Hybrid Appraisals

[jay trotta]

Waivers and hybrids weren't a thing in 2008.

Yup, the Fed gave them all a "Bailout" whether they needed it or not. When they got their "toes" stepped om, they became forward thinking and waivers & hybrids became a thing within 2+/- years.

Fast forward to 2019 and nobody was forward thinking, and the collateral damage still exists today. Appraisal modernization is but one result, imo

 

[glenn walker]

Yup, the Fed gave them all a "Bailout" whether they needed it or not. When they got their "toes" stepped om, they became forward thinking and waivers & hybrids became a thing within 2+/- years.

Fast forward to 2019 and nobody was forward thinking, and the collateral damage still exists today. Appraisal modernization is but one result, imo

The modernization is to eliminate appraisers and use cheaper valuation method's and machines. There will be evaluations and price checks but much faster and cheaper.

 

[George Hatch]

Your posts have become so embarrassing, I rarely respond. You’re clueless if you think there’s 100 AMC‘s in my state each doing one percent of the business.

You must be attending the JGrant School for kids who can't read good and stuff.

I didn't say they were all doing 1% of the business. But there are well over 100 of them, meaning when someone says so they are not lying. Once you go and count for yourself you also won't be able to say otherwise without it being a lie.

Do you know why I knew to fact check you for inaccurate and misleading? Because its a productive strategy.

 

[J Grant]

You must be attending the JGrant School for kids who can't read good and stuff.

I didn't say they were all doing 1% of the business. But there are well over 100 of them, meaning when someone says so they are not lying. Once you go and count for yourself you also won't be able to say otherwise without it being a lie.

Do you know why I knew to fact check you for inaccurate and misleading? Because its a productive strategy.

Context.
Every working appraiser who deals with AMCs in an area recognized that if 100 AMC;s registered in an area, it is typical that the big 5 AMC;s give out the 70% of the volume and 15 AMC's give out 20% of the volume and the remaining 80 AMC;s give out 10% of the volume. Describing it as volume is controlled in the hands of a few is not a lie.
The lie, or rather the misleading gaslighting, is saying if 100 AMCs are registered in area, then 100 are giving out orders in some nice division of volume. -

The volume in the hands of a few skews supply and demand, which is why the fee appraisals are not able to push back against fees. Though it is shameful that appraisers, due to the HUD bundled fee which allows lenders free of cost service from AMCs, are in the position of pushing back on fees in such measly amounts.
The appraiser should be paid the full borrower-covered appraisal fee, hard stop.
The fact that this is not the case when an AMC is involved has bled the profession dry and sent many competent appraisers away from AMC-managed mortgage lending work.

 

[George Hatch]

Even if 5 AMCs are handling 70% of the volume that is not the reason why AMCs competing with each other in the same spaces have the ability to place their assignments at the same rates as each other.

Appraiser splits vary significantly by locale. (And by market conditions in the marketplace for appraisal services). That fact alone proves that your explanation is both illogical and unsupported when using paired comparisons. The AMC motivations are the same and so are the appraiser motivations, so neither of those are the operative variable.

The difference obviously lies in the availability of their respective alternatives.

 

[glenn walker]

Your Point Is confusing and not applicable to the poster's original rant about the true numbers of registered AMCs in his community.

His rant had nothing to do with seperation of fees, just that he believed the fees he's offered are too low. But the fact is those fees are being taken by other appraisers so that's truly the C & R in his community.

The fact that he think's it's too low is just his opinion, but not supported by other active appraisers. We all want higher fees and wages, but as long as there's people to take those job's it's just a hope and a prayer . The markets have no feeling and no souls..lol

 

[George Hatch]

The other point nobody wants to engage with is that even under C&R it will be the market that sets the rate. Not the govt. If 100 appraisers are chasing 75 assignments that day only the most competitive bids are going to be accepted; the less competitive bids will sit idle. No different than when a property is listed too high in the MLS. It languishes while the more competitively priced listings get snapped up.

Rinse and repeat for a month or two and the lower number becomes the more common number as a direct result of the market participants exercising their choices. Add to that, the more efficient the tech-enabled point of purchase becomes the more potential there is for fee volatility. The winners of the live-action bidding on Monday were bidding at $402 but the winners on Wednesday were bidding at $399. A month later the prevailing fee might be $567; for the most part its volumes on the demand side that are more flexible, not the available supply of appraiser productivity.

The point being that any assumptions that govt will prohibit appraisers from competing each other by fee may be subject to challenge.

 

[J Grant]

Even if 5 AMCs are handling 70% of the volume that is not the reason why AMCs competing with each other in the same spaces have the ability to place their assignments at the same rates as each other.

Appraiser splits vary significantly by locale. (And by market conditions in the marketplace for appraisal services). That fact alone proves that your explanation is both illogical and unsupported when using paired comparisons. The AMC motivations are the same and so are the appraiser motivations, so neither of those are the operative variable.

The difference obviously lies in the availability of their respective alternatives.

There should not be any splits. A lender should pay a cost to the AMC for the management service, and the borrower's appraisal fee should be paid in full to the appraisers. That would relieve AMC of fee shopping since all appraisers on their panel get the borrower-covered appraisal fees.

If the lender can pass the cost on , so be it. But the appraiser bearing the cost out of a fee split to compensate teh AMC was wrong from day one.

 

[J Grant]

The other point nobody wants to engage with is that even under C&R it will be the market that sets the rate. Not the govt. If 100 appraisers are chasing 75 assignments that day only the most competitive bids are going to be accepted; the less competitive bids will sit idle. No different than when a property is listed too high in the MLS. It languishes while the more competitively priced listings get snapped up.

Rinse and repeat for a month or two and the lower number becomes the more common number as a direct result of the market participants exercising their choices. And, the more efficient the tech-enabled point of purchase becomes the more potential there is for fee volatility. The winners on Monday were bidding at $402 but the winners on Wednesday were bidding at $399. A month later the prevailing fee might be $567; for the most part its the demand side that's more variable, not the available supply of appraiser productivity.

The market sets the C and R fee now, and appraisers have no problem with it - the problem is that the AMC takes a split of the fee.

Rinse and repeat teh bold type sentence below. It has been explained numerous times, which means you either fail to understand it or pretend that you do not understand it.

When there is no AMC involved, lenders do not solicit competitive bids for non-complex orders. They pay all the appraisals on their panel in a region the SAME C and R fee .

Do you understand this simple fact, or not ?

 

[George Hatch]

There should not be any splits. A lender should pay a cost to the AMC for the management service, and the borrower's appraisal fee should be paid in full to the appraisers. That would relieve AMC of fee shopping since all appraisers on their panel get the borrower-covered appraisal fees.

If the lender can pass the cost on , so be it. But the appraiser bearing the cost out of a fee split to compensate teh AMC was wrong from day one.

By definition, what "should be" usually...."isn't".