I'm not surprised..

[J Grant]

The parallel to that is it's hard to find a lender who thinks a $500 appraisal is any more useful to them than a $150 appraisal.

The lender does not pay for the appraisal, the borrower does, so the lender does not care whither it cost the borrower $500 or $150. The only ones who a $150 is more useful for is an AMC, who keeps the $350 fee differential .

Of course, if the lenders had their own way, there would not be a valuation done - just lend whatever the borrower needs. The WAIVER /value acceptance is the lender/mortgage broker's wet dream - no appraisal, the loan officer estimates the value ! ( as long as it fits in the secret fannie/freddie AVM range ) or the sale price is the value - no more lost deals due to a "low" appraisal value ! So their wish is coming true in part at least -

If lenders had their way there would be no appraisal and no valuion and no credit check and no income verification ( which is what we saw in the last boom wrt no income no doc loans. ) If they lent their own money, they could get away with it. Since tThey do not lend their own money though so ther are constraints on them.

 

[George Hatch]

If those AMC-users ever thought the $500 appraiser was worth more to them than the $150 appraiser they'd have been acting accordingly all along. They'd issue those directives to the AMCs. After all, the AMC works for the lender, not the other way around. Regardless of what you think.

You can't acknowledge the reality of "these lenders would ditch appraisers altogether if they could" in one breath and then claim in the next breath that they don't care about the accumulation of their costs.

 

[Zoe]

If those AMC-users ever thought the $500 appraiser was worth more to them than the $150 appraiser they'd have been acting accordingly all along. They'd issue those directives to the AMCs. After all, the AMC works for the lender, not the other way around. Regardless of what you think.

You can't acknowledge the reality of "these lenders would ditch appraisers altogether if they could" in one breath and then claim in the next breath that they don't care about the accumulation of their costs.

Your missing my point Sir. If CFPB or FTC said separate fees on truth in lending disclosures between amcccc.s and APPRAISER it would create intense competition between amcccc.s

 

[Dublin ohio]

Your missing my point Sir. If CFPB or FTC said separate fees on truth in lending disclosures between amcccc.s and APPRAISER it would create intense competition between amcccc.s

I will ask one last time. Who or what will drive that competition

 

[Zoe]

I will ask one last time. Who or what will drive that competition

How long have you been in this business?

It is a complicated question because some lenders own a little share in an amcccs.

However if fees were separated on truth in lending disclosures, the ball game would change between amcccs. Trust me.

 

[Zoe]

amcccs would cut each other's throat to give lowest fee to banks if their fee was disclosed on truth in lending disclosures.

Trust me. I know economics very well.

 

[Dublin ohio]

How long have you been in this business?

It is a complicated question because some lenders own a little share in an amcccs.

However if fees were separated on truth in lending disclosures, the ball game would change between amcccs. Trust me.

30+ years in this business. It is not a complicated question but nice deflection of the fact that you are just blowing smoke

 

[Zoe]

Truth in lending disclosures were not created for no reason. CFPB and FTC have control over separation of fees between APPRAISER and amccs

 

[Zoe]

30+ years in this business. It is not a complicated question but nice deflection of the fact that you are just blowing smoke

What smoke are you smoking?

 

[Dublin ohio]

What smoke are you smoking?

You must have been a hockey goalie based on your deflection skills