AMC free bidding

[glenn walker]

I would say that the combination of less-than-supportive comments have made their respective points, and that in this case there's no utility in continuing to chip on the plan.

The Beta Testers on AF have all given a thumbs down to this APP for it's lack of cyber security and for all we know it could be sending the information and users identification to scammers in China or Russia and until it's certified as being safe most will not use it.

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

I like the idea of circumventing AMC's however, this is just an idea and hasn't gone through all the necessary steps that many posters have brought forward. In other words, it's still in development.

I agree with you on the bidding. It should be more like a three-tier price points based on customary fees for the location.

Allocation of assignments among an infinite number of peers will forever remain imperfect until a universal definition of appraisal "quality" is determined--always makes me wonder whether the age-old definition of residential appraisal being "a combination of art & science" was coined by a peer who realized that the quality of an appraisal would forever be questioned--rather than like today where somebody probably keeps track of how many "potentially biased words" an appraiser is cited for.

 

[glenn walker]

Quality is not definable and your never going to find any appraiser that admits his work is poor or just good enough to pass through the existing systems.

I have no idea who even started using the word quality except in the battle against AMC's the old timers would say only non-AMC appraisers did quality work.

The real ball busters were the USPAP compliant posters who bragged that only they created USPAP compliant reports. Then the debate that higher fee's resulted in quality reports and the bull****ting just continues.

 

[djd09]

forget the lenders...just market to borrowers who think their appraisal was incorrect...then we can turn the AMC firm staff appraiser into the state...win win

 

[Zoe]

Remember many lenders have a vested interest in the AMC they use whether through part ownership or kickbacks in some way or another.

Separation of fees on truth in lending disclosures would hit that problem. If AMC had no other compensation other than what was disclosed on truth in lending disclosures, it would drive huge competition between AMCs.

 

[George Hatch]

"Meaningful to intended users" is established by those users.

 

[Zoe]

Lender would have no incentive for part ownership or any kickbacks on fastest and cheapest if fees were separated on truth in lending disclosures.

It would be in concrete on truth in lending disclosure on what AMC could be paid legally. Federal regulators and auditors could insure it.

The law could be written where no lender can have any ownership interest in any AMC.

 

[chad hampton]

I wonder why bidding wasn’t included as option 3 in DF.

Another example of ignoring and breaking the spirit and intent of the law. Scofflaw everywhere you look in this profession

 

[glenn walker]

I wonder why bidding wasn’t included as option 3 in DF.

Another example of ignoring and breaking the spirit and intent of the law. Scofflaw everywhere you look in this profession

How do you know it wasn't ?

 

[glenn walker]

The word "Opinion of Value "
signed Certification automatically
makes the appraisal a product that's neither good or bad and it's not a manufactured product that meets any standard specifications.

USPAP compliant is the standard that a State Board uses to judge the reports credibility not quality. Of course what's USPAP compliant is another whole discussion.