The Appraiser Shortage Myth Part 43

[J Grant]

Maybe she should demand that the restaurant provide her with the a cost breakdown of the ingredients and labor that went into the preparation of each item ordered to make sure that the cooks and the pickle suppliers were fairly compensated.

Please stop heckling the exchange between myself and D Wiley. He is participating through his own volition. If you don't want to contribute to the topic , please stay out of my exchanges with others.

 

[hastalavista]

Danny, you are the fall guy taking the heat. It is directed at you because you are the one showing up on the board, but imo the lenders who participate in this method of payment are as culpable or more so for the situation being what it is. The lenders know what it ends with the low $ amounts to appraisers, and the lenders could correct it tomorrow if they choose to.

(my bold)

Again, I agree with you (bolded part; and have said this since HVCC).
Where we disagree (and it is fine that we do) is that TRID creates an additional barrier. I get that you don't think that is the case, so no need to argue it (I said we are in disagreement); I acknowledge the disagreement.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

Again, I never said YOUR agreement is with the borrower. I never said that ever, so please stop alluding to it. I said, your payment, from the lender, in those assignments were a borrower appraisal fee is paid, comes out of a portion of the borrower paid total appraisal fee (see below) It has nothing to do with default work.

A lender charges a borrower $500 for an appraisal in region X ,and the appraiser is paid $300 for that appraisal in region x from the AMC (lender as client). So the borrower fee was split, was it not? If not, then where did the missing $200 from the borrower paid total of $500 go?

Everyone understands this, and in fact Danny has already noted that he has no issue with the fees being itemized separately (except for the issues with TRID).

I also believe that it should be separated. However, it won't magically make appraisers better businesspersons.

 

[timd354]

Please stop heckling the exchange between myself and D Wiley. He is participating through his own volition. If you don't want to contribute to the topic , please stay out of my exchanges with others.

Sorry, but I will post whenever I feel like it at my own discretion. You have a lot of nerve telling people not post in your conversation when you are the worst serial poster on the AF and you consistently pipe in on all kinds of threads and topics that you clearly know absolutely nothing about.

 

[J Grant]

I asked about the disclosures of the fees $ paid to an AMC and $ paid to an appraiser on an appraisal. The response:

No, that is not a fee split. It is simply detailed billing. Like when you get a bill in a restaurant that shows the total as well as all the items ordered.

We are not in a restaurant. If a borrower paid a total fee of $500 for the appraisal to the lender , and it is disclosed on the appraisal, $200 paid to AMC and $300 to appraiser, is that not detailed accounting of the way the borrower's $500 total fee was split, $200 to AMC and $300 to appraiser?

If not, then what it is a detailed accounting of?

 

[timd354]

I also believe that it should be separated. However, it won't magically make appraisers better businesspersons.

Correct. Separating the fees won't make a dime difference in what appraisers get paid.

 

[J Grant]

Sorry, but I will post whenever I feel like it at my own discretion. You have a lot of nerve telling people not post in your conversation when you are the worst serial poster on the AF and you consistently pipe in on all kinds of threads and topics that you clearly know absolutely nothing about.

I did not ask you to stop posting. I asked you to stop heckling.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

We are not in a restaurant. If a borrower paid a total fee of $500 for the appraisal to the lender , and it is disclosed on the appraisal, $200 paid to AMC and $300 to appraiser, is that not detailed accounting of the way the borrower's $500 total fee was split, $200 to AMC and $300 to appraiser?

If not, then what it is a detailed accounting of?

That "detailed accounting" is currently not required by law, therefore it is simply a matter of discussion, not a requirement. If memory serves me correctly, there was at least one version of the proposed law that suggested this, but didn't make it into the final version.

 

[J Grant]

Correct. Separating the fees won't make a dime difference in what appraisers get paid.

We are willing to take the chance. imo it will make a difference and remains to be seen .

I do believe separation the fees might make a difference (lower ) in what AMC's get paid. Perhaps that is why they are reluctant to initiate it.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

We are willing to take the chance. imo it will make a difference and remains to be seen .

I do believe separation the fees might make a difference (lower ) in what AMC's get paid. Perhaps that is why they are reluctant to initiate it.

Can you explain exactly how that works?