I'm not surprised..

[CGinMN]

The best argument for a college education in our field is the requirement for appraisers to understand Econ 101, which many do not. Philosophy and logic should also be required. AF would die for lack of debate, however.

 

[Mark K]

The best argument for a college education in our field is the requirement for appraisers to understand Econ 101, which many do not. Philosophy and logic should also be required. AF would die for lack of debate, however.

High school Econ 101 would suffice in most cases but its painfully apparent that too many appraisers didn't bother with even that class.

My son majored in Econ with a minor in Philosophy at Purdue; I offered him my business but he wanted nothing to do with it. LOL!!

 

[George Hatch]

The above is a repeat lecture about the obvious, and you like to have the last word, so I will let you --some of the interchange was interesting, however.

If the reasons which have motivated all of these evolutions actually are obvious to you then that renders irrelevant everything you are proposing they should change. If you know that the reasons the lenders have been acting this way are in an attempt to do as best they can for themselves under the existing legal framework then you also know they have no incentive to do otherwise. And you know that nothing other than MORE govt intervention is going to move them off these positions.

And please, don't go all Hampton on me and snivel about me advocating for your destruction - on the deliberately dishonest basis. If appraisers can prompt the govt to add further prohibitions on lender conduct for the sole purpose of improving your fees then I fully support that. Good for you, hope it works out to your benefit. I don't care what happens to the lenders insofar as appraisal fees are concerned. They get what they get.

In the meantime these criticisms basically amount to being unhappy with the lenders for acting like lenders instead of acting like our allies. It's as if you are actually taking serious any of the sht talk they do about considering appraisers to be their "valued partners".

You knew they were bankers when you first solicited to do appraisals for them. It's too late to say they misled you as to the true nature of that relationship.

 

[J Grant]

If the reasons which have motivated all of these evolutions actually are obvious to you then that renders irrelevant everything you are proposing they should change. If you know that the reasons the lenders have been acting this way are in an attempt to do as best they can for themselves under the existing legal framework then you also know they have no incentive to do otherwise. And you know that nothing other than MORE govt intervention is going to move them off these positions.

And please, don't go all Hampton on me and snivel about me advocating for your destruction - on the deliberately dishonest basis. If appraisers can prompt the govt to add further prohibitions on lender conduct for the sole purpose of improving your fees then I fully support that. Good for you, hope it works out to your benefit. I don't care what happens to the lenders insofar as appraisal fees are concerned. They get what they get.

In the meantime these criticisms basically amount to being unhappy with the lenders for acting like lenders instead of acting like our allies. It's as if you are actually taking serious any of the sht talk they do about considering appraisers to be their "valued partners".

You knew they were bankers when you first solicited to do appraisals for them. It's too late to say they misled you as to the true nature of that relationship.

I tried to conclude this back-and-forth gracefully, yet you continue to go on and repeat the obvious—all of which I was well aware of.

I suppose there is no point asking what drives the need to denigrate me (or others ) who speak about the realities of the AMC model- ( such as when you use words like sniveling) -even though Joe Flaco has brought to your attention the fact that you are not well informed about certain aspects of it.

 

[RCA]

We appreciate your participation ( and for taking the heat for a system you do not control.)

WRt your idea that the lender cover teh appraisal cost - won't happen, it would cost they far too much and they'd take a loss every time a borrower switched lenders or did not qualify for the loan or a deal died for various reasons. It would also make them resort to intense pressure since they now take a direct $ loss for an appraisal that does not make value.

It would be far cheaper for teh lender to pay $100 for the AMC service then for the lender to pay for the entire appraisal. The problem is not AMC;s per se, the problem is the way they do not get compensated as a charge paid by the lenre, but rather from a fee split of the consumer paid appraisal fee.

The current situation and all previously tried solutions have been brain dead.

1. The owner can and often does apply for multiple loans and can run up the bill. for multiple lenders. I had one client who had 6 different appraisals for 6 different loan applications. So asking the lender to foot the bill does not make sense.

2. Having the home owner pay, often leads to problems of various sorts. For loans, they are interested in the highest possible value - and will try to put pressure on the appraiser if the opportunity arises. They also lack knowledge about appraisals and have a tendency to complain if they don't get their property appraised to a value the are willing to accept.

3. The GSEs are too remote from the loan process to be funding appraisals for loans they may never purchase for one reason or another, - although they could get into appraisal selection and ordering as a separate but overlapping business.

4. It does make sense for a central disinterested party to manage appraisals, so that an appraisal is only needed once every 3-4 months (unless there have been some major changes to the economy. They would manage whether new appraisals are needed. They would manage the whole appraiser selection and appraisal order process. This should be either a federal or state government entity, most likely federal. They would also manage reviews and random audits.

#4 seems the logical choice.

 

[George Hatch]

I tried to conclude this back-and-forth gracefully, yet you continue to go on and repeat the obvious—all of which I was well aware of.

Is the agenda behind trying to denigrate me (or others ) who speak about the realities of the AMC model, which has hurt the profession - I suppose the goal is to belittle what we have to say on the topic- even though Joe Flaco has bought to your attention that you are not well informed on certain aspects of it.

And which aspect is that, exactly? What part of "we have no leverage in the fees" do you think I don't understand? Which aspect of "AMC splits are lower than direct engagement" are somehow beyond my observations?

Stop being dumb. When I worked on staff for a lender I got paid a fraction of my billings, same as what happens to staff appraisers on the SFR side. I saw how the lenders accounted for the difference so they weren't showing a profit. I know what their motivations are. In fact, if you haven't worked on staff before and you haven't seen how they operate on that side and you haven't interacted face-to-face with 100 AMC appraisers/reviewer and at least a dozen AMC chief appraisers before then YOU haven't seen as much as I've seen over the years.

How many AMC employees have you had such a conversation with? How many chief appraisers of the high volume lenders have you asked these questions of? Zero, right? How many hundreds and thousands of appraisers have you had discussions with in a group setting? Sorry, but it just ain't that deep that it takes uploading a dozen 1004s a week and answer 20 emails in order to understand it.

The bottom line remains untouched - the lenders' usage of appraisals is oriented around their needs. Not the needs of fee appraisers. The aftermath and the effects on the appraisers is not at issue - nobody disagrees about any aspect of that, including me. I'm not denying anything about any of that other than to say that nobody other than appraisers has an obligation to care about what happens to the financial interests of appraisers.

 

[J Grant]

And which aspect is that, exactly? What part of "we have no leverage in the fees" do you think I don't understand? Which aspect of "AMC splits are lower than direct engagement" are somehow beyond my observations?

Stop being dumb.

When you keep saying things like direct order work is only from low volume punk credit unions, when in fact several large-scale wholesalers and lenders order direct, or when it is brought to your attention that only the AMC's fee bid out regular noncomplex GSE lender work. ( and that direct order lenders do not)

You also compare your own bidding in your niche of lender appraisals when it has been pointed out to you that differs from the GSE work wrt when they do and do not use an AMC.

 

[George Hatch]

Even it was true that there are lots of high volume lenders doing that (citation needed) it doesn't alter the point that nothing that occurs at an AMC is happening without the direct knowledge, endorsement and enablement and even pressure by the lender who chose to go that way; and those lenders have no incentive to do otherwise.

If there really were a lot of high volume clients doing that then it wouldn't have taken you 5 years to recover to the 80% mark of what you used to do. Even now, you admit to having to accept AMC assignments. By my count your own experience obviously contradicts your talking point (a significant number of high volume clients do direct engagement). Not to mention what the other appraisers have been saying about that for all these years. Sorry, but I am disinclined to ignore what everyone else has been saying all along.

 

[chad hampton]

The best argument for a college education in our field is the requirement for appraisers to understand Econ 101, which many do not. Philosophy and logic should also be required. AF would die for lack of debate, however.

You ain’t kidding. Most can’t understand anything beyond supply and demand in a vacuum.

 

[J Grant]

Even it was true that there are lots of high volume lenders doing that (citation needed) it doesn't alter the point that nothing that occurs at an AMC is happening without the direct knowledge, endorsement and enablement and even pressure by the lender who chose to go that way; and those lenders have no incentive to do otherwise.

If there really were a lot of high volume clients doing that then it wouldn't have taken you 5 years to recover to the 80% mark of what you used to do. Even now, you admit to having to accept AMC assignments. By my count your own experience obviously contradicts your talking point (a significant number of high volume clients do direct engagement). Not to mention what the other appraisers have been saying about that for all these years. Sorry, but I am disinclined to ignore what everyone else has been saying all along.

I didn't say a lot of high-volume clients order direct; I said my clients are high-volume who order direct (since you kept assuming they were small local ). The AMC orders comprise about 10-15% of my business and are from one lender-owned AMC that works on a cost-plus model. The reason is that half their orders are high-value/complex, and they pay well on those orders.

If I had to guess, I'd say 20-30% decent volume clients order direct, and the larger share use the AMC model; why not, since it cost them nothing (typically) - because of the govt perk to get teh service free of had cost via the bundled fee. The appraiser bears the cost by getting lower $. That is my issue with the AMC model, it is not about feelz or anything else. The AMC benefits the lender, so the lender should pay the AMC for the service. I understand that lenders won't volunteer to change the payout model unless regs or other factor force a change.