Hybrid

[George Hatch]

I don't think its in your best interests to do these at $50 /= you cannot do these.

Edit to add:

I don't know how many of you remember the ZAIO wars but there were different arguments the "con" side of the argument that I was on were presenting; and I only agreed with some of those arguments.

In a nutshell, their program was that the appraiser would pre-quality and rate and photograph every SFR in a neighborhood, build a valuation subroutine model with adjustments for the variables. Then if an appraisal came in the company's AVM would use the appraiser qualified data and adjustment factors to produce a value conclusion, load it all into a 2055 form with the appraiser's signature on it.

Unlike others, I didn't have a problem with the appraiser pre-qualifying all the data before it even sold, or with their scheduled quarterly or bi-annual updating that database.

I didn't have a problem with the appraiser getting involved with model specification or model calibration of the AVM they were working with.

I didn't have a problem with the AVM producing a value conclusion on the automated basis once the assignment request came in

I didn't have a problem with the appraiser looking at that value conclusion and developing the opinion that they agreed with the value conclusion (that agreement being an appraisal).

Most of my objections were in the use of the 2055 form itself, which includes specific assertions about the appraiser's activities, and the lack of disclosure about how the value conclusion was developed and what the appraiser's opinions about the subject were as of the moment the AVM affixed the appraiser's signature to the report and sent it out - which was in advance of the appraiser actually reviewing the output. In effect, the appraiser's opinion didn't become their opinion until after the report had already been sent out.

I thought then and I think now that their program could have passed muster if they had used a different form and been more forthcoming in their disclosures; but I also think that had the clients understood what they were actually buying the prevailing price for that service would not have been equal to the then-prevailing fee for the 2055s, which the company needed in order to be feasible.

---------------------

Obviously, I can see some potential parallels with the HAs if the requisite disclosures are not being made. But at this point we're referring to an SR2 problem that's readily curable, not necessarily an SR1 problem that might be incurable.

 

[Eli]

I don't think its in your best interests to do these at $50 /= you cannot do these

I would want E&O. A copy of a bond, both AMC and inspector. Tennessee may still say no with the way it is disclosed on truth in lending disclosures. Different governments. You say things are local. You are correct. A State govt can enforce antitrust law with huge penalties.

Watch Louisiana. Tennessee could be worse (actually better) before it’s over for more than one reason.

State law. Antitrust law. Two big factors.

Truth in lending disclosures.

 

[Meandering]

REGARDLESS, even if I was their *****, I'm still right about this issue and you're still wrong. Not because of who either of us are, but because the reasoning you're using sux. .

Sorry if you think the lending regulations sux but they are what they are, and they are regulations that must be followed for lending work. And because they say what they say, your self proclamation of being “right” holds no water in the context of USPAP competency. Sorry if you only taught USPAP to appraisers and not all the current applicable regulations. Not my issue if you don’t read them.

In short, I'm just doing what I've always done here. I'm just being consistent.

Yup. You hought the HVCC was gonna be good to. In a way it was good. It starved many out of the industry and got the skippy mills to close, but other than that it has not been good for anyone else other than AMCs and Lenders. The public still can’t get results they can rely on from appraisers, because the lending side is still controlling what goes into a report, and who gets to write those reports. But good job, too bad Karl left before we got to this point in the industry. His black helicopter might have had a landing pad.


[QUOE="George Hatch, post: 2845577, member: 66065"]Same as always - I think appraisers are better served if they have the information it takes to make the informed decision. .[/QUOTE]

Well, then it is a real pity you did not supply them with the regulation regarding lending appraisals for regulated institutions (banks). Because if you believed they should have the information, you would have directed them to it.

I don't think of appraisers as children who need to be protected from the truth lest they use it to make a decision I don't like. I assume my peers are capable of deciding for themselves where lie their best interests. .

So in keeping with this thought, you just thought the children should be told what’s good for them instead of giving them the regulation to read for themselves? Okay, got it. I got a bridge to sell you.

You obviously don't want appraisers to perform hybrids. I don't have an opinion one way or another about whether appraisers should or shouldn't do these. My opinion extends only so far that if they do perform one, I want them to perform it to specs. Same as any other appraisal assignment. .

If that were true, you should have given them the IAEG so they could read for themselves the specs expected of them.

I have grave concerns about some of the proposed uses for these things, but as I have said before, those are at the client and investor level, not the appraiser liability level or the appraiser licensing level. .

I believe the appraiser liability is much higher, give that the lender’s side of the IAEG says lenders “should” and the USPAP side says appraisers “must”, it seems like you are down playing the liability to appraisers – even in the face of Peter, a lawyer for many appraiser’s E&O insurance, you want to deny risk to appraisers, yet Peter also has presented contradicting views. But you know the kids better than Peter. You tell them what to think, ‘cause you aint risking yours.

There's no magic or luck involved. Say what you do and do what you say. Your fee is a matter that's between you and your client. If you no like, you no buy. And vice versa for the clients.

Oh yeah there is that HVCC was good, free market caveat. How come you don’t color your “grave concerns over the use of these products” with a statement that the fee should be commensurate to support the risk?

 

[Meandering]

I would want E&O. A copy of a bond, both AMC and inspector. Tennessee may still say no with the way it is disclosed on truth in lending disclosures. Different governments. You say things are local. You are correct. A State govt can enforce antitrust law with huge penalties.

Watch Louisiana. Tennessee could be worse (actually better) before it’s over for more than one reason.

State law. Antitrust law. Two big factors.

Truth in lending disclosures.

All you need is for the AMC to indemnify you over their chose of the scope of the work and report format, choice of "inspector" and quality of the inspection and it's results.

Not like AMCs aren't familiar with indemnity agreements.

 

[George Hatch]

I thought then and I think now that forcing the MBs out of the loop was the right thing to do. You may recall that the original HVCC contained distinct limitations on the use of lender controlled AMCs (which we objected to), and D-F contained language for C&R that eventually got interpreted in ways other than originally intended. I'm not going to apologize for operating in good faith based on the information that was available at the time OR for not accurately predicting the ways the requirements would be diluted later on.

No matter what, ii was still appropriate to remove the salesmen from the loop, even if the lenders' next move was toward AMCs. Within context, our economic interests as fee appraisers are ultimately irrelevant WRT the known appraiser impartiality issues than came from MB select.

As for what the current banking regs are or aren't, it seems to me that you are now facing the same type of disconnect between the way you're reading the regs and how they're being applied at both the lender and regulatory levels. Kinda sux, doesn't it?


Oh yeah, and guess what? Had the lenders all been forced to go to direct engagement like we wanted back then they still would have gotten around to using automated systems to pit an oversupplied appraiser population against each other in Thunderdome-style "standard fee" bidding.

Meanwhile, as of 2008 I had also been telling appraisers for years to be mindful of not adding too many heads to the gene pool. But too many of them didn't listen so here we are, still struggling our way through the gross oversupply and its inevitable effects on fees.

 

[Eli]

I thought then and I think now that forcing the MBs out of the loop was the right thing to do. You may recall that the original HVCC contained distinct limitations on the use of lender controlled AMCs (which we objected to), and D-F contained language for C&R that eventually got interpreted in ways other than originally intended. I'm not going to apologize for operating in good faith based on the information that was available at the time OR for not accurately predicting the ways the requirements would be diluted later on.

no matter what, ii was still appropriate to remove the salesmen from the loop, even if the lenders' next move was toward AMCs. Within context, our economic interests as fee appraisers are ultimately irrelevant WRT the known appraiser impartiality issues than came from MB select.

As for what the current banking regs are or aren't, it seems to me that you are now facing the same type of disconnect between the way you're reading the regs and how they're being applied at both the lender and regulatory levels.

It’s local George. I hate hidden fees and always have. I hate oligopsonistic competition and always have. C&R was an answer. VA is a model form.

Truth in lending disclosures are wrong based on how they are structured.. Watch Louisiana pull the sheets back on antitrust and fraud based on antitrust violations and truth in lending disclosures.

VA is not only right on truth in lending disclosures and lack of antitrust violations, their track record is outstanding through a major depression (recession). Similar to what C&R was intended to be.

It’s local GH, your dead on in that synopsis. Lol

 

[Meandering]

I thought then and I think now that forcing the MBs out of the loop was the right thing to do. You may recall that the original HVCC contained distinct limitations on the use of lender controlled AMCs (which we objected to), and D-F contained language for C&R that eventually got interpreted in ways other than originally intended. I'm not going to apologize for operating in good faith based on the information that was available at the time OR for not accurately predicting the ways the requirements would be diluted later on.

No matter what, ii was still appropriate to remove the salesmen from the loop, even if the lenders' next move was toward AMCs. Within context, our economic interests as fee appraisers are ultimately irrelevant WRT the known appraiser impartiality issues than came from MB select.

As for what the current banking regs are or aren't, it seems to me that you are now facing the same type of disconnect between the way you're reading the regs and how they're being applied at both the lender and regulatory levels. Kinda sux, doesn't it?


Oh yeah, and guess what? Had the lenders all been forced to go to direct engagement like we wanted back then they still would have gotten around to using automated systems to pit an oversupplied appraiser population against each other in Thunderdome-style "standard fee" bidding.

Meanwhile, as of 2008 I had also been telling appraisers for years to be mindful of not adding too many heads to the gene pool. But too many of them didn't listen so here we are, still struggling our way through the gross oversupply and its inevitable effects on fees.

They can automate anything they want, but how big of a strech was it to see the consequences of Countrywide and EAppraise it, and think more of the same would be "good" or "better", well, yeah, because those subcontracted "fee" appraisers did not have the duck and cover of follwoing an employers directions.

Sheesh.

And why or HOW do you think Appraisal Fraud is increasing????

Because those Holy Preachers now own bigger AMCs then they did before???

 

[glenn walker]

A hybrid or a 2055 Drive-By is not screwing over your peers it's simply a business decision that each individual appraiser has to make.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

give that the lender’s side of the IAEG says lenders “should”

Should means must, it's really not optional.

Elsewhere a reviewer notes someone used an MLS pix and was apparently unawares that the house was in a gated community and had applicable HOA dues. So if bad form for appraisers in that situation, it's bad form if the inspector fails to note it, right? But who gets reviewed? Inspector? or, appraiser?

 

[djd09]

I can't believe this thread is going. TAF answered the questions. Of course an appraiser can do anything they want, i never seen otherwise, but they are responsible for their actions.

Point blank. You sign it, you bought it. No scoping away responsibility.

Which now begs the question , who really needs an USPAP class? Chief???