Aloft Appraiser Toolkit

[glenn walker]

John i thought this was about appraisers as we have no control over what lenders do but that battle's never ending.

They can't even figure out how to get Fannie & Freddie out of the Federal Receivership almost 15 yearsmuch less get lender's to act or be responsible.

 

[George Hatch]

MBs fell under the umbrella of the lenders’ regulators. I know it common practice to blame MBs, and there really were some bad ones, but it was the lenders who let the MBs get out of control. In fact, many lenders were encouraging the bad behavior of MBs because it brought in more loans to that lenders. I knew two subpar MBs who became lender reps to other MBs who pushed all those substandard loan programs. Each claimed to be making over $300k/year twenty years ago.

I recall an MB who was bemoaning a small local lender because they would not put him on their approved MB list. That small lender had high standards that the MB couldn’t meet. The point being lenders could have engaged ethical MBs but chose not to. Why? Because the money was in loan volume, not loan quality and we know how that turned out.

I'm referring to the states' jurisdiction and reach.

The reason it was harder to hold the lenders to acct for what the MBs did is because the lenders had no interaction with the appraiser at all unless after the fact when performing a manual review. It's not that the lenders (as a group) were ever more moral than the loan originators but that they were able to claim plausible deniability about what the MBs were doing. Not just with appraisals but with all other elements of those loan packages. AND the conduct was widely dispersed. Not aggregated into fewer pipelines, each handling a larger percentage of the volume.
-------------------
I heard one appraiser who started appraising in the 1960s say one of the primary drivers for the lenders using MBs in the first place was to get around redlining prohibitions of the day. They could control where they were making loans by controlling which MBs with which they were doing business, and do so without leaving a paper trail. They couldn't get away with that dodge when the loan was being originated in-house. I don't know how much truth there is in that explanation but it wouldn't surprise me if that truth factor therein was higher than zero.

 

[George Hatch]

What are you talking about? Do you work for AMCs?

You have repeatedly alleged that appraisal standards and the laws themselves have been dorked in favor of the AMCs via corruption and pay to play. But you're incapable of citing an example of any specific appraisal standard or law that favors the interests of the AMCs over the interests of the appraisers. The HVCC imposed prohibitions on the lenders, not on the appraisers.

BTW, every time you refer to "appraisers' businesses were stolen" you betray your fundamental misunderstanding as to the ownership of those assignments. Those assignments never belonged to the appraisers in the first place. Then as now, you won your client relationships and the assignments they sent you via competition in the market, not as an arbitrary and unearned social entitlement that your clients owed to you. The assignments the lenders actually used always belonged to the lenders to assign or delegate or otherwise "accept" as they see fit and as permissible by law.

 

[Joe Flacco]

it's not corruption. It's influence.

 

[George Hatch]

You too?

Can you cite an example where some element of the regulatory or appraisal standards was altered to favor the interests of the AMCs over the individual appraisers?

The lenders not being prohibited from dealing in the bundled fee or not being prohibited from engaging via AMC are examples of rules and regs and such that were not changed. These conditions are not examples of rules and regs that were changed.

When the GSEs change their internal policies of what they will and won't accept that's no different from any other user having their own internal policies. Except as an example of scale. So that also isn't an example of corrupt actions attributable to TAF or the ASC or the FHFA or any of the professional orgs.

AFAICT there's nothing that the lenders and the GSEs can do in 2025 that would have actually been prohibited in 1990. They could have chosen to not do business with the MBs, they could have chosen to engage via AMCs, they could have chosen to operate off the bundled fee, they could have offered waivers for at least the deminimus, they could have used hybrid appraisals and AVMs in lieu of the conventional 1004. All of it. None of these alternatives have ever prohibited for the lenders to use or for the appraisers to engage with. These lenders and the GSEs just never chose to do so.

Now they're choosing differently and appraisers are treating these choices as an act of unethical and criminal conduct instead of simple expediency.

 

[Joe Flacco]

The main reason Danny would get recruited by AMC is influence at the AF. He brings other expertise but his main value is influence.

Nothing wrong with it. It's just business.

It's the same thing as hill staffers being recruited as lobbyists.

 

[Joe Flacco]

Qualifications is the obvious.

When I have time I will dig into it and make you list.

 

[John Hassler]

I'm referring to the states' jurisdiction and reach.

Individual state oversight of AMCs was and is a terrible idea. State regulators are populated with appraisers who are USPAP experts. To really take on AMCs you need business lawyer types.

The reason it was harder to hold the lenders to acct for what the MBs did is because the lenders had no interaction with the appraiser at all unless after the fact when performing a manual review. It's not that the lenders (as a group) were ever more moral than the loan originators but that they were able to claim plausible deniability about what the MBs were doing. Not just with appraisals but with all other elements of those loan packages. AND the conduct was widely dispersed. Not aggregated into fewer pipelines, each handling a larger percentage of the volume.

The lenders had/have the ability to maintain lists of approved appraisers. This was very common place, in fact it was the standard before licensing. Your reputation was paramount to getting future work and I remember always having a few sample packets ready to send out to a lender if I wasn’t on some lender’s list the MB was using. I highly doubt that lenders didn’t have approved lists of MBs back then as well.

-------------------
I heard one appraiser who started appraising in the 1960s say one of the primary drivers for the lenders using MBs in the first place was to get around redlining prohibitions of the day. They could control where they were making loans by controlling which MBs with which they were doing business, and do so without leaving a paper trail. They couldn't get away with that dodge when the loan was being originated in-house. I don't know how much truth there is in that explanation but it wouldn't surprise me if that truth factor therein was higher than zero.

Good story and don’t doubt that happened. Here’s another, right after the redlining settlements in the early 1990s, my friend’s wife was at BA and I was looking for rental property. She had a list of zip codes and said if I found property in those areas I was almost guaranteed to be approved for financing.

 

[Joe Flacco]

I like Danny. Average analyst but intelligent and very high EQ.

 

[Mejappz]

The main reason Danny would get recruited by AMC is influence at the AF. He brings other expertise but his main value is influence.

Nothing wrong with it. It's just business.

It's the same thing as hill staffers being recruited as lobbyists.

Check the revolving door that I've mentioned in other threads. Here is just one of many examples.

John Breanan moves from TAF to Clear Capital, then gets fired and immediately goes to the ASC. The evidence is overwhelming and has been documented on the forum for years.