Hybrid

[Eli]

Interesting you have posed as govt insurer and never mentioned private mortgage insurer.

 

[hastalavista]

I don't think there are plenty doing them for $150. But yeah.. I think for $150 - $275 it is possible do a credible job.

Me too.

Do you think that starting the fee at $50 and raising the fee little bit at a time until there are enough appraisers to fill demand will attract the bottom 20% of appraisers in terms of knowledge and competence? Do you think that is a good idea to have these bottom 20% of appraisers valuing 500% more collateral than they are now?

I'm not sure the hybrid used today where they pay an appraiser $50 is the same hybrid (it certainly won't be the same intended use... but I suspect it will be a different SOW as well) that Fannie/Freddie might adopt. So I do not think the same appraiser doing these for $50 will necessarily be the same appraisers doing them for Fannie/Freddie.
I also think that while someone who is getting $50 and can make it work for them for their current intended use/SOW will not be able to do the same if it is a Fannie/Freddie product.

It is a different intended use and likely SOW. That changes the entire dynamic from what they are being used for today.
The only similarity is someone other than the appraiser will inspect the property.

 

[George Hatch]

Ohhhh,

So you are saying that the AMC won't want to buy the appraiser's product?

Yet the AMC is not an intended user?

This is starting to sound like a bunch of anti-trust considerations, with AMC owners holding patent on some of this software.

Uhh, if I had ever meant to refer to an AMC making choices about which appraisal workproducts to use rather than to the actual users of those appraisals I would have worded it that way directly.


I would say that in the post- DF world only the lender buys an appraisal, regardless of its origin. All an AMC does - when one is involved - is procure that appraisal in their role as the lender's agent. No?

As for the antitrust tangent, that's a separate discussion that has it's own pros and cons; and includes elements for which I don't actually have an opinion on at this point.

 

[Meandering]

Uhh, if I had ever meant to refer to an AMC making choices about which appraisal workproducts to use rather than to the actual users of those appraisals I would have worded it that way directly.


I would say that in the post- DF world only the lender buys an appraisal, regardless of its origin. All an AMC does - when one is involved - is procure that appraisal in their role as the lender's agent. No?

Then why are AMC owners holders of patents for the software that is being sold to replace appraisers?

Sounds like the FTC should be notified.

.

 

[George Hatch]

Then why are AMC owners holders of patents for the software that is being sold to replace appraisers?

Sounds like the FTC should be notified.

If you think there's a valid complaint to make then go ahead and sic the FTC on the AMCs and their holding companies. In my perfect world the AMCs wouldn't even exist in the first place. I don't care what happens to them. So long as those decisions are made on an informed basis according to the facts and not according to the harebrained cat-in-a-tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories.

Nobody is stopping or discouraging you from seeking relief from the various agencies of the State. Least of all me.

 

[DWiley]

Then why are AMC owners holders of patents for the software that is being sold to replace appraisers?

Wow. Talk about assuming facts not in evidence !!

 

[timd354]

Interesting you have posed as govt insurer and never mentioned private mortgage insurer.

That is an outright lie. If you think that I have never mentioned that I work for a secondary market entity or a PMI, you are either delusional or lack the ability to read.

I have never posed as a government insurer. I have stated numerous times that I previously worked at one of the GSE's (Freddie Mac), but have never indicated (since the time I left Freddie) that I currently for a government insurer or government owned entity . It is well known that I work as the Chief Appraiser for a Mortgage Insurer and has been well know since at least the end of 2011 when I started with my present company.

Your savior Jesus would not approve of you telling lies.

BTW: Here is a post from 2012 where I disclose that I am the chief appraiser at a MI: https://appraisersforum.com/forums/threads/re-fis-in-2005-2007.187498/page-2#post-2251717

Here is another response to a post made by you in 2015 in which I explain that I am the chief appraiser at an MI: https://appraisersforum.com/forums/threads/job-news-is-good-or-is-it.206358/page-4#post-2577648

There are many other posts over the years that I could cite, so please just stop with the lies.

 

[timd354]

Wow. Talk about assuming facts not in evidence !!

Danny, you should know by now that facts don't matter to certain posters here on the AF.

 

[George Hatch]

Let's say the gov't does ban the use of hybrids for most mortgage lending uses. Which maybe they eventually will.

What percentage of the AMCs do you think will consider such a ruling to be a loss to their business interests, vs what percentage will consider it a gain to their business interests?

50-50? 30-70? 10-90? 0-100?


While we're at it, lets assume the gov't adopts a VA-similar minimum wage for 1004 assignments. What percentage of the AMCs do you think would consider that ruling to be a loss to their business interests, vs what percentage will consider it a gain to their business interests?

50-50? 30-70? 10-90? 0-100?

 

[Meandering]

Wow. Talk about assuming facts not in evidence !!

You should surf the trade mark and patent office sometimes.

Or could could explain why AMCs might not buy an appraisal produced on the appraiser's self designed form - that is of a bi-f nature with the appraiser hiring the picture taker.

.