I'm not surprised..

[Zoe]

I have long (as in 30+ years) thought that lenders should not be able to pass any expenses straight through to a borrower. None. Including the appraisal cost. The appraisal is done for the lender, and it should be at the expense of the lender. Asking the borrower to pay a direct fee for the appraisal is no different, to me, than asking them to pay a pro rate share of the rent, the electric bill or any other cost of doing business as a lender. But, hey, I don't make those rules.

My only intent in posting in this thread is to help some better understand how the business actually works. When I was in AMCland we did have orders where our gross exceeded the appraiser's fee - and for everyone of those I could show you several where there was a gross loss because the appraiser fee was more than the AMC total fee.

I hope you all have a great weekend. I am out.

Sir, with all due respect, you realize the impact that if fees got separated on truth in lending disclosures between AMC and APPRAISER.

If you don't realize the change it would have, then please explain why you don't realize the impact it would have for public trust mainly.

 

[Zoe]

Last post, I think. maybe.probaly not.

Ok. The lender selects the AMC and goes into contract at a rate of $150 per order.

This says that the lender thinks the services of the AMC is worth $150 per order. Correct?

If the AMC loses money:
1. Poor business decision.
2. That's business. Sign a better contract next time.

Contact the cfpb and let's protect the consumer!

He knows not all AMCs operate that way. The consumer is who gets stung in the process.

Okay, let's do $150 AMC per assignment on all federally transactions and do that on all truth in lending disclosures. That will go over like a turd in a punch bowl.

Unless CFPB and FTC says disclose your actual fee AMC.

If CFPB and FTC were to say do it. HUD would be okay, we will add that line item on truth in lending disclosures.

It will create intense competition between AMCs.

There is no living entity that would fight it if CFPB or FTC said separate the fees and this is why.

I can use KISS principle. Keep it simple stupid. Truth in lending disclosures is intended to be truthful.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

CFPB and FTC did not know what they know now.

And they were not exactly helpful back when you were advocating for action when they basically tamped down efforts to enforce C & R in Louisiana, now were they? Nothing changed. They are far more likely to thump appraisers on the head than they are to punish AMCs, Banks, or FNMA.

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

Because The Allen Tire is in a market that is not regulated while you and I are strangled by regulations that are put in place to benefit those in power. All under the guise of “public trust”.

I originally thought that the "Public Trust" was a fund for broke-axx appraisers !!!!!!!!!!! LOL

 

[chad hampton]

AMC‘s seem to have a lot of money to fly people all over the country to conferences and then bragging about it on LinkedIn and social media. Should’ve seen the expo, a lot of propaganda there. Every dime they spent was taken out of your pocket.

 

[J Grant]

AMC‘s seem to have a lot of money to fly people all over the country to conferences and then bragging about it on LinkedIn and social media. Should’ve seen the expo, a lot of propaganda there. Every dime they spent was taken out of your pocket.

Their entire compensation and profit comes from the appraiser's pocket.

Long live the AMCs if they can actually get their customers ( lenders and banks) to pay a cost for their service ( the way other businesses operate ) Instead, like leeches they gouge the fees from hard working, low resource appraisers ..

I did a rough estimate and figured that a res licensed appraiser who did a fair volume of work for an AMC lost about 30k -50 k a year of income due to the fee split - over 10 years, that is 300k -500k enough to pay off a mortgage, fund a retirement, pay for college, etc. As for the appraisers who refused to work for an AMC , they, too, paid a price for it one way or another.

 

[Dublin ohio]

I did a rough estimate and figured that a res licensed appraiser who did a fair volume of work for an AMC lost about 30k -50 k a year of income due to the fee split - over 10 years, that is 300k -500k enough to pay off a mortgage, fund a retirement, pay for college, etc. As for the appraisers who refused to work for an AMC , they, too, paid a price for it one way or another.

Based on what numbers. If an appraiser is doing 20 appraisals a month. That equals $125-$200 per appraisal. I don't see my market supporting that much above my current fees. That would put my typical SFR fee higher than VA fees for my area

 

[J Grant]

Based on what numbers. If an appraiser is doing 20 appraisals a month. That equals $125-$200 per appraisal. I don't see my market supporting that much above my current fees. That would put my typical SFR fee higher than VA fees for my area

The math is backward. The AMC does not add $125-$200 to the borrow paid appraisal fee (which would as you note, put the SFR fee higher than VA)

The AMC subtracts $125-$200 (which they keep ) as a fee split from the borrower-paid appraisal fee. The fee the borrower pays is typically the same whether their lender uses an AMC or not.

 

[Dublin ohio]

The math is backward. The AMC does not add $125-$200 to the borrow paid appraisal fee (which would as you note, put the SFR fee higher than VA)

The AMC subtracts $125-$200 (which they keep ) as a fee split from the borrower-paid appraisal fee. The fee the borrower pays is typically the same whether their lender uses an AMC or not.

The AMC only "subtracts" when the appraiser lets them. Your math is based on your assumptions

 

[J Grant]

The AMC only "subtracts" when the appraiser lets them. Your math is based on your assumptions

I am telling you the way it actually works the majority of the time with the majority of AMC's and yes, lunkhead, the appraiser technically "lets them" subtract the fee split -