3.6 The promises, the predictions, the panic and the fight for the dwindling appraiser dollars

[RCA]

So basically the IVPI proposal, with a few additional performance integrations.

Your AI just suggested the IVPI proposal.

https://www.workingre.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IVPI-Proposalfinal.pdf

I am afraid not. The IVPI has several gaps due to ambiguous wording. And it is different. It sounds like a lot more than it really is. One sign of that is "Code of Conduct." That is largely BS - very flimsy stuff.

1. I propose that the GSEs should provide their own software. They develop it. They pay for it. Why? Because it is largely for their use. That is very firm. It is also more efficient to do it that way.

2. Rather than some flimsy "Code of Conduct," I propose strict protocols in doing appraisals, i.e., firm rules.

3. And on and on.

.... So, in other words, you read with your eyes half closed, not critically. You are doing nothing more than comparing the gist of two proposals read through foggy glasses and half asleep at the wheel.

 

[George Hatch]

If the Clear Capital 3.6 fee is where AMCs think the appraisal market will go, then I predict the 60%+ appraisers who have stated they won't do 3.6 at all, will go to 98% of appraisers refusing to do 3.6 through AMCs. It's a no-brainer. Virtually ANYTHING, including creating a pooper-scooper business would pay more per hour/day/year.

I think what we're seeing is the equivalent of the weigh-in prior to a boxing match. Each side is trying to get into the head of their opponent prior to stepping into the ring to have it out. I'm guessing that the bout will be over before and the winner decided before the new UAD even becomes mandatory.

 

[Non Sequitur]

Again, happening in real time:

 

[J Grant]

I think what we're seeing is the equivalent of the weigh-in prior to a boxing match. Each side is trying to get into the head of their opponent prior to stepping into the ring to have it out. I'm guessing that the bout will be over before and the winner decided before the new UAD even becomes mandatory.

Why should appraisers, the one non-vested independent party in the transaction regarding taxpayer-backed loans, have to "face off" against such a mismatched in power opponent? Over peanuts in fees that add up substantially to impoverish an appraiser and distract them from being able to do their job? That is the question that needs to be asked and will be asked in the future if not now. ( perhaps from the media attention or regulatory scrutiny that might occur after the consumer lawsuits wrt fee disclosures settle).

 

[DWiley]

I think what we're seeing is the equivalent of the weigh-in prior to a boxing match. Each side is trying to get into the head of their opponent prior to stepping into the ring to have it out. I'm guessing that the bout will be over before and the winner decided before the new UAD even becomes mandatory.

For the appraisers, the big face off is, unfortunately, with the other appraisers in their area.

 

[George Hatch]

Why should appraisers, the one non-vested independent party in the transaction regarding taxpayer-backed loans, have to "face off" against such a mismatched in power opponent? Over peanuts in fees that add up substantially to impoverish an appraiser and distract them from being able to do their job? That is the question that needs to be asked and will be asked in the future if not now. ( perhaps from the media attention or regulatory scrutiny that might occur after the consumer lawsuits wrt fee disclosures settle).

This here is still America. Appraisers do not have to compete in any bidding if they don't want to. Appraisers are 100% free to set their minimums at any level they want, no permission needed.

 

[Ca Ar Independent]

Another AMC 3.6 fee:


View attachment 108300

And There is is. Because it's so much more "streamlined". Yeah, the folks who think fees will go up are in for a rude awakening.

 

[J Grant]

For the appraisers, the big face off is, unfortunately, with the other appraisers in their area.

That does not happen with lenders when they order direct/without an AMC. The lender typically pays their panel appraisers in a region the same agreed on C and R fee (usually the $ amount the borrower paid ).

The AMC's are the entities who have appraisers "face off " to bid for regular lender orders (or fee compare to find the lowest feet that "wins" an order.)

I wonder if the attorneys handling the consumer lawsuits concerning fee disclosure might see a path for appraisers to recoup the billions of $ they have lost over the years to AMC/lender complicit fee predation.

 

[Sandra Koutsopoulos]

Another Clear Capital AMC fee-fishing expedition.
I think this is the one clear-cut time appraisers have the ability to say "NO!" Honestly, I don't know why anybody would voluntarily take a pay cut, which 2 additional hours of PDC to fill out the form would amount to, PLUS filling the danged form and dealing with potentially annoyed occupants likely to be checking their watch and snorting what's taking so long, since the LAST appraiser was in/out in 15-20 minutes.

Purchasing the new gear?! Fugeddaboudit. I expect to retire or drop dead within the next 4 years, so my anticipated ROI is nil. And with all costs of being in business, paying for CE, license, E&O, software, databases, gas, functional vehicle, computer, online access and whatever else, I'm not going along with starvation pay.

One perhaps bright spot (she said with a menacing smirk...) is that AI will probably replace most of the folks who have created the 3.6 torture and they will be replaced by their own machines. Bye-bye sucka. (mwhaa-haa-haaa!)

 

[Alsie35]

And There is is. Because it's so much more "streamlined". Yeah, the folks who think fees will go up are in for a rude awakening.

True - but the AMCs that think they can lowball on something that is several orders of magnitude more time-intensive may find - zero takers. (It works both ways - and the 'available pool' of appraisers will ALREADY be down by - 50% )