- Joined
- Jan 15, 2002
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- California
Actually, my reference is in a position to actually track those numbers, so I have reason to believe the stats. You can disbelieve if you want, but the fact that appraisers complain about more than a few AMCs should be considered self-explanatory. Even to you.You heard wrong. There are a very limited number of AMC's either owned or used by the main lenders and that limited group has the mass of volume. AI just evidenced that fact. "Because they can", as you admit, - which is due to their near monopoly status. But you twist it around to blame the apparisers. The low-resource, isolated appraisers vs billion-dollar $ companies with a government perk of the bundled fee and regulators in their pocket. I wish every appraiser could have held out against it. But appraisers are just people who have to pay bills and are not superpower heroes. Though a number of appraisers did and do resist the AMC low fee model, at great personal cost in some cases.
Fees vary by locale, but even in different locales, AMC's pay a lower fee than direct lenders do in that locale.
Wrt If twenty years ago there had been fewer trainees, it might have helped, but it is a minor factor.
Proof - prior to the HVCC, there was the same SUPPLY of appraisers, and they had no problem getting C and R fees from lenders. Overnight, when the HVCC saw a mass migration to the AMcls the fees got literally cut in half. With the same SUPPLY of apparisers.
By the time the HVCC came online we had already built our oversupply (which I had warned of for years prior to it occurring). Nearly doubled the number of licensees between 2001-2007. There's no way a declining level of demand could have resulted in stable fees/volumes after that. That's how the AMCs got leverage in the market for SFR appraisals but not in the CG markets.
Sure, funneling the volume into far fewer points of purchase had the big effect on level of competition at those points of purchase but that would have been inevitable when cutting off the MBs. It was the LENDERS who chose AMCs over direct engagement. The AMCs didn't create that situation, they just exploited it. The AMCs still don't have the leverage to dictate terms to the lenders. And you know it.