• 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.

HUD Files Against Appraiser & Rocket Mortgage

This case, at least from what we know, seems like a legit one - and it shows the mechanisms are in place to make it whole and punish this one appraiser. Although the supposed harm the appraiser did this owner in a refinance is minor - other than hurting their feelings as an aggrieved person, the owners did not suffer any real harm, the way a patient whose doctor fails them wrt death or disease or other failures or corruptions in a profession that really harms people financially. At most, the owner got less of a refinance amount than they wanted, and they easily could have gone to another lender. It sounds like they refinanced tons of times before, and who knows if those past renounce values were too high or not.
Also note we are getting one side of the story and we are not privy to the evidence. The filing does seem more compelling then others I have seen. I am not an expert at filings but I have seen many of them that seem to be throwing mud hoping something without merit sticks. While some of the parts of the filing appear to be red flags we do not see all of the information or know if its presented in a way to obfuscate. HUD with Fudge at the helm acted in bad faith by trying to trick people so I don't give them the benefit of the doubt based on their credibility.
 
The powers that be are taking an insignificant tiny problem and playing it like it is a major one. This is harmful to appraisal as a profession and self-serving for those benefitting from that..

There can never be a ZERO problem in any profession - even USPAP says perfection is not possible. A profession is made up of people, and any profession, including the loftiest, such as physicians, will have a certain small % of rogues or incompetents.


This case, at least from what we know, seems like a legit one - and it shows the mechanisms are in place to make it whole and punish this one appraiser. Although the supposed harm the appraiser did this owner in a refinance is minor - other than hurting their feelings as an aggrieved person, the owners did not suffer any real harm, the way a patient whose doctor fails them wrt death or disease or other failures or corruptions in a profession that really harms people financially. At most, the owner got less of a refinance amount than they wanted, and they easily could have gone to another lender. It sounds like they refinanced tons of times before, and who knows if those past renounce values were too high or not.

That said, of course, it is teh right thing to root out and expose those few appraisers who use bias. But don't pretend it is a huge problem across the professions when there is no evidence of that.

The point is more that these cases are isolated and of little real harm, and some of these cases, like the high-profile one in California, might not be real cases , more like something that got settled to avoid bad PR. We can not know if the second appraisal was inflated, nobody saw it compared with the first. Yet Fannie and Freddie liked it and accepted it as legit because it fed their agenda of disenfranchising appraisers and replacing appraisals with alt valuations that they or their profiteer cronies control. The WAIVER is a perfect example.

AVMs use similar data and methods as appraisals do , and there are probably more loans made now based on AVMs, What is the scrutiny on them ?
Good point. Same borrowers? All they needed was a waiver, but FHA couldn't give them one and had to use InvesterAppraiser/AMC guy. Is "Gasp" HUD being racist by not doing waivers? Fannie and Freddie sure do, want access to all the FHA and VA sales/appraisal information ifor their models. Were there any "subject to" MPR repairs that were not completed in any of those 7 appraisals? The below grade area treated differently? There should be no way this gets posted on a blog without reference documentation. Because they're using it against an entire profession that already has minority members who got there with no PAREA. I am not related to anyone in the appraisal business either.
 
some of the defenses given here won't hold up in court. if you take 2 appraisals done somewhat near each other and you put the subjects & comps on a map,. then you see all the black owner comps are to the right of the house, and all the white owners comps are to the left of the house you have no defense. this appraiser will be bankrupted, or just plead guilty. E&O does not cover fraud, in which this case it is racial fraud. and the appraiser deserves it. solidiffi was a canadian co that paid very well when they started in this area long ago. it was mostly foreclosed stuff. but eventually they paid less, and it was a pain dealing with them. no sympathy for them. but nothing will happen to anyone there. they will close, then open up again as another AMC. a while back rocket employees were posting how bad it was working there. are they doing r.e. sales now on line, i saw rocket realty on tv.
What if all the recent sales and most similar sales are to the right of the subject and none of the properties to the left of the subject have sold or are very different. Until there is more information, we just don't know if its fraud, incompentence or a lack of data.
 
If the HUD investigators did what they say they did then I cannot imagine what else they could have done to protect the legitimate interests of both the borrower and the appraiser. It isn't obvious to me what steps they could have taken but didn't.

Regardless of which side you think might be right, the take away which appraisers should be considering is that it isn't always enough to develop the reasonable value conclusion; you also have to sell your solution to your reader. Inclusive of explanations why you chose these sales and not those sales are being more similar and more directly comparable.

A lot of appraisers work to the form; meaning they allow the form to drive their development. I don't favor that approach but I recognize how prevalent it is. That's why I think adding some clarification and reasoning why these are better provides the prompt for actually considering that question on its own merits prior to committing to using those comps. If you have the data that demonstrates the pricing trends are paralleling this neighborhood but are lagging the trends in that neighborhood then that's a reason for considering one to be more similar than the other.
 
The blame could be with the first appraiser who was scared of undervaluing Black property, or it could be with the second.
There is no "first" appraiser or "second" appraiser. This is not like the whitewashing for the second appraisal we have seen in the majority of these cases. The most recent appraisal on the subject prior to this was 3 years prior.
 
Isn't it interesting how many of these complaints are about appraisers hired by Solidifi?
I quoted Solidifi a few times, but never for a fee low enough for them to ever send an assignment. Interesting indeed.
 
If the HUD investigators did what they say they did then I cannot imagine what else they could have done to protect the legitimate interests of both the borrower and the appraiser. It isn't obvious to me what steps they could have taken but didn't.

Regardless of which side you think might be right, the take away which appraisers should be considering is that it isn't always enough to develop the reasonable value conclusion; you also have to sell your solution to your reader. Inclusive of explanations why you chose these sales and not those sales are being more similar and more directly comparable.

A lot of appraisers work to the form; meaning they allow the form to drive their development. I don't favor that approach but I recognize how prevalent it is. That's why I think adding some clarification and reasoning why these are better provides the prompt for actually considering that question on its own merits prior to committing to using those comps. If you have the data that demonstrates the pricing trends are paralleling this neighborhood but are lagging the trends in that neighborhood then that's a reason for considering one to be more similar than the other.
I have no clue on the subject. GH it appears the subject is located in a predominantly "white" area. Let's call it a "subdivision" for reference. Now on the surface, it also appears that the appraiser jumped out of this predominantly "white" subdivision when there were sales/rentals in the predominantly "white" subdivision.

As I have posted, I don't have any competency in the subject area. I am zero competent to even have an opinion of value on the subject property.
 

HUD Scandals​

  • Tad DeHaven
June 1, 2009

The Cisneros Years, 1993–1997

In the Clinton administration, a primary mission of HUD was to increase home ownership rates, especially among minorities and low-income families. That mission was carried out through HUD subsidy programs and through the two government-connected mortgage finance giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In 1992, HUD was given regulatory authority over these government-sponsored enterprises, and it began pushing the two firms into the subprime lending business. We now know that these political decisions on housing that were made in the 1990s helped fuel the housing bubble and subsequent crash in the early 21st century, so it is worth looking into the leadership of HUD during those years.

Henry Cisneros served as President Bill Clinton's HUD secretary from 1993 to 1997, when he resigned to deal with allegations that he lied to the FBI about payments he made to a former mistress. Cisneros plead guilty in 1999 and was fined $10,000, avoiding a possible prison sentence.

Cisneros oversaw a politicized HUD that mobilized to help fend off the Republicans, who gained a congressional majority in the 1994 election. The resurgent GOP initially sought to eliminate HUD as part of a plan to rein in federal spending and reduce budget deficits. HUD was one of the Republican targets, and department officials fought back in numerous ways to ward off proposed reforms.

HUD held a series of "standing up for communities" rallies, financed by taxpayers, which encouraged local officials and special interest groups to lobby against Republican budget cuts. One piece of propaganda distributed by HUD's New York office warned that the budget cuts "would dramatically expand America's underclass" and that "thousands of families, many with children, would end up homeless."23 HUD also sponsored a National Tenants Organization convention in Puerto Rico to defend the department. But that event was so political that even a HUD translator refused to take part and walked out of the proceedings in protest.24 According to HUD's inspector general, an NTO official responded that "he really didn't care whether HUD translated or not because the point was to get rid of Newt Gingrich."25

When Cisneros left HUD, he was lauded for the increase in homeownership rates that occurred on his watch. Part of his apparently winning strategy, Cisneros noted, was HUD's "ability to convince lenders, builders and real estate agents that there was money to be made in selling housing to low- and moderate-income individuals."26 Part of this "convincing" involved HUD-initiated legal action against mortgage lenders who declined higher percentages of loans for minorities than whites. As a result of such political pressure, lenders begin lowering their lending standards, which was another contributing factor to the housing meltdown in the 2000s.27

A key weapon in the Cisneros arsenal was the Clinton administration's changes to the Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA was passed in 1977 and updated in 1995 to pressure lenders into making more loans to moderate-income borrowers by allowing regulators to deny merger approvals for banks with low CRA ratings. Even complaints brought by activists, such as the leftist group ACORN, were now counted against a bank's CRA rating. The result was that banks began issuing more loans to otherwise uncreditworthy borrowers while purchasing more CRA mortgage-backed securities.28 As housing finance expert Peter Wallison noted, "The most important fact associated with the CRA is the effort to reduce underwriting standards. … Once those standards were relaxed … they spread rapidly to the prime market and to subprime markets where loans were made by lenders other than insured banks."29

The Clinton administration's National Homeownership Strategy, prepared under Cisneros's direction, brought together public and private housing market participants to coordinate plans to achieve record homeownership. This plan advocated "financing strategies, fueled by creativity and resources of the public and private sectors, to help homebuyers that lack cash to buy a home or income to make the payments."30 This is an important point to underline: the Clinton administration pursued a range of policies to put people who could not afford them into homes. Interestingly, HUD removed this Strategy document from its website in 2007 after the housing bubble burst.

Writing about the Clinton plan in 2008, financial expert Joseph R. Mason noted:

The Strategy certainly helped some renters achieve the dream of homeownership. But the Strategy was also fundamentally misused to extend more credit to prime borrowers, fueling home price inflation. That home price inflation led builders to build ever more developments, using creative financing to leverage their bets on home price appreciation in the bubble environment, ultimately resulting in record foreclosures in the present marketplace.31
Cisneros planted another seed for the housing bubble and its subsequent burst by putting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under constant pressure to facilitate more lending to "underserved" markets.32 While Cisneros's own HUD administration acknowledged that mortgages financed by Fannie and Freddie in "underserved" areas have a higher risk of default, it did not see that "there need be any safety and soundness impediment" to the policy.33 It was under Cisneros's direction that HUD agreed to allow Fannie and Freddie credit toward its "affordable housing" targets by buying subprime mortgages.34

After eight years of introducing economic distortions into housing markets, Henry Cisneros spent most of his post-HUD career making money in housing markets, as many ex-HUD officials do. In 2000, Cisneros formed a housing development company in partnership with KB Homes, and he became a KB director. The KB board also included the former CEO of Fannie Mae, James Johnson. The New York Times noted that "it made for a cozy network."35 Indeed, Fannie Mae bought or backed many of the mortgages that were in the developments of KB Homes.

In 2001, Cisneros joined the board of Fannie Mae's biggest client: the now notorious Countrywide Financial, the company that was center stage in the subprime lending scandals of recent years. When the housing bubble was inflating, Countrywide and KB took full advantage of the liberalized lending standards fueled by Cisneros's HUD. In addition to the money he received as a KB director, Cisneros's company, in which he held a 65 percent stake, received $1.24 million in consulting fees from KB in 2002.36

When Cisneros stepped down from Countrywide's board in 2007, he called it a "well-managed company" and said that he had "enormous confidence" in its leadership.37 Clearly, those statements were baloney—Cisneros was trying to escape before the crash. Just days before his resignation, Countrywide announced a $1.2 billion loss, and reported that a third of its borrowers were late on mortgage payments.38 According to SEC records, Cisneros's position at Countrywide had earned him a $360,000 salary in 2006 and $5 million in stock sales since 2001.39


The Cuomo Years, 1997-2001


https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/HUD/scandals

the dei theory was established long before sniffo... :rof: :rof: :rof:
 
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