Hybrid

[George Hatch]

Of course they will, same as they do with ordering 2055s on certain properties they shouldn't, and ordering 1004s on certain properties they shouldn't. But as far as user decisions go that's a user problem, not an appraiser problem as such.

 

[Evincere]

D Wiley -what motivation does Fannie have with regard to fees? Whether the appraisal cost $200, $300, $500 or $1,000 is irrelevant to Fannie. The driving force for the GSEs is service time. Turn times on this work has historically been significantly lower. Since we don't yet know the SOW or reporting format that Fannie might adopt, it is impossible to say if the same will be true of any process they pursue.

Fees aside, what is the benefit of faster turn time? You guys have done a great job of selling Fannie/Freddie on the advantage of faster turn times, but what advantage to they really offer ?. Fast turn times means less time to verify/research/analyze on appraiser end and on inspector end, pressure to run from property to property.

What will the big savings on turn time be with bifurcated...1 or 2 days? Why does that matter to a borrower, who cant' move or close for a month or more anyway in a purchase, and for a refinance, if a borrower is so desperate for money, is saving a day a good idea ? Mortgage loans last 15-30 years and REO or short sale procedure drags on for months ( years in some cases), so why Fannie/Freddie are jumping on the UBER model bandwagon of saving a day is important is funny. Even more ironic is wit will not increase the number of loans or profitability for lenders. There are only so many consumers that will buy or borrow, and a 2 day time shave or $100 saving on appraisal fee is not going to change that.

If all lenders see a time to close shortened and appraisal fees less they will end up just as they are now, competing against each other for a limited set of borrowers.

Stands to reason if emphasis is on even faster turn times there will be erroneous information when the pressure is placed on these unbeknownst, get the job done, no skin in the game inspectors working on the even faster and cheap.

Appraisers with E&O signing these reports are going to be expected to rely on them?

 

[timd354]

I said that 1) lower fees meant a number of highly experienced/competent appraisers will not accept the work , denying their services to borrowers who often pay a retail $ amount at loan application that would cover it

That is is simply a false statement as the borrower is neither the client nor the intended user of the appraisal ordered by the lender. Borrowers are free to go out and retain any appraiser they want for their own intended use, including hiring the most expensive and/or most experienced appraiser available

 

[J Grant]

That is is simply a false statement as the borrower is neither the client nor the intended user of the appraisal ordered by the lender. Borrowers are free to go out and retain any appraiser they want for their own intended use, including hiring the most expensive and/or most experienced appraiser available

This is typical of your MO, to assign a "false " statement that is different from what I actually wrote.

I never wrote that the borrower is an intended user of the appraisal. And I am well aware the client is not the borrower.

you failed to comprehend the meaning of what I wrote. I stated that though a borrower pays a retail fee of X$ , they are denied ( by client choosing for them ), the services of some very competent appraisers when low fee is a decider. I heard a USPAP pending change acknowledges that while borrowers are not the client, they may be relying on an appraisal. Well doh, yeah, since a borrower taking out a loan is the whole reason the assignment is generated.

The fact that a borrower can retain an appraisers for their own intended use is meaningless in a conversation about lender work, since that appraisal will not be accepted by lender. The whole point of why lender work is different is that the borrower who generates assignment is not permitted to select the appraiser (for other purposes of course they can select the appraiser ). It is a public trust issue, since the borrower is not allowed to choose, they rely on lender to choose for them and certain the lenders abandon due diligence by offloading to an AMC who pimps it out for lowest fee. ( and is profit from this going back to lender if said lender owns an ordering division run on AMC model or owns an or stock in AMC they assign work through )

 

[timd354]

This is typical of your MO, to assign a "false " statement that is different from what I actually wrote.

I never wrote that the borrower is an intended user of the appraisal. And I am well aware the client is not the borrower.

you failed to comprehend the meaning of what I wrote. I stated that though a borrower pays a retail fee of X$ , they are denied ( by client choosing for them ), the services of some very competent appraisers when low fee is a decider. I heard a USPAP pending change acknowledges that while borrowers are not the client, they may be relying on an appraisal. Well doh, yeah, since a borrower taking out a loan is the whole reason the assignment is generated.

The fact that a borrower can retain an appraisers for their own intended use is meaningless in a conversation about lender work, since that appraisal will not be accepted by lender. The whole point of why lender work is different is that the borrower who generates assignment is not permitted to select the appraiser (for other purposes of course they can select the appraiser ). It is a public trust issue, since the borrower is not allowed to choose, they rely on lender to choose for them and certain the lenders abandon due diligence by offloading to an AMC who pimps it out for lowest fee. ( and is profit from this going back to lender if said lender owns an ordering division run on AMC model or owns an or stock in AMC they assign work through )

I understand exactly what you wrote, but what you wrote is simply incorrect. Since the borrower is not the client or the intended user of the lender's appraisal, they are denied exactly nothing due to the lender's use of an AMC that allegedly pimps it out for the lowest fee. Since they are neither the client nor the intended user of the appraisal the borrower has no right nor a reasonable expectation that they should be able to rely on the lender's appraisal.

Your assertion that the borrower should be able to rely on the lender to select the appraiser is actually a very dangerous position to take, because if courts were buy that line of reasoning, then the whole concept of privity gets thrown out and appraiser liability is exponentially increased

 

[J Grant]

Perhaps the better word then rely, would be to say that the borrower is affected by the outcome of the appraisal. Are you denying that is the case?

 

[chad hampton]

But you do desktops. How different is that from a Hybrid when it comes to denigrating appraisers fees? Talking out of both sides of your mouth does little to add to the credibility of your posts. WTF?

I always consider the purpose of the appraisal when pricing. What's wrong with a traditional desktop product provided the home was listed and sold 6 months ago and now the owner wants to open a line of credit? Provided there is plenty of data to do a desktop for a low risk line of credit, I have no issues with that. I'll accept the added risk that comes with trying to give an opinion of value on a home you haven't actually walked through and gotten a feel for. I've done plenty of 2055's for non-lending purposes, it's a necessary product for pre-foreclosures (although BPO's seem to have taken most of that work, at least in my state). And if there isn't enough public record data (which is the case more often than not), then I recommend a URAR. The key words being public record/MLS data.

I've probably done less than 15 desktops in my life.

What I have no interest in doing is putting my name on a desktop product for a cash out refi or purchase (which is what I have seen these last 2 months). And I'm surely not going to take someone else's word on it. Especially when the same bank or AMC won't allow a licensed trainee to do what they now allow any random person to do.

As a profession, we need to always protect the value of our licenses. Even the usual suspects on this board that day in and day out do the bidding of the AMC's, I assume still have a personal license that they value. Even if they aren't working appraisers any longer.

 

[bnmappraisal]

It is not about one loan. It is about cutting the total time on the whole portfolio. A single day is worth far more $ than most can imagine.

It's sad but true

 

[DWiley]

As a profession, we need to always protect the value of our licenses. Even the usual suspects on this board that day in and day out do the bidding of the AMC's, I assume still have a personal license that they value. Even if they aren't working appraisers any longer.

I could not agree more with anything you have ever written. The difference, I believe, is in what we view as our value. I don’t think it is in appraisers’ interests to fight over the value we bring to the inspection process, especially given that there isn’t one iota of formal training in inspections required to obtain the credentials we hold so dear. I mean, really, if the inspection is so important, why is that given exactly zero coverage in our educational requirements, even after more than 25 years and numerous revisions to those requirements?

Given that, and given that our own professional standards have recognized appraisal without inspection since their inception, any argument based on the value of having an actual appraiser conduct the inspection just comes across as disingenuous, especially to most non-appraisers.

From where I sit, it seems like our own professional history leads to some massive fissures in the very foundation of arguments about how critical a personal inspection by the appraiser is.

 

[timd354]

Perhaps the better word then rely, would be to say that the borrower is affected by the outcome of the appraisal. Are you denying that is the case?

Insofar as the appraisal is most often a necessary component of the loan approval process, the borrower's ability to obtain a loan may be affected by the outcome of the appraisal but since appraisers have historically met the contract price slightly more than 90% of the time, the overwhelming majority of borrowers are not affected one way or another by appraiser selection as 90% if the time they are getting approved on a purchase appraisal. Additionally, unless you have data that shows whether "low fee" appraisers hit the contract price at a different rate (whether it is higher or lower) than so called higher fee appraisers, there is no way to quantify the effect (if any) of lenders using so-called low fee appraisers and any assertion that borrowers are negatively (or positively) affected by a lender's use of so-called low fee appraisers is nothing more than mere speculation that is wholly unsupported