know you can't do that Danny. I am not asking you to or blame you for commingling of fees.

 

[Zoe]

I can bring business taxes into the equation on why separation of fees is right for public trust and credibility as far as State business tax. Separation of fees on truth in lending disclosures is more transparent for public trust and government.

 

[Zoe]

I can bring competency into equation too.

 

[Bobby Bucks]

I can bring competency into equation too.

Please try to bring brevity.

 

[J Grant]

The "consumer" for an appraisal is the lender, not the borrower. And the lenders certainly have lots of choices in selecting the AMC. They pit the AMCs against each other on turn time and price the same way the AMCs do with appraisers. It is commonly called competition.

The borrower is free to engage any appraiser they choose if they want an appraisal for their own use. For lender use, the lender must select; which is only right since the lender is the one held respoinsible.

The lender is the client for the appraisal. There is no loan and thus there is no appraisal ordered without the borrower customer (who lawyers treat as the consumer )

Of course, I understand that the borrower is not free to choose the appraiser for a res regulated loan. The point is that the borrower trusts the lender to choose well for them, not outsource the responsibility to an AMC that uses flea market-style bidding.

 

[George Hatch]

WRT the quality of the appraisal, I'm curious what you think it means when a power user of appraisals makes a choice - informed by direct experience with thousands of appraisals over many years - to outsource the selection to one or more AMCs that they know shops by price.

Is it your view that these lenders are being fooled by the AMCs or are making an uninformed choice? Because it looks to me like their actions are demonstrating their perception of the situation. What do you think?

 

[Sandra Koutsopoulos]

Honestly, I don't know that borrower "trusts" the lender to provide a competent appraisal. If Borrower wants the loan, he pays, he has no say, and whatever/whoever does the appraisal is outside of his control unless/until he finds grounds for an ROV, which is a very weak exercise of Borrower's decision-making.

Borrower's choice pretty much ends with the L/O he works with, and the lenders that L/O works with, and Borrower is restricted to what's on the lender's menu. Otherwise, when informed of the costs with that L/O or lender, Borrower can try a different money source.

Doesn't this all point out the amount of useless waste of funds that are slathered around at Borrower's expense that provide little/no benefit to Borrower, and basically just greases the palm of every superfluous entity involved?