Revision Request

[residentialguy]

That stuff is just business and has nothing to do with regulations. Anyone who wants to cop an attitude to a client is free to do so, but they probably should not then go crying about what happens as a result.

Now would you be talking about the appraiser being fired? Or lender after they are reported for firing them because they wouldn't concede to the lender's violation D-F for trying to encourage a targeted value in order to facilitate the making or pricing of the transaction?

In regards to: "they probably should not then go crying about what happens as a result"

(i) Examples of actions that violate paragraph (c)(1) include:

(A) Seeking to influence a person that prepares a valuation to report a minimum or maximum value for the consumer's principal dwelling;
(D) Excluding a person that prepares a valuation from consideration for future engagement because the person reports a value for the consumer's principal dwelling that does not meet or exceed a predetermined threshold;

 

[residentialguy]

...............

 

[George Hatch]

The mental stretch here is placing the burden for predetermining what data is or isn't appropriate on the lender (who by definition is not an appraiser) rather than on the appraiser who presumably has more recent and direct exposure with both that subject and its market area than anyone else involved. THAT competency axe being selectively used when it suits your personal interests and ignored when it doesn't.

IRL we usually don't choose exactly which comps are most relevant to our subject until we actually see both the subject and those comps in person. How then is a non-appraiser supposed to successfully identify which sales are not comparable without seeing either?

You guys better figure out the persuasive answer to that question because I can guarantee you it will come up.

BTW, when I'm reviewing an appraisal and can see alternate data, I usually don't assume they're actually better than the ones used in the appraisal - I pass them along to the appraiser with a request to address them. The burden of proof is on the appraiser to establish their credibility, not on a reviewer (or a client) to establish it for them.

 

[residentialguy]

The mental stretch here is placing the burden for predetermining what data is or isn't appropriate on the lender (who by definition is not an appraiser)rather than on the appraiser who presumably has more recent and direct exposure with both that subject and its market area than anyone else involved. THAT competency axe being selectively used when it suits your personal interests and ignored when it doesn't.

IRL we usually don't choose exactly which comps are most relevant to our subject until we actually see both the subject and those comps in person. How then is a non-appraiser supposed to successfully identify which sales are not comparable without seeing either?

They seem to have no problem reviewing your appraisal. Ignorance is not a defense of law. You don't get to speed because you're not sure of the speed limit. They have a law to follow.

And please stop playing daft, George. It's very obvious when they send over a bunch of superior sales which (not coincidentally) are higher priced, sent only to target the value needed to make the deal work.

But hey, I'm willing to be wrong. Let's send over the complaints and let the authorities sort it out.

 

[George Hatch]

Seriously, how many agents have you EVER met who actually understood how to pick comparables?

inasmuch as most appraisers never summarize their search criteria or recap the dominant attributes of the subject their client has no means of looking at the other sales in the ROV and categorically rejecting them as something the appraiser would never have used as direct comparables. If the appraiser gave the lender the means to support that refusal then they'd probably do it more often.

Don't lose sight of the fact that the majority of appraisal reports that get kicked into review are sent due to reporting omissions and deficiencies - moreso than development issues. Whether a professional reviewer can fill in the missing blanks and understand what's going on in the report is not the thing - the report has to make sense to the user.

Put the shoe on the other foot - how much trouble would a lender get for arbitrarily rejecting sales data if there were some actual comps in it, and the borrower had problems after that. Particularly if that borrower is a member of a protected class?

The lender has no reason to categorically refuse an even remotely plausible ROV and every reason to pass it along to the appraiser to deal with.

 

[George Hatch]

I'll say one other thing, too. if, after summarizing their subject's dominant attributes and search parameters for comparables in their Sales Comparison they still get a list of alternative sales to consider the process of referring back to the explanation that was already offered and commenting to the fact that these other sales don't fit those parameters is all it takes. I've been telling you guys that for years, since before Marion ever even learned how to hold the dumb end of a tape, and most of you still never do it.

 

[residentialguy]

Seriously, how many agents have you EVER met who actually understood how to pick comparables?

I don't care about the agents. But they have to communicate through the lender, who has the ability to review the sales...and when they send over inappropriate value targeting comps, they have violated the law. They don't get to hide behind "I don't know how to pick comps" as a defense. That's like saying, I don't know how to drive safe. If you don't have the ability to drive safely, then don't get behind the wheel.

Even FNMA realizes the importance of analyzing sales they send through CU. They require it!
"Before asking the appraiser to consider any alternative sales, it is imperative that the lender analyze the relevance of the sale and determine if the use of such sale would result in any material change to the appraisal report. If the lender determines that there would be no material change, then they should not ask the appraiser to make revisions."

Apparently that ability to thoroughly analyze sales prior to sending them to the appraiser has an ignore button.

 

[George Hatch]

Intent is tough to prove. So are opinions. Burden of proof rests with the accuser, not the accused.

"I looked at them and I wasn't sure, so I sent them to the local expert to get his/her opinion. "

And then your proof that they're lying is what?

I can't believe any of you really think an ROV is a lender's attempt to actually pressure the appraiser. They're way more likely to simply ghost you and move on without leaving you any clues.

 

[residentialguy]

Intent is tough to prove. So are opinions. Burden of proof rests with the accuser, not the accused.

"I looked at them and I wasn't sure, so I sent them to the local expert to get his/her opinion. "

And then your proof that they're lying is what?

I can't believe any of you really think an ROV is a lender's attempt to actually pressure the appraiser. They're way more likely to simply ghost you and move on without leaving you any clues.

These good fellows are going to ghost us, too? I believe D-F has something to say about that, as well as value pressure.
(i) Examples of actions that violate paragraph (c)(1) include:

(A) Seeking to influence a person that prepares a valuation to report a minimum or maximum value for the consumer's principal dwelling;
(D) Excluding a person that prepares a valuation from consideration for future engagement because the person reports a value for the consumer's principal dwelling that does not meet or exceed a predetermined threshold;

Lenders have review appraisers. It's not hard to see that sending over a bunch of larger superior comps are sent to target value.
Intent is tough to prove? Let's put that to the test. Appraisers start reporting them to the FDIC, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the ASC, all applicable State and Federal authorities and any related Government Sponsored Enterprises.

Here's a few links to get started:
https://www.federalreserveconsumerhelp.gov/appraisal/appraisalComplaintForm.pdf
https://www.FDIC.gov/consumers/assistance/protection/mortgages/appraisals/index.html
https://refermyappraisalcomplaint.ASC.gov/
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/complaint/getting-started/

Let's see who becomes a ghost

 

[DWiley]

Now would you be talking about the appraiser being fired?

Yep

As your post indicates, there are clearly prohibitions against firing/blocking an appraiser because that appraiser will not make/change a value. But, can you find anything prohibiting a lender from not using an appraiser because the appraiser refuses to simply respond to an ROV request (or charges a contingent fee for doing so)?

The rules rightfully prohibit pressure/influence, but that also provide the opportunity to inquire. Asserting that an inquiry in and of itself is pressure just won't hold any water, given that inquiring is explicitly allowed.