Intimidation....I Will Not Be Silenced

[George Hatch]

We get it, George; the discretionary decisions are made at the user's level. The users who want to remove the speed bump and friction of appraisals. That is their language, not mine. .

A lot of lenders are sleazy, and even if they are not, they have no mission of public trust; only the appraisers via USPAP have that mission stated, as do the GSEs. Because they are the gateway to taxpayer-backed-funded loans. They keep loosening appraisal, valuation, and in some cases borrower qualification standards.

You continually repeat yourself and remind us it is the users' expectations. Well, the users as lenders consist in large part of the same slime who combined C and D paper for toxic loans and performed high-risk and predatory lending in the past, so the fact that they are driving the bus now wrt appraisals and the GSE;s are changing standards to accommodate them, evokes a reaction from appraisers.

I'm responding to Chad's insistence that USPAP changed to enable this scheme. It didn't. And putting aside the question of whether PDCs are adding significant appraisal assistance their work is nevertheless still prominently disclosed and attributed to them in the GSE form. Which is all that would be required under "assistance" anyway. So even if he's right he's still wrong about there being some violation of USPAP or some deception being pushed onto the users.

-------
What you have been talking about is in the larger scope of what happens in the market if these things enable price-creep and it ends up doing damage to the market in general and the taxpayer interests in particular. Obviously a valid point but at the same time it's also immaterial to the question of what is/isn't an appraisal. What does/doesn't increase the appraiser's exposure to claims of negligent practice.

IRL it is not our role to stabilize the market trends and it's also not the GSEs role to stabilize the market trends or to protect the market participants from making risky decisions.

 

[J Grant]

I'm responding to Chad's insistence that USPAP changed to enable this scheme. It didn't. And putting aside the question of whether PDCs are adding significant appraisal assistance their work is nevertheless still prominently disclosed and attributed to them in the GSE form. Which is all that would be required under "assistance" anyway. So even if he's right he's still wrong about there being some violation of USPAP or some deception being pushed onto the users.

-------
What you have been talking about is in the larger scope of what happens in the market if these things enable price-creep and it ends up doing damage to the market in general and the taxpayer interests in particular. Obviously a valid point but at the same time it's also immaterial to the question of what is/isn't an appraisal. What does/doesn't increase the appraiser's exposure to claims of negligent practice.

IRL it is not our role to stabilize the market trends and it's also not the GSEs role to stabilize the market trends or to protect the market participants from making risky decisions.

I think at one time, the appraiser's role was to indirectly stabilize markets simply because of what the MV opinion is or was, that of a non-vested third party that, when the MV was below an SC price, could indirectly prevent inflated prices ( or purposely deflated prices ). Since tht can result in a "deal being killed, " a path to eliminate or weaken the Role of the appraiser has been underway for quite a while.

The GSE's have a mission of public trust and they are the gateway to taxpayer-funded loans for the lenders. In that sense, one might say the GSEs have an obligation to prevent participants from making risky decisions.

 

[alebrewer]

The appraiser's role has NEVER been to stabilize markets.

 

[George Hatch]

I think at one time, the appraiser's role was to indirectly stabilize markets simply because of what the MV opinion is or was, that of a non-vested third party that, when the MV was below an SC price, could indirectly prevent inflated prices ( or purposely deflated prices ). Since tht can result in a "deal being killed, " a path to eliminate or weaken the Role of the appraiser has been underway for quite a while.

The GSE's have a mission of public trust and they are the gateway to taxpayer-funded loans for the lenders. In that sense, one might say the GSEs have an obligation to prevent participants from making risky decisions.

I don't disagree with the sentiment but unless they are prohibited from doing something or penalized for it in the market they're still going to do what they do.

Meanwhile, the appraisers still have to say what they do and do what they say.

 

[chad hampton]

I don’t know why it’s so hard for you to admit that it changed. There was an AO that spelled it out in plain English and then one day it disappeared. That’s a fact. Not an opinion.

It’s OK, that’s how things get done in this profession now. If sending random people out to do appraisal inspections with such a genius idea. It would’ve been done 25 years ago.

But it’s where we are as a profession. One group decides hey let’s do things differently because we can make more money at it this way. let’s call in a few big guns to go around the country to appraisal boards and talk with TAF and make our case, no matter how ridiculous it is, and if anybody argues against us, we can just threaten to sue them. And it worked. No one is saying that’s not an effective strategy.

AMCs even control the appraisal Institute, per their own website, the largest appraisal advocacy organization out there. as soon as one of their CEOs started to ask questions regarding why they aren’t advocating for appraisers, she was immediately fired. That was her fault, she didn’t realize the company she was in.

It is what it is at this point. Appraisers are still stuck on “well, If you don’t agree with it, you must decline the job.” Or “if you aren’t happy with the fee, you don’t need to take it”. While everyone else in the profession is banning together to put you out of business.

Good luck.

 

[chad hampton]

The GSE’s only mission is to get their stock price as high as possible. If it wasn’t for socialism, the stock price would be zero.

 

[alebrewer]

If that's their goal, they're failing miserably...

 

[NC Appraising]

Context.....the stock is down for a different reason.

poor borrowers paying for appraisals..gses making bank..appraisers getting put out of business ..full of shet

• First Quarter (Q1 2026): Fannie Mae posted a net profit of $3.7 billion. The steady earnings were driven by a stable core guaranty book and disciplined operational cost-cutting measures. [1, 2]
• Second Quarter (Q2 2026): Profits climbed higher to $4.0 billion, representing a 7% sequential increase from Q1 and a 20% surge year-over-year. This bump was heavily fueled by a spring homebuying surge among first-time buyers, pushing single-family loan volume to a four-year high. [1, 2, 3]

Driven by these multi-billion dollar profitable quarters, Fannie Mae's total corporate net worth reached a record $116.5 billion as of June 30, 2026. []

 

[chad hampton]

Still Wonder why they will do anything to keep prices high?

 

[George Hatch]

I don’t know why it’s so hard for you to admit that it changed. There was an AO that spelled it out in plain English and then one day it disappeared. That’s a fact. Not an opinion.

It’s OK, that’s how things get done in this profession now. If sending random people out to do appraisal inspections with such a genius idea. It would’ve been done 25 years ago.

But it’s where we are as a profession. One group decides hey let’s do things differently because we can make more money at it this way. let’s call in a few big guns to go around the country to appraisal boards and talk with TAF and make our case, no matter how ridiculous it is, and if anybody argues against us, we can just threaten to sue them. And it worked. No one is saying that’s not an effective strategy.

AMCs even control the appraisal Institute, per their own website, the largest appraisal advocacy organization out there. as soon as one of their CEOs started to ask questions regarding why they aren’t advocating for appraisers, she was immediately fired. That was her fault, she didn’t realize the company she was in.

It is what it is at this point. Appraisers are still stuck on “well, If you don’t agree with it, you must decline the job.” Or “if you aren’t happy with the fee, you don’t need to take it”. While everyone else in the profession is banning together to put you out of business.

Good luck.

English. Do you read it?
This is the opening salvo in the FOREWORD of the AO publication, which itself is a separate publication from USPAP. The first paragraph has been in place since the inception of the AO publication and was explicitly cited atop every single AO. The second paragraph was included atop the table of contents prior to the addition of the FOREWORD when they were moved there. My point being none of this explanation is new or can be attributed to some conspiracy on 15th Street.



Kindly note the "specific situations" clause in that first sentence, and the "not the only possible solution" in the 2nd paragraph.
The AO in question explicitly referenced trainees operating under the direct supervision of an appraiser. PDCs are neither trainees nor operating under the supervision of anyone and are not providing any analyses, opinions or conclusions that an appraiser would accept without consideration.