PAREA program

[J Grant]

Ethics wrt appraising means upholding professional ethics ( part of USPAP ) it does not mean the person is a saint in their personal life.

 

[alebrewer]

I did answer the question and the question is silly. A waiver is not unethical !! So why is that a litmus test about client ethics?
A borrower decides if they want to accept a WAIVER, not the lender - unless a lender has a policy against using WAIVERS - if that is true, perhaps the lender needs to disclose that to a borrower.

(a) Correct. Waivers aren't ethical or unethical - they have no morality.
(b) Incorrect. The lender accepts the waiver, not the borrower. Borrowers don't have access to lender LOS
(c) Here's why: if that ethical client knows an appraisal will come in low, then they know the home isn't worth what they are basing the loan off, which means the borrower will be upside down if they exercise the waiver. However, they don't get paid unless the loan closes. Therefore, the LO acting as an LO will always exercise the waiver - even though they know it's not best for the borrower.

 

[J Grant]

(a) Correct. Waivers aren't ethical or unethical - they have no morality.
(b) Incorrect. The lender accepts the waiver, not the borrower. Borrowers don't have access to lender LOS
(c) Here's why: if that ethical client knows an appraisal will come in low, then they know the home isn't worth what they are basing the loan off, which means the borrower will be upside down if they exercise the waiver. However, they don't get paid unless the loan closes. Therefore, the LO acting as an LO will always exercise the waiver - even though they know it's not best for the borrower.

WE agree it seems the WAIVER is a sleazy product but IMO it is still not an ethical bar for a lender -
The borrower has control over their decision to accept or reject a WAIVER offer; the lender can not force them into it. even ijjtpeT

I think even the crappy fee shops did more for the appraiser than the crappy Low fee AMC;s do.:
1) The fee shop offered training, even if it was not the best training or an experienced owner to get guidance from.r
2) The fee shop offered shared resources, MLS sometimes a seceraty or assistant who typed or did admin on a report and the other appraisres in the firm to bounce ideas off of
3) Even the slimiest fee shops did not pit their appraisers against each other to "win" an assignment by bidding less. Certain appraisers may have been on different fee split arrangments depending on eperiencice and if they were trainees or if they were certriieed, but they were assigned orders according to who was best for a job, who was available etc - even in the crappy place that I left it worked that way in assigning.

 

[alebrewer]

I think even the crappy fee shops did more for the appraiser than the crappy Low fee AMC;s do.:

And I think they don't. Agree to disagree.

1) The fee shop offered training, even if it was not the best training or an experienced owner to get guidance from.r

I love how you make universal statements. There is no 'the' fee shop. There are good fee shops and there are bad fee shops - just like AMC's. In the bad fee shops, you've already heard at least two attestations that they do not train - myself and DWiley. Choose to believe that or not - doesn't matter to me.

2) The fee shop offered shared resources, MLS sometimes a seceraty or assistant who typed or did admin on a report and the other appraisres in the firm to bounce ideas off of

In a Utopian world with butterflies and fairytales, I'd agree.

3) Even the slimiest fee shops did not pit their appraisers against each other to "win" an assignment by bidding less. Certain appraisers may have been on different fee split arrangments depending on eperiencice and if they were trainees or if they were certriieed, but they were assigned orders according to who was best for a job, who was available etc - even in the crappy place that I left it worked that way in assigning.

Correct - they pay all their appraisers dirt. So I guess there is that: fee shops treat appraisers equally crummy. AMC's treat some appraisers better than others.

 

[J Grant]

Clients are sleazy if they try to pressure an appraiser for value or to overlook certain property conditions or do other not kosher things -

WAIVERS it has been re-named "Value Acceptance" because the parties agree to accept the value, including a borrower - nobody can force them to take a waiver or the value on it. A borrower can choose an appraisal instead ( unless the lender is deceptive about it?)

Teh lender approves a loan based on LTV, borrower credit, down payment etc. If the borrower is underwater later from a WAIVER or overvaluation of any kind, that is not the lender's qualification issue at the time of a loan approval.
Sleazy lenders used to offer very sleazy loan products ( teaser rates, 125% loan to value, no doc approval etc. But even at that time, more ethical lenders did not offer toe loans or were less predatory about using them on borrowers. Lenders have different investors, and idk the internal workings, but they might sell worse credit or higher risk loans to one group vs another.

 

[J Grant]

And I think they don't. Agree to disagree.


I love how you make universal statements. There is no 'the' fee shop. There are good fee shops and there are bad fee shops - just like AMC's. In the bad fee shops, you've already heard at least two attestations that they do not train - myself and DWiley. Choose to believe that or not - doesn't matter to me.


In a Utopian world with butterflies and fairytales, I'd agree.


Correct - they pay all their appraisers dirt. So I guess there is that: fee shops treat appraisers equally crummy. AMC's treat some appraisers better than others.

Wel you reframe things your way, make sometimes inane distinctions, and split hairs to argue indefinitely—I made my case why fee shops offered more to appraisers, and all of that is fact-based

The fee shop is just verbiage. Of course, there are good and bad ones. Dealing with you is like going down a rabbit hole , I am not the first to notice it -

 

[glenn walker]

So now can all agree the AMC gives value over what we had before.

 

[alebrewer]

Teh lender approves a loan based on LTV, borrower credit, down payment etc. If the borrower is underwater later from a WAIVER or overvaluation of any kind, that is not the lender's qualification issue at the time of a loan approval.

Later? Not talking about 'later'. No one controls the future, so don't assuage culpability by copping out with 'later'. If a lender knows an appraisal will come in low - and exercises a waiver based on that belief - then that lender is guilty of not performing for the borrower, but for him/her self. That is not ethical. Period.

 

[alebrewer]

and all of that is fact-based

 

[J Grant]

Later? Not talking about 'later'. No one controls the future, so don't assuage culpability by copping out with 'later'. If a lender knows an appraisal will come in low - and exercises a waiver based on that belief - then that lender is guilty of not performing for the borrower, but for him/her self. That is not ethical. Period.

Okay, that is your opinion, so be it.