Defund TAF

[Non Sequitur]

The ASC may be the first to go, breaking news:

Appraisal Subcommittee Head Departs Amid Trouble At The Agency

Matt Ponzar took over as ASC acting executive director after James Park retired from the agency this year.

www.bisnow.com

"Matt Ponzar is out as the head of the Appraisal Subcommittee, capping off a week of tumult at the chief regulator of the U.S. appraisal industry.

Ponzar had been acting director at the ASC since January, but he exited his role on Friday as a Bisnow investigation into the agency was set to publish.

Two days earlier, a bipartisan pair of U.S. senators sent a letter to the chair of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council — which oversees the ASC — expressing concerns about the government agency. The ASC's board was cc'ed on the letter, which Bisnow obtained. Ponzar was not.

He has been removed from the subcommittee's website, and emails sent Friday afternoon and Monday morning received automatic replies stating that he was “unavailable” and directing senders to Luke Brown, the ASC's acting chair.

Ponzar was in his role and responding to emails on Friday morning.

Brown now holds the titles of vice chair, acting chair and acting executive director, according to the automatic reply message and the ASC's website. He is also an associate director at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

Ponzar didn't respond to a request for comment via LinkedIn. Bisnow was unable to reach him otherwise. Brown didn't respond to multiple requests for comment."

"A current employee, speaking to Bisnow on the condition of anonymity, said that as of Monday morning, the ASC's remaining staff have received no official communication about leadership changes."

 

[Joe Flacco]

I think trainees not being allowed to inspect by themself was mainly done at the AMC level. The AMCs had lenders that allow trainees and a few lenders that do not allow trainees and they decided it is easier for them to not allow trainees across the board.

 

[Elliott]

From the OP article......"FHFA Chair Bill Pulte has decided to pause the privatization (releasing them from government conservatorship) of GSEs after building up expectations that this action was a given. I contended that with trillions of bonds backing the housing market, this would cause mortgage rates to tick higher because the government’s guarantee as a backstop would no longer be a sure thing. Additionally, there has been no meaningful discussion on the impact this action will have on the housing market. I assume Pulte recognizes the inflationary pressures already being imposed on housing by tariff policy and the trade wars."

From AI:
"Most recently, from June 2024 to June 2025, housing accounted for about two-thirds (66.7%) of the total reported CPI inflation: of a 2.7% overall inflation rate, 1.8 percentage points were directly attributed to housing price increases. This proportion reflects a persistent trend documented across recent years, with shelter inflation repeatedly contributing more than half—and at times up to two-thirds—of the total annual increase in CPI inflation.

This is due to both the sizeable weight of housing within the CPI (typically comprising 33–36% of the total basket) and persistent price increases in rents and equivalent owner rents since the pandemic era. The measured impact sometimes even exceeds two-thirds of annual inflation, especially when shelter inflation remains above pre-pandemic norms. As a result, housing price increases and equivalent rents have been responsible for roughly 65–70% of total reported CPI inflation across the most recent four-year period."

.......................

Anyone notice how AVMs pushed prices higher and higher when mortgage interest rates were increased from 4% to 7% and got stuck at 7%? In the 2008 Crash, housing prices didn't continue to rise.

Trump has had many success, but is probably mindful of the affect on the headline CPI number and how its affected by housing. Here's a tip, go back to fee appraisers and housing inflation will go down.

 

[George Hatch]

I think trainees not being allowed to inspect by themself was mainly done at the AMC level. The AMCs had lenders that allow trainees and a few lenders that do not allow trainees and they decided it is easier for them to not allow trainees across the board.

That's definitely the reasoning (they don't have to sweat the complex appraisal issue) but my understanding of it was that it was the lenders calling those shots. All or very nearly all of them, not just the ones who were engaging via AMCs. You hardly ever heard of a lender who would accept a "did not inspect" supervisor signature. Most of them still won't even though there's no pressing need to physically accompany a trainee to inspect a "simple" SFR. Some training required at the outset but not even 2 months worth.

I think its BS to blame the ASC or FFIEC or TAF or the GSEs for what the lenders are doing. And the only reason the lenders did it was because they could. Because there is so much competition that it didn't cost them a dollar extra to require a CR to do the appraisal instead of an SL licensee or a Trainee inspecting without a CR being present.

I thought it was BS when many of the lenders cut the SLs off, too. There was no call for doing that when it came to appraising non-PITA SFRs. You can't tell the difference between what most SLs do vs what most CRs do in those types of assignments.

 

[Joe Flacco]

I only know one lender that doesn't allow trainees.

As far as I know it is an AMC thing to not allow trainees.

 

[Joe Flacco]

I'm not even sure about the one but I have reason to believe they don't allow trainees.

 

[glenn walker]

I only know one lender that doesn't allow trainees.

As far as I know it is an AMC thing to not allow trainees.

No the AMC only does what their Client the Lender instructs them to do. We were a direct lender no AMC but most of our Investors we funded off warehouse credit lines and those investors IE Chaser, Wells Cargo, Citi, Flagler, said no loans to be purchased with trainee signatures and supervisory signature. So that was that but everyone passing the buck.

 

[Joe Flacco]

No the AMC only does what their Client the Lender instructs them to do. We were a direct lender no AMC but most of our Investors we funded off warehouse credit lines and those investors IE Chaser, Wells Cargo, Citi, Flagler, said no loans to be purchased with trainee signatures and supervisory signature. So that was that but everyone passing the buck.

I don't think so. I have never come across an engagement letter from a lender that does not use an AMC say that trainees are not allowed. As a matter of fact, most of the engagement letters or service agreements specifically state that trainees are allowed. That includes Guaranteed Rate, a nonbank that depend on investors.

 

[glenn walker]

I don't think so. I have never come across an engagement letter from a lender that does not use an AMC say that trainees are not allowed. As a matter of fact, most of the engagement letters or service agreements specifically state that trainees are allowed. That includes Guaranteed Rate, a nonbank that depend

If the trainees are allowed then why are they never allowed ? Someone is instructing the AMC no trainees lol )

 

[Joe Flacco]

If the trainees are allowed then why are they never allowed ? Someone is instructing the AMC no trainees lol )

They are allowed. Unless the AMC says no trainees. The AMCs only do what the lender says to do is a lie. Maybe some things are not specified and the AMC is allowed to use their discretion.