Revision Request

[George Hatch]

LOL, crash & burn.

Strike 1. I never said that all requests were external pressure
Strike 2. I never suggested suing them
Strike 3. I have never complained about my fees, which have always been high.

So from this post, AFAICT...you've been tapping into Danny's Koolaid.
Next batter up.

I've performed reviews where appraisers get indignant when required to add more work in than they're accustomed to doing. That's where I'm coming from. I've been on both ends of the stipulation dilemma, which is something not everyone in this thread can say about their careers.

Here's a pro-tip; if you don't provide a lender or their reviewer with the answer to a question their borrower is asking they have no means of responding to that question for you.

Broker: Appraiser didn't consider these comps

Reviewer: There's no indication the appraiser considered these comps, so I'm unable to respond to that allegation because I cannot know what *development* steps the appraiser took that aren't mentioned in the *report*.

 

[George Hatch]

As for proving intent, I also have an acute understand of that issue as a result of working as a cop before I got into this line of work. So I understand there's a big gap between what I "know" vs what I can prove to the satisfaction of the courts.

 

[residentialguy]

As for you not even considering the possibility you made a mistake

Wrong, an you know it. Throughout this whole thread I have said that if my report didn't have the best comps, I would change immediately. There would be no fee because they already paid for a report that I Certified as having the best comps.

As for proving intent, I also have an acute understand of that issue as a result of working as a cop before I got into this line of work. So I understand there's a big gap between what I "know" vs what I can prove to the satisfaction of the courts.

That's fine. I'm not talking about court. I'm talking about reporting them and letting the D-F gods sort it out. If they don't consider it a violation, then they have nothing to worry about all those 1000's of value pressure complaints. They can easily access these links to report for starters. Most states have their own, as well.

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/

 

[residentialguy]

First facts were fake news, now Mr. Wiley's facts are Koolaid.

Ahhh...nothing like the Koolaid to rescue Koolaid.

Yep...Danny spewed the same false news, saying that I said all request were value pressure. Danny spewing that fake news about me is a fact. No where have I said that. That's his Koolaid, nothing remotely close to a fact, hence why GH's post is liking to drinking his koolaid.

The other points are wrong as well. Feel free to prove me wrong. Post the link to one post that proves me wrong.

 

[Non Sequitur]

And some appraisers wonder why the staff model is gaining ground.......

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

The fact that you refuse to read Mr. Wiley's posts with an open mind (he's made valid points all along) you'd see that he never indicated that you said all requests were value pressure. I do believe that your belief that some are value pressure is bogus on its face. The only way any request is value pressure is if the appraiser has no b$alls and isn't confident in his work.

 

[DWiley]

Yep...Danny spewed the same false news, saying that I said all request were value pressure. Danny spewing that fake news about me is a fact. No where have I said that. That's his Koolaid, nothing remotely close to a fact, hence why GH's post is liking to drinking his koolaid.

Well, that may not be what you intend, but it is the message that I (and apparently others) got from what you posted.

I accept that we disagree on this. Frankly, you have to disagree in order to support that contingent compensation arrangement that you apply to the scenario. But, please understand that my views on this matter are not based on just my personal readings or input from the Legal and Compliance teams at my company. I have spent a great deal of time engaging on this subject with with federal regulators (and their attorneys). I hope you will understand why I accept their views over your interpretation.

If you are being pressured, then you should file a complaint. No doubt about it. But, if you are assuming some sort of pressure just because of the nature of a question - well, good luck. If you do file a complaint, I would certainly leave out the part about the contingent fee arrangement.

 

[George Hatch]

Wrong, an you know it. Throughout this whole thread I have said that if my report didn't have the best comps, I would change immediately. There would be no fee because they already paid for a report that I Certified as having the best comps.


That's fine. I'm not talking about court. I'm talking about reporting them and letting the D-F gods sort it out. If they don't consider it a violation, then they have nothing to worry about all those 1000's of value pressure complaints. They can easily access these links to report for starters. Most states have their own, as well.

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/

I fully encourage you guys to file the complaint if you think there's a pattern of undue influence on values. Even better if you can come up with a pattern of appraisers actually increasing values in response to the ROV that won't stand up to scrutiny.

But I also encourage you guys to have realistic expectations for exactly how far the regulators and courts will go to document your claims for you - which is to say I wouldn't rely on them to make much effort. Better if you build the case yourselves and hand it to them on the silver platter so they CAN'T ignore it.

Damages and effect. You're looking for damages and effect.

 

[hastalavista]

Clearly there are some ROV requests which cross over into coercion. To deny that would be unreal. Complaints in those cases should be filed... aggressively.

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/

Here is my forecast of what will happen if the regulators get 1,000s of complaints, many of which (I predict) will be unfounded-
1. Some bad actors will be caught
2. Entities such as VA, FHA, and Fannie/Freddie will come out with a more specific statement about the expectation that ROVs be addressed (keep in mind, the original question of this thread was if an ROV needed to be addressed in the report; it is my opinion that it does not. An email is sufficient... for now)
3. Clients who are subject to Dodd-Frank/IFR, and TILA will make sure in their engagement agreement that addressing an ROV is part of the assignment-conditions. Some will require that it be addressed in the body of the report
4. The clients will get #3 blessed by the regulators; there will be a standardization of how such requests are made. It will include clear language why the request is in compliance with the regulations. A one-page ROV will probably turn into 4-5 pages
5. Appraisers do not have to agree to it; and their recourse is to not accept the assignment. Those who do accept the assignments and fail to address the ROVs if they are part of the assignment-conditions will likely be dropped from the client's approved panel... unless the request can be shown to violate the regulations.
6. Certainly, there will be those clients who violate #5; but it is unrealistic to think that sophisticated lenders cannot devise a process that fits within the regulatory requirements and will be more or less "bullet proof" if no clear violation is found

So, what exists now as more or less a non-standardized (and perhaps, non-regulator vetted) process by the various clients (how they request an ROV) will get standardized into a process which will make it difficult not to respond in the manner that many object to. Further, with a standardized process, I would expect that some of the ROVs that are not passed on to the appraiser will be passed on because the process (blessed by the regulators) will create somewhat of a safe harbor (if you follow this process, you'll be fine).

We've seen this movie before. No one wants to or stops to consider the unintended consequences.
That's my prediction.

Better (IMO) to set the fee to the particular client, and base that fee on how they require/expect things to be done. If ROVs are part of their routine process, I'm going to charge more for their work... or let someone else take it on.
The regulations are designed to protect appraiser independence... but the over-riding objective is consumer protection and sound lending procedures (they are not separate... but they are not equal in their scale).

Right now, the process allows for consumers (and other stakeholders) to provide the lender with additional information for the appraiser to consider.
The argument here is that the lender should filter those requests such that the outcome is only requests that actually result in a change get sent to the appraiser (and, "change" doesn't mean a change in value. "Change" means that the appraiser is going to do something because of the ROV that s/he didn't do before.. which could be, "Yeah; I considered this new data but it doesn't move the needle."). That's substituting the lender's judgment for the appraisers. And you can bet that consumer groups will argue that the lender isn't the boots-on-the-ground expert that the appraiser is, so it is the appraiser that should make that determination. And the last sentence doesn't mean that the floodgates are open (they are not now) nor does it mean we cannot file a complaint when the ROV turns into coercion.
What it does mean (again, IMO) is that this is not a problem as far as the larger mortgage-finance universe is concerned.
They won't argue that coercion is a good thing; they'll agree that coercion is unacceptable.
They will argue that providing additional data for the appraiser to consider is not coercion.

My last comment on this in this thread.

 

[DWiley]

Clearly there are some ROV requests which cross over into coercion. To deny that would be unreal. Complaints in those cases should be filed... aggressively.



Here is my forecast of what will happen if the regulators get 1,000s of complaints, many of which (I predict) will be unfounded-
1. Some bad actors will be caught
2. Entities such as VA, FHA, and Fannie/Freddie will come out with a more specific statement about the expectation that ROVs be addressed (keep in mind, the original question of this thread was if an ROV needed to be addressed in the report; it is my opinion that it does not. An email is sufficient... for now)
3. Clients who are subject to Dodd-Frank/IFR, and TILA will make sure in their engagement agreement that addressing an ROV is part of the assignment-conditions. Some will require that it be addressed in the body of the report
4. The clients will get #3 blessed by the regulators; there will be a standardization of how such requests are made. It will include clear language why the request is in compliance with the regulations. A one-page ROV will probably turn into 4-5 pages
5. Appraisers do not have to agree to it; and their recourse is to not accept the assignment. Those who do accept the assignments and fail to address the ROVs if they are part of the assignment-conditions will likely be dropped from the client's approved panel... unless the request can be shown to violate the regulations.
6. Certainly, there will be those clients who violate #5; but it is unrealistic to think that sophisticated lenders cannot devise a process that fits within the regulatory requirements and will be more or less "bullet proof" if no clear violation is found

So, what exists now as more or less a non-standardized (and perhaps, non-regulator vetted) process by the various clients (how they request an ROV) will get standardized into a process which will make it difficult not to respond in the manner that many object to. Further, with a standardized process, I would expect that some of the ROVs that are not passed on to the appraiser will be passed on because the process (blessed by the regulators) will create somewhat of a safe harbor (if you follow this process, you'll be fine).

We've seen this movie before. No one wants to or stops to consider the unintended consequences.
That's my prediction.

Better (IMO) to set the fee to the particular client, and base that fee on how they require/expect things to be done. If ROVs are part of their routine process, I'm going to charge more for their work... or let someone else take it on.
The regulations are designed to protect appraiser independence... but the over-riding objective is consumer protection and sound lending procedures (they are not separate... but they are not equal in their scale).

Right now, the process allows for consumers (and other stakeholders) to provide the lender with additional information for the appraiser to consider.
The argument here is that the lender should filter those requests such that the outcome is only requests that actually result in a change get sent to the appraiser (and, "change" doesn't mean a change in value. "Change" means that the appraiser is going to do something because of the ROV that s/he didn't do before.. which could be, "Yeah; I considered this new data but it doesn't move the needle."). That's substituting the lender's judgment for the appraisers. And you can bet that consumer groups will argue that the lender isn't the boots-on-the-ground expert that the appraiser is, so it is the appraiser that should make that determination. And the last sentence doesn't mean that the floodgates are open (they are not now) nor does it mean we cannot file a complaint when the ROV turns into coercion.
What it does mean (again, IMO) is that this is not a problem as far as the larger mortgage-finance universe is concerned.
They won't argue that coercion is a good thing; they'll agree that coercion is unacceptable.
They will argue that providing additional data for the appraiser to consider is not coercion.

My last comment on this in this thread.

First, I agree completely with your opening statement. Any ROV that truly does cross the line into coercion should absolutely be pursued with a complaint.

As for your prediction, the TAF is already working on best practices for ROVs, including a standard ROV form. Look for its release for public comment within a few months. That certainly would seem to pave the way for the other items you predict.