PAREA program

[J Grant]

Post Licensing still saw active fee shops operating and they continued for many years until the HVCC came along
Licensing did allow lenders or clients to choose individual appraisers more easily and it did allow some people into the profession that might have been exclude when the only way to enter was the good old boy system of a relative or personal contact choosing - now if someone could pass the education and the test they were licensed at least on a trainee level, and some more working appraiser were open to mentoring - it was still though to find a mentor and get certiived but at least it oepend a door that was closed before to some people who had no connections.

 

[George Hatch]

My point was and is that it was technology that enabled the rise of the solo operator in the first place, and it was also technology which enabled the ascendance of the AMCs from being the #2 choice for the lenders to becoming the #1 choice after the MBs were cut off.

Enabled, not necessarily caused.

Here is the inconvenient truth that not even you can gaslight: Some of the lenders had previously outsourced every aspect of the appraisal engagement and management to the MBs before the HVCC, and then subsequently replaced that outsourcing with the AMCs after. The MB-users NEVER paid for the engagement and the management of the appraisals they were using. Those users never paid before the HVCC and they continued to never pay after the HVCC.

The motivation to outsource the entirety of the function is self-evident, even if you want to call the political process corrupt that motivated that transition.

 

[J Grant]

The PAREA program was a good idea ( but still needs field training ). However, the problem is it came 20 years too late. If the GSE 's were concerned about minoroities or deiversy they sure picked a strange way to show it - ignoring it for decades, then when the field is on life support due in part to the GSE;s own ideas t allow PDC inspections and WAIVERS and to become entrenched with the AMC system rather than reform it -now that the field is on life support, they trot out PAREA -

 

[J Grant]

My point was and is that it was technology that enabled the rise of the solo operator in the first place, and it was also technology which enabled the ascendance of the AMCs from being the #2 choice for the lenders to becoming the #1 choice after the MBs were cut off.

Enabled, not necessarily caused.

Here is the inconvenient truth that not even you can gaslight: Some of the lenders had previously outsourced every aspect of the appraisal engagement and management to the MBs before the HVCC, and then subsequently replaced that outsourcing with the AMCs after. The motivation to outsource the entirety of the function is self-evident, even if you want to call the political process corrupt that motivation that transition.

I fail to see how tech enabled the rise of solo practitioners since fee shops and partnerships used it and still use it. So what if a solo appraise can use tech to send reports or add photos, their fee is stil cut by the AMC and the FEE cut is the problem.

The AMCs were not about being enabled with tech, the AMCs could have operated if it were still faxes or messengers - the AMC;s were enabled by the HVCC, giving them a big market share when loan officers could no longer individually select the appraiser, and that market share was also the result of free-of-cost service to the Lender via the fee slot

Licensing enabled a solo appraiser far more than tech did -

 

[George Hatch]

Why do you keep defending the AMC system (such as above post tidbit ) - then you deny that you do !

Appraisers object to the AMC taking a big chunk of the fee, whether it a blast solicitation or other method - however, I NEVER saw, or heard of , fee appraisers faxing unsolicited offers "all the time" _ I do not even know what that would look like.
What is an "unsolicited offer " that an appraiser would fax ?? ( perhaps it was a commercial practice I am not familiar with as a residential license appraiser)

How is my comment a "defense" if - at bare minimum - it's at least partially true? You seem to believe that deplatforming a discussion via moral accusation basis is a legitimate form of discourse. Except it isn't a legitimate form of discourse. You're doing the Argument to Motive, which is considered a logical fallacy. AKA the tacit admission of defeat. You criticize the tone because you cannot deny the factual observation itself. We can squabble about which factor was of greater effect but outright denial of either factor is an exercise in futility.

And I have never ever denied that AMCs benefitted when some of the MB-users transitioned into becoming AMC-users. You say they did it because they're corrupt, which may be true. But at the same time I would tell you their primary motivations (you can all it corruption) existed to the same extent long before the HVCC. The HVCC just reduced their alternatives for exercising their motivations.

 

[George Hatch]

I fail to see how tech enabled the rise of solo practitioners since fee shops and partnerships used it and still use it. So what if a solo appraise can use tech to send reports or add photos, their fee is stil cut by the AMC and the FEE cut is the problem.

The AMCs were not about being enabled with tech, the AMCs could have operated if it were still faxes or messengers - the AMC;s were enabled by the HVCC, giving them a big market share when loan officers could no longer individually select the appraiser, and that market share was also the result of free-of-cost service to the Lender via the fee slot

Licensing enabled a solo appraiser far more than tech did -

My reference was to the rise of the solo operator as a viable alternative to working in the group. I don't know when you started appraising but you might not have been around to see that transition occur. Most people here weren't.

I literally didn't have the economic viability to go solo in 1990, even as an SFR appraiser. Not in the 4-county SoCal region I worked in. But by 1992 it was economically painless because I only paid extra for the data, not the technology.

 

[glenn walker]

It's hard to see the big picture when someone gets focused on one single event. The separation of fees is one that J.G need's to set aside and delete it because it's not a factor in where we came from or where the industry's going

 

[Fernando]

I fail to see how tech enabled the rise of solo practitioners since fee shops and partnerships used it and still use it. So what if a solo appraise can use tech to send reports or add photos, their fee is stil cut by the AMC and the FEE cut is the problem.

The AMCs were not about being enabled with tech, the AMCs could have operated if it were still faxes or messengers - the AMC;s were enabled by the HVCC, giving them a big market share when loan officers could no longer individually select the appraiser, and that market share was also the result of free-of-cost service to the Lender via the fee slot

Licensing enabled a solo appraiser far more than tech did -

I became a solo appraiser because I wanted to make more money working than at the bank.
My expenses were high developing film, buying "worm & form" things, printing reports, mailing, and such back then but still profitable than now.

 

[George Hatch]

(Some) Lenders

2005: I am not paying one dime toward the engagement, management, tax withholding, accounting or any part of the appraisal fee​

2010: I am not paying one dime toward the engagement, management, tax withholding, accounting or any part of the appraisal fee​

​

(Some) Appraisers

The lenders went corrupt in 2008 because the govt let them do it​

 

[J Grant]

My reference was to the rise of the solo operator as a viable alternative to working in the group. I don't know when you started appraising but you might not have been around to see that transition occur. Most people here weren't.

I literally didn't have the economic viability to go solo in 1990, even as an SFR appraiser. Not in the 4-county SoCal region I worked in. But by 1992 it was economically painless because I only paid extra for the data, not the technology.

Okay, I can go along with this argument ~!

I also think that going forward, the level of tech, more descriptive would be data analysis via AI or software program will change appraising - the AMC or other third party siphoning off the fee or replacing an appraisal with a valuation if that allows more fee siphoning and control - depends on if there is a consideration for any protection of tax payer backing or not in the process -