I'm piling on....F the AMCs

[ZZGAMAZZ]

I agree it is frustrating for the appraiser, and likely for lender too, when the AMCs hands out an appraisal order that goes bad, either alienating the borrower in his house, for example, or creating a report that is problematic. I used to have a large solid base of lenders ordering appraisals from me because they knew the quality of the report was reliable and accurate, and their customer would be satisfied with the interaction on site.
Just did one this morning where the owner was pleased with the way I showed him what repairs had to be done for his FHA mfg house to close out his loan. He said the last appraiser was a real "A-h*le" and started off by saying LA is a real garbage pit (the property is not in LA), and then his remarks about the property deteriorated from there. He was apparently extremely rude.

Well, if you own a business of appraising, ideally you would want to be civil to the occupants who are going to describe your conduct to the lender, who may make the decision to use a different appraiser/AMC next time. We have lost so much with lack of human interaction, with everything being electronic push-a-button-generic viewpoint: all-appraisers-are-equal, all-service-providers-are-equal, etc, when in the real world human interactions can make your tasks much better (or sadly, worse).

Honestly, phone push button 'interactions' one has to deal with to finally get a resolution of some computer related snafu, is monumentally frustrating and aggravating. Last week I was so frustrated with the robot on the phone that I started cussing out the robot, and it told me it does not tolerate that kind of language and hung up on me! Really! I hurt the robot's feelings? I guess that must be a reoccuring issue, or they wouldn't have created a robot phone retort with auto-hang-up!

IMO your perpective about customer service is on point, although my need to positively interact with borrowers, like yours, probably is based upon one of our core personality traits. I start most site inspections by advising the borrower that they have ONE responsibility--not to allow me to talk too much because I'll forget what I should be doing, and that plenty time will be available after I measure, take photos, take notes, etc., to discuss the property. I never ever leave an inspection without establishing a positive relationship with the borrower--and based on a few of your recent posts, and similar posts by other peers, I'm thinking about creating a 1-page handout that describes the appraisal process for borrowers, including the 3 approaches, the appraiser's responsibility to sort through public info to reconcile discrepancies, the Opinion of Value as an "opinion," per se....and even the borrower's right to pursue the ROV option [GULP I just lost my audience!}; and of course to promote myself in case the borrower ever needs a future service in my role as an appraiser, or as a realtor. To interact favorably does more to enhance Public Trust that all the legislation in the world!!!

Which reminds me to ask about "Prior Involvement," because I vaguely remember a long-ago statement that included involvement with any others involved with the property or the transaction; and I don't know if the statement changed over the years, or if I am stone cold tripping, so to speak. POINT BEING, if I might disclose any prior services provided for the property, how about prior interaction with the AMC or the lending clilent, both of whom have almost as much vested in the outcome of the race as the borrower. I'm still offended professionally--and financially because I missed out on almost $3,000 in potential earnings just this week-end--because neither borrower nor lender nor AMC are permitted to reward me with more work in response to my having done credible prior work--and ain't that just a slap in the face of the time-honored American principles of competition and competency!!! I'm also nonplussed because an AMC who actually assigns me all the work ordered by a lender to whom I introduced the AMC--is trying to add a mandatory processing fee in addition to the technology fee...and I'll be dammed if I will pay an entity to become an affiliate--course the "business decisions" that Nephew Glenn recognizes, and that I too honor, are tenuous and fleeting, with integrity trumped by the need to remain solvent financially. So ****. ****. ****.

 

[George Hatch]

None of that matters. The user of the report is not the borrower. Or the mtg broker. It's not their lending decision to make and it's not their money that's going out the door. It's the (actual) lender who is the user of the appraisal.

The motivating factor for a corrupt appraisal is to enable one party to cheat the other party (the actual decision maker) into making a deal they might otherwise reject. The motivation is to literally to sell the lie by making a bad deal look good. The appraiser is lying on someone's behalf to enable a deal that shouldn't get made.

Whatever it takes to reduce the number of those fraudulent efforts is completely justifiable, both from a regulatory standpoint and from a safe/sound lending standpoint. Regardless of the collateral damage to the fee appraisers.

 

[djd09]

so...the mortgage broker isnt an appraiser either...but estimates value and ironically without USPAP

 

[djd09]

AMC’s are the biggest con jobs…pushed through by crooked coumo and fannie after they got duped by the no doc loans

 

[George Hatch]

AMCs and the bundled fee model both existed prior to the mortgage meltdowns.

 

[djd09]

oh i know all about eappraiseit and landsafe...they were the base of many lawsuits duh

 

[chad hampton]

AMCs were insignificant in the market until 2010 when they quadrupled their market share with a stroke of a govt pen. Back when I was a trainee, I told my mentor I went to a countrwide office and got some business. He said he didn’t want it, AMCs are garbage work and to steer clear of them Probably the most important thing a mentor can teach his trainee. I wonder if they teach that in parea?

 

[J Grant]

AMCs and the bundled fee model both existed prior to the mortgage meltdowns.

As you have reminded us 10,000 times

As we need to remind 1001 times that very few lenders used AMC's prior to the HVCC. Bundled fees were intended for miscellaneous small service charges, like $5.00 for a fax or messenger, to be included for title work or appraisals.

 

[Sandra Koutsopoulos]

IMO, one of the most vexing turn-offs re: AMCs is their "bidding game". Frankly, I'd probably take a lower fee if they sent the order direct and I could be using my time doing something more productive than checking my inbox. That said, I am still recovering from my 12-months-long marathon of car repairs (most recently replacing the transmission last week), so I'm grabbing work to get liquid again. But I've started doing RE sales again, took a listing last week, and plan to spend most of my efforts in that direction. I'm delighted when those direct appraisal orders come in from lenders and attorneys. I plan not to play the 3.6 game unless it's for a direct-order client for $600+. Life's too short to be vexed and annoyed for the meager payment AMCs make on 'normal' properties, as well as the larger payments that suck up way to much time from doing 'brain-breaker' super-custom 5000+ sf estates on acreage, dirt roads, with stables, private air strips, polo fields, Air BNB ADUs etc.

So my husband & I were returning from doing an appraisal inspection yesterday, and he noted the car driving next to us was some kind of import, high end S550 Mercedes or whatever, and he said it was a $135,000 car. I look at the driver (unkempt, sloppy) and I said to him, "Where did we go wrong in the last 20 years? Wages/Income have passed us by." Our net fees are pretty close to 20 years ago, but in that time houses have more than doubled in price, car prices are skyrocketing while their longevity is shrinking, and hamburger slingers are making minimum wage of $20/hour here, with no licensing or years-long-mentoring, CE, E&O, or databases. My friends who have taken mortgages over the past 6 years say they've never paid less than $500-$600 for an appraisal, and were shocked to learn the AMCs try to keep 1/3 to 1/2 that fee, so we're doing similar work for effectively 1/2 what we were paid 20 years ago, adjusted for cost of living. ...and now the 3.6 with all it's minutiae... I have reached the "Point of Critical Unworkability".

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

None of that matters. The user of the report is not the borrower. Or the mtg broker. It's not their lending decision to make and it's not their money that's going out the door. It's the (actual) lender who is the user of the appraisal.

The motivating factor for a corrupt appraisal is to enable one party to cheat the other party (the actual decision maker) into making a deal they might otherwise reject. The motivation is to literally to sell the lie by making a bad deal look good. The appraiser is lying on someone's behalf to enable a deal that shouldn't get made.

Whatever it takes to reduce the number of those fraudulent efforts is completely justifiable, both from a regulatory standpoint and from a safe/sound lending standpoint. Regardless of the collateral damage to the fee appraisers.

Good. So allow the market to govern itself. A universal system of checks & balances that would make appraisers, clients, and AMCs equally responsible to comply with industry and regulatory standards. Do Not prohibit me from working for a client, or a borrower in this scenario, because I previously peformed well by providing a credible Opinion of Value that satisfied the scrutiy of an AMC, a lender, a judge, whomever--by PRESUMING that I'm unable competently and objectively to practice my trade as a licensed practitioner because...just because of a non-arms-length relationship. I don't except any support from the AF because so-called "peer pressure" is lip service at most. BUT HOW TF can't somebody somewhere start the revolution to overflow the tyranny of inefficient regulation???