• 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.

Alamode/Mercury Fee report

Status
Not open for further replies.
...
In this analysis, we took whatever the appraiser entered as the final fee, not what their fee schedule indicated for that "typical" house. So, while they may have had a fee schedule with $350 for a base URAR, if they charged $900 on a transaction because it was on a lake and such, the only thing we analyzed was the $900.

Many fees ran from well into the thousands, for what was listed as a basic URAR. I personally spot checked a large sample of the high end fees by using Google street view and Microsoft Birdseye view, just to be sure that we weren't talking about anomalies. And indeed, there were large homes on standard lots in gated neighborhoods in Maui and Napa and upstate NY and so on getting thousands for a URAR. They were legit...

Dave Biggers
Chairman
a la mode, inc.

It would be helpful if you listed the number of appraisals in each county used to come up with your average. You list fees for the counties I cover as being between $350 and $400 yet I have NEVER taken a URAR fee of less than $425 in the past 9 years. In fact I started at $400 back in 1998. The big bank AMCs currently "offer" $425 and I have to beg them up to a decent fee to cover all my costs. Now you come out and tell them that they are paying above average. No way!

Of the 36 counties in Oregon, 6 (Gilliam, Grant, Lake, Morrow, Sherman, and Wheeler) have zero appraisers in residence according to the ACLB, yet the fees you have listed ($400, $350, $425, $400, $450, and $400) are ridiculously low. For example there are no appraisers within a two and a half hour drive of Grant County, a recent thread referred to an article where a Bend appraiser quoted $530 for an appraisal performed in John Day at the center of Grant County and that was a LOW fee after an AMCs cut, yet you listed an “Average” fee of $350. Really? I know appraisers out here that won’t go to Grant County for less than $800. I guess they must not be Mercury Network users.

If these are the average fees Mercury Network appraisers are getting, why would I want to pay $300 a year to sign up plus $13+ per order received? At least AppraisalColon only shafts me $10 per order when it gets delivered.
 
It would be helpful if you listed the number of appraisals in each county used to come up with your average. You list fees for the counties I cover as being between $350 and $400 yet I have NEVER taken a URAR fee of less than $425 in the past 9 years.

If these are the average fees Mercury Network appraisers are getting, why would I want to pay $300 a year to sign up plus $13+ per order received? At least AppraisalColon only shafts me $10 per order when it gets delivered.

It's awesome that you charge above the median, and you get it. We encourage that of course. And recall that, as we've said repeatedly, this is the "plain Jane" fee for a base URAR. If you cover six counties, you (and others) may be adding in implicit driving fees, etc., and there are numerous add-ons that drive the actual fees up (FHA, 1004MC, etc.).

But also, your anecdotal experience may just not match the broad statistical results, at least not as of **last month**. Fees rise and fall and we all know the last few months have been hard on the market, so that could be affecting things compared to your memory of what's the "norm".

While we don't release counts per county for competitive intelligence reasons (this is still our proprietary data), you can do a quick spot check of even the asking prices for appraisals in the counties you listed (that's publicly viewable). Even the median **asking** prices are below what you're citing, even in your Grant county example (where the asking prices are lower than every other county even with a 2.5 hour apparent drive). They'd be $400, $350, $425, $445, $450, and $400 respectively.

It's unlikely that the **norm** is as high as you say if even the posted fee schedules laid out there publicly by appraisers covering those areas show rates that are highly reflective of what we published.

Like I said, you can use the data or not. You choose not to, and that's great -- it wasn't there to use before at all, so you can't be worse off than you have been if you just dismiss it, right? (And I don't mean that dismissively either; it's a valid choice. It's just data, after all.)

Likewise, you can choose not to use the Mercury Network at $13.75 per order, or XSites at various flat fees per year, or anything else that we develop for generating business. If it's not fitting your business model or you don't like the results, drop your XSite like a hot potato and turn down any Mercury Network orders. No marketing products are ever a one-size-fits-all solution. Your preferred methods may not match others', so don't get frustrated forcing a square peg in a round hole.

You seem to make a good living doing AMC reports at above median fees, apparently over AppraisalPort, so why change, or why get worked up over Mercury? (I assume that's what you were referring to at $10. By the way, note that they charge you $10 every time, whereas many of our orders are free to the appraiser; the net result over a year is about the same.) You've found something that works for you, and I wouldn't recommend straying from what you prefer.

Dave Biggers
Chairman
a la mode, inc.
 
It's awesome that you charge above the median, and you get it. We encourage that of course. And recall that, as we've said repeatedly, this is the "plain Jane" fee for a base URAR. If you cover six counties, you (and others) may be adding in implicit driving fees, etc., and there are numerous add-ons that drive the actual fees up (FHA, 1004MC, etc.).

What you report as the median is incorrect due to your limited sample size for my rural area. You would need more Mercury Network appraisers doing more than a handful of URARs to give an authoritative figure. Also, since the GSEs require the 1004MC it should be included in with the URAR fee. Is it?

But also, your anecdotal experience may just not match the broad statistical results, at least not as of **last month**. Fees rise and fall and we all know the last few months have been hard on the market, so that could be affecting things compared to your memory of what's the "norm".

Maybe a running average would be better for rural areas as one or two high or low fees will skew your median for that month.

While we don't release counts per county for competitive intelligence reasons (this is still our proprietary data), you can do a quick spot check of even the asking prices for appraisals in the counties you listed (that's publicly viewable). Even the median **asking** prices are below what you're citing, even in your Grant county example (where the asking prices are lower than every other county even with a 2.5 hour apparent drive). They'd be $400, $350, $425, $445, $450, and $400 respectively.

It's unlikely that the **norm** is as high as you say if even the posted fee schedules laid out there publicly by appraisers covering those areas show rates that are highly reflective of what we published.

There are no appraisers in Grant County. You must be looking at what a Baker City appraiser charges for work in Baker County (listed as $350 on your sheet) and not including the travel fee to drive to Grant County. I charged AMCs more than double what you list for two of those vacant counties last month and got the orders.

Like I said, you can use the data or not. You choose not to, and that's great -- it wasn't there to use before at all, so you can't be worse off than you have been if you just dismiss it, right? (And I don't mean that dismissively either; it's a valid choice. It's just data, after all.)

Of course I won't give any weight to data which indicates fees lower than what they were 10 years ago, but you ARE making it worse for me by giving the AMCs a big crooked stick to beat our fees down with.

Likewise, you can choose not to use the Mercury Network at $13.75 per order, or XSites at various flat fees per year, or anything else that we develop for generating business. If it's not fitting your business model or you don't like the results, drop your XSite like a hot potato and turn down any Mercury Network orders. No marketing products are ever a one-size-fits-all solution. Your preferred methods may not match others', so don't get frustrated forcing a square peg in a round hole.

I have nothing against the Mercury Network. I think it is a great alternative to AMCs and would actually love to give it a try. However, I already have a hosted website that only costs me $5 per month and don't see why you want me to pay you $300 per year plus $13.75 per order.

You seem to make a good living doing AMC reports at above median fees, apparently over AppraisalPort, so why change, or why get worked up over Mercury? (I assume that's what you were referring to at $10. By the way, note that they charge you $10 every time, whereas many of our orders are free to the appraiser; the net result over a year is about the same.) You've found something that works for you, and I wouldn't recommend straying from what you prefer.

Dave Biggers
Chairman
a la mode, inc.

AppraisalPort charges $10 per appraisal and $5 for other stand alone forms such as a 1004D. If the order is cancelled there is no charge which is why I think many appraisers get worked up over the Mercury charge. I am always looking for ways to expand my client base, especially since HVCC took over, but I don't want to fork over $300 and not receive any order because my fees are above what you report as the median.
 
This is why ACI will get more and more marketshare. He needs to stay out of the appraiser fees. The only one that should be charging a fee is the appraiser licensed or the appraisal company completing the report in that state. It should be full disclosure of fees. This is how fees will be set. If you are paying $250 for an appraisal you get everything you deserve.
 
This is why ACI will get more and more marketshare.

Bwahahahahaha. Sorry. ACI is anything but a professional software company. They are evil and the reason some AMCs strip your report, mine your data, and overall undermine the appraisal profession. Just look at the jokers who helped write the software. Especially the PDF conversion software.

You know, I once called alamode and asked if there was any way I could convert an old PDF report I had back to Aurora. The guy told me "No. Never. It's unethical."

So, enjoy the ACI world and thanks for helping screw your brethren. Please drive through.
 
...They are evil and the reason some AMCs strip your report, mine your data, and overall undermine the appraisal profession.
...So, enjoy your ACI world and thanks for helping screw your brethren.

That may have been true in the past, after all they are the "Lenders Choice™", but with Fannie requireing all reports to be submitted in AI Ready format it does not make a difference what software you use anymore. No more sending secure PDFs.

I started with WinTotal back in 1998 but it was crash happy and I had to switch to ACI. I am sure they are better now, but their software for Windows 98 was terrible.
 
I started with WinTotal back in 1998 but it was crash happy and I had to switch to ACI. I am sure they are better now, but their software for Windows 98 was terrible.

Hummmmm. That is odd. I started using alamode back in 1993 IIRC. DOS Total I called it back then. Ran it with Windows 3, 3.1, 95, 98, ME, 2000 server, XP, and Vista. No problems other than the normal debugging crap one goes through with any software.

Different horses for different courses.
 
I would have stuck with it, but it kept deleting my maps and attachments every time I opened the report. I had to reload them every time. And they kept called to sell me gold service to fix the software that would not work in the first place. I just seemed like a scam.

Winston have you looked at his fee report? Is it accurate for your area?
 
Dave has done nothing buy good things for our business. This fee report overall is a good thing with much of the AMC legislation being based on what is customary. Up until this report the PCV murcors have been able to say customary is $200, thanks to Dave there is some balance out there.

On the Mercury network...I would rather give Dave $13, then FNC and their data mining stooges a shiny nickel. At least Dave will develop a product that will help us, unlike FNC who will beat us over the head with that same dollar.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
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