Strategies for raising fees

[J Grant]

If anyone has a problem with Jack accepting an assignment for $200, they need to talk to Jack and ask him why. Seriously. Get into the mind of the appraisers pushing the fees down. Educate them. Raise awareness. Someone's behavior doesn't change simply because we don't like it.

I did get into their minds and suggested a solution for these traumatized, frightened souls. Of course, if a segment of appraisers keeps fees low to undercut the competition, they are a POS and beyond reach.

 

[J Grant]

Nobody is arguing the observation of how the AMCs operate. They are exploiting their available options. Same as appraisers except on the larger scale.

If the lenders are allowed to engage this way then that's the true source of your complaint. I don't know why your continue to blame the AMCs for what the lenders are choosing to do. If the lenders wanted to use your preferred alternative and pay the AMCs end separately then they are free to do so. There's not one thing stopping them, least of all the AMC preferences. I doubt there is a single AMC that would object to that setup if they thought their end of the fee was right.

The fact that almost no AMC/Lender relationships exist in that form speaks to the lenders' preferences, not the AMCs resistance to separating fees.

But it is not the same as appraisers on a larger scale. The appraisers have to charge their customers a cost, correct? Whether their customer is a lender, an AMC, a person, or another entity. The cost is a fee for the appraisal.

The AMCs; DO NOT charge a hard cost for their AMC service to the lender !! THAT is what gives them a huge market share and makes normal supply and demand impossible for appraisers, and thus pushes fees artificially low. Getting a pass-through payment from a lender for the appraisal is NOT the same as charging a lender a hard cost that they pay , the way a lender pays for accounting or IT support or other professional services.

I agree, a number of AMC's would prefer the lender pay a cost, yet they know if that were the case, the end of their fee would be far below what it is now. In other words, if AMC's had to compete the way normal businesses do, they would either fold shop or lower their fee substantially. If a lender can pass a high-cost charge on to a borrower to cover a higher $ amount to the AMC, I do not care. I just want to see the AMCs being subsidized from a split of the appraisal fee end.

 

[George Hatch]

I did get into their minds and suggested a solution for these traumatized, frightened souls. Of course, if a segment of appraisers keeps fees low to undercut the competition, they are a POS and beyond reach.

Typical. The disagreement gets characterized as an expression of fear and trauma and fragility instead of merely being a competing business strategy. Which apparently has been a successful strategy for them, even if only from their perspective.

I bid on almost every assignment at whatever rate I think the market will bear. I literally don't care if (generic) you can't compete at that rate - that's your problem, not mine. I also don't care enough about your well being to put your interests ahead of my interests. I don't even consider your interests when I'm bidding for an assignment. It's as if your business interests are wholly irrelevant to me.

Not personal, it's just business. No quarter asked, none given.

 

[George Hatch]

But it is not the same as appraisers on a larger scale. The appraisers have to charge their customers a cost, correct? Whether their customer is a lender, an AMC, a person, or another entity. The cost is a fee for the appraisal.

The AMCs; DO NOT charge a hard cost for their AMC service to the lender !! THAT is what gives them a huge market share and makes normal supply and demand impossible for appraisers, and thus pushes fees artificially low. Getting a pass-through payment from a lender for the appraisal is NOT the same as charging a lender a hard cost that they pay , the way a lender pays for accounting or IT support or other professional services.

I agree, a number of AMC's would prefer the lender pay a cost, yet they know if that were the case, the end of their fee would be far below what it is now. In other words, if AMC's had to compete the way normal businesses do, they would either fold shop or lower their fee substantially. If a lender can pass a high-cost charge on to a borrower to cover a higher $ amount to the AMC, I do not care. I just want to see the AMCs being subsidized from a split of the appraisal fee end.

This is what I actually said:

"They are exploiting their available options. Same as appraisers except on the larger scale."​

The similarity lies in exploiting their available options. Not in the specifics of what those options are. The same parallel applies to the lender conduct - they are exploiting their available options.

 

[chad hampton]

Do you mean "spells out" in terms of how the lawyers will argue and the courts will adjudicate? Because that's the standard by which all laws, rules and regs are resolved in the courts. Lawyers exist for the purpose of parsing - on the adversarial basis - what the meaning of "is" is.

If the lawyers cannot or will nor even advance an argument far enough to get it in front of a judge for fear of losing then that speaks directly to THEIR perception of the strengths of that argument.

So then, no, they have not repealed DF?

You have a high opinion of lawyers. I do not. And it never seems to be the appraisers who are looking to bend, twist, and outright manipulate the intent of laws to gain an advantage. Maybe we are just a simple people, we read it as written, understand the intent, and follow it.

 

[George Hatch]

I have a low opinion of lawyers. They operate on the basis of the ends justifying the means, as I suppose befits their role as advocates for their client's interests. My opinions notwithstanding, the observables of how the courts operate and the extent to which the burden of proof affects these outcomes is apparent. When a lawyer declines to take a case to court because they aren't confident of winning that speaks to their perceptions of the strength of the case and the efficacy of the counters they anticipate from their opposition.

You frequently complain about how the AMCs showed up to advocate their case to your state board. As if they had no right to advocate for their own interests in front of a state board that regulates their conduct.

But then you ignore the point that the state board backed down for a reason. I don't recall you ever addressing their reasoning for backing down, but lets consider it: why did they back down instead of taking the case to court? Corruption is one possibility - board members being bought and paid for. But another possibility is that they - or their lawyers - may have reconsidered the strength of their case in front of a court in the event of a legal challenge. Reasoning that might not have been based on right vs wrong or moral vs immoral, but based on their IRL experience with how "is" gets interpreted in a legal argument.

People complain about how USPAP (as just one example) is written. One facet of the ASBs strategy is their attempt to outsmart the lawyers and cut off some of their fallacious arguments. That's one reason why the Instructors are tasked with sticking strictly to the content as written and to refrain from loading anything else into the verbiage. Toward that end I generally try to use screengrabs instead of quoting.

 

[J Grant]

Typical. The disagreement gets characterized as an expression of fear and trauma and fragility instead of merely being a competing business strategy. Which apparently has been a successful strategy for them, even if only from their perspective.

I bid on almost every assignment at whatever rate I think the market will bear. I literally don't care if (generic) you can't compete at that rate - that's your problem, not mine. I also don't care enough about your well being to put your interests ahead of my interests. I don't even consider your interests when I'm bidding for an assignment. It's as if your business interests are wholly irrelevant to me.

Not personal, it's just business. No quarter asked, none given.

It is not "just business." Fear of not being able to survive economically drives the people in business, and it drives the AMC's as well as the appraisers.

The AMCs have a govt perk (which is fine with you in this case, oddly enough): they can split a vendor appraiser fee to get compensated, rather than the normal business dynamic where a business CHARGES its customers a fee to get compensated.

I can not tell whether you are incapable of understanding that or ignoring it for some kind of agenda

.

 

[Tom D]

If i were doing rural, and no have to take comp photos. I'm lowering my fee.

 

[George Hatch]

It is not "just business." Fear of not being able to survive economically drives the people in business, and it drives the AMC's as well as the appraisers.

The AMCs have a govt perk (which is fine with you in this case, oddly enough): they can split a vendor appraiser fee to get compensated, rather than the normal business dynamic where a business CHARGES its customers a fee to get compensated.

I can not tell whether you are incapable of understanding that or ignoring it for some kind of agenda

.

Fear of failure is a fundamental for any business. Heck, it's a fundamental for any form of employment, too. Perform and compete or get fired. Pass this test or you'll fail the course.
----------

The AMCs have a govt perk...​

That's not how laws work. Laws don't "give" rights, they function to take rights away, subject to the limitations of the govt's reach. They function as prohibitions, not patronage. There is no law which requires lenders to use AMCs, or to engage with bundled fees. The current status was not a perk that was given to the AMCs. It was an available option which was not taken from the lenders.

 

[J Grant]

If i were doing rural, and no have to take comp photos. I'm lowering my fee.

That is the patheiocally bad business mentality that makes appraisers the most underpaid people in RE, the AMC problem aside.

Appraisers have been underpaid all these years for having to drive so far for comp photos in rural areas, and the increased time demands of the UAD 3.6 will wipe out any time savings wrt comp photos