Our own Magna Carta

[DonRico]

Nancy-

Thank you for comparing my humble efforts to those of Thomas Jefferson. I am speechless, except to say Thank You.....HA!

We are still looking for input from everyone. Keep all suggestions rolling in.

 

[DonRico]

Article 1- Change the wording to "Demand & Enforce" no alterations to finished reports.

Article 2- Change "Right to Work" to "Restraint of Trade" or whatever the legal team feels appropriate. Blacklisting anyone, even Independant Contractors goes against everything this country is about. MARI is a Secret Probation list, you have to sign away your right to appeal just to look at it....no politician in their right mind (oxymoron) would want to defend that practice. Not with a voting (and funding) block like AFL-CIO standing against it.

Article 3- I don't see what forced Hold Harmless clauses have to do with Restriction of Trade. Quite the opposite....sign this Indemnity waiver, or you will get no orders.

Article 4- Does not really advocate Price Fixing. Publishing a recommended baseline fee structure is what's at play here. Negotiating to a final fee based on that starting point.

Article 5 & 6- Negotiating from a starting point is advocated here.

The OPIEU will be measured against the metrics WE develop. It will be possible to check their progress before you have to write your second membership check next year.

 

[NancyG]

Don't give up. I'm with you 100% only this kind of thing is not my forte. I'll offer suggestions when possible but we each bring something to the table and I bring a mouth and a heart. (Brain is limited)

 

[NORTON]

if u don't suggest a base fee...than the same guy doing the $150 special now....will still do it for $150...but with the benefits of what you just laid out....we all have once common cripe...FEE'S...demanding the changes on the HUD 1 will do minimal.....if a borrower / consumer see's the HUD 1.....than means they already got the loan, they won't blink an eye.

 

[fifteen]

What's ridiculous is the reason they mine our data is they're too cheap to pay for the MLS and mine that data. They could legally but don't. If they want the data pay the MLS for it, or, pay us. What they do is thievery and there is no honor among these thieves. Our reports should be copywrited to prevent theft. I've heard pervasive rumors that our reports can't be copywrited but that is a falsehood. For $35 you can copywrite any of your reports.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

warning - ANY organized "attack plan" based on - or including - FEES will fail.

Implicit and Explicit Bank authorized, contractual, agreements with any AMCs or Supermarket Appraisal Chains which routinely request and/or require Appraisers to violate Federal and/or State LAWS (including the USPAP in states which adopted it into State Law) - must be the target. BANKS and their AMC Agents, the GSES, and FHA willingly contracting for, and ACCEPTING, reports from thousands of (a)ppraisers who are NOT competent to accept the assignments who then REVISE reports as directed by Banks directly (UW demands) and indirectly via their AMC AGENTS to accomodate their CLIENTS' demands - MUST BE the target. Competitive fee negotiation is based on supply of, and demand for, COMPETENT Appraisers.....as it should and must be. Acceptable fees and turnaround times based on Complexity are a by-product of the above.

Under EVERY existing Federal and State Banking and Mortgage Lending LAW - Banking Institutions .......WERE AND ARE solely responsible for the appraisal process. ENFORCE THE LAW !!!!!

THAT must be the Bullseye.

 

[Meandering]

We need a USPAP change to change the definition of client in a way that will eliminate AMCs from being client, and by default, intended users of reports. AMCs have no business being intended users of appraisals. Additionally we need USPAP to add the definition of purpose of the appraisal and to tie the intended user of the report to the purpose for the report. If we can get the definition of client changed to the client is the intended user, then we can follow through with some statements similar to these:

1. Appraisers do not advocate. They do not protect anybody’s interest in any thing, (including the lenders, borrowers and Realtors). They are disinterested observers and reporters of market conditions and reactions. How, and Who, hires them is inconsequential.

2. AMCs are third party participants that are not intended users of appraisal reports. When AMCs are retained for review purposes they must meet all state applicable licensing laws to provide that service, and must be separately compensated by those hiring them.

3. When AMCs are used to retain the services of an appraiser, the AMC must be separately compensated by the intended user of the report, similar to any other “for hire” service. To enhance appraiser independence, AMCs are forbidden from negotiation of fees and services from other independent contractors. Additionally AMCs are to be removed from the fee process concerning independent appraisers thereby removing incentives to sway values.

4. Appraisal reports are confidential information transmitted from the appraiser directly to the intended user for the decision making process. Therefore, no completed appraisal reports will be transmitted by the appraiser to other third party vendors. If an intended user engages a third party user for review purposes, the intended user must transmit a full unadulterated report to the reviewing company.

5. Appraiser compensation is subject to the provisions of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act and is not to be utilized as a negotiation tool by any other third party engaged in the retaining of appraisers.

Anybody else have better ideas??

 

[fifteen]

I like it Marion. AMC's don't have the skills or aptitude to review our work. AMC's are the banks retarded siblings and have no business doing anything other than finding the appraiser, and, that should be on a rotation basis with $25 at most for their service. Automated assignment software could do that job.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

Item 1 - Appraisers shall not have any entity managing their business and shall work directly with lenders to negotiate fees, delivery dates, and assignment scopes. All others are forbidden from management of this function.

DONE

 

[Mike Kennedy]

We need a USPAP change to change the definition of client in a way that will eliminate AMCs from being client, and by default, intended users of reports. AMCs have no business being intended users of appraisals. Additionally we need USPAP to add the definition of purpose of the appraisal and to tie the intended user of the report to the purpose for the report. If we can get the definition of client changed to the client is the intended user, then we can follow through with some statements similar to these:

1. Appraisers do not advocate. They do not protect anybody’s interest in any thing, (including the lenders, borrowers and Realtors). They are disinterested observers and reporters of market conditions and reactions. How, and Who, hires them is inconsequential.

2. AMCs are third party participants that are not intended users of appraisal reports. When AMCs are retained for review purposes they must meet all state applicable licensing laws to provide that service, and must be separately compensated by those hiring them.

3. When AMCs are used to retain the services of an appraiser, the AMC must be separately compensated by the intended user of the report, similar to any other “for hire” service. To enhance appraiser independence, AMCs are forbidden from negotiation of fees and services from other independent contractors. Additionally AMCs are to be removed from the fee process concerning independent appraisers thereby removing incentives to sway values.

4. Appraisal reports are confidential information transmitted from the appraiser directly to the intended user for the decision making process. Therefore, no completed appraisal reports will be transmitted by the appraiser to other third party vendors. If an intended user engages a third party user for review purposes, the intended user must transmit a full unadulterated report to the reviewing company.

5. Appraiser compensation is subject to the provisions of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act and is not to be utilized as a negotiation tool by any other third party engaged in the retaining of appraisers.

Anybody else have better ideas??

THE ABOVE, with which I concur, requires a Federal Amendment to Title XI then the OCC Interagency Regulations based on the LAW - NOT the USPAP.:icon_idea: