The third party

[Pam]

"From what you've said here, it sounds to me like your employer would do better if they managed their accept lists better."

"If you ordered it, it's time for you to find a competent appraiser."

I did not personalize the discussion. The above quotes made it personal. And, yes, they were insulting.

 

[Judy Whitehead (Florida)]

I had to read back over this thread to see why you were taking so many comments personally. Actually, the implication that Pamela Crowley made was not that you, yourself, Pam, ordered the appraisal, but that the mortgage brokers be more responsible about the appraisers that they do business with. At least that is the way I read it.

I see nothing wrong with THE APPRAISER needing to identify the client - in fact my disclaimer states that the appraisal is only to be used by the client identified on the report and any other "user" disclosed and agreed upon by both the appraiser and the client prior to delivery of the report.

The problem that most of us get into is that after completing an appraisal report, unbeknowst to us, the mortgage broker starts shopping the loan. Usually these are high risk loans. Then the "investor" comes back with additional requests and forms that were never requested to begin with. Such as Manufactured Home Addendums designed for each specific lender and not a generic one or one used by another lender. Then additional comps are requested to support the value, whether or not any adjustments were exceeded or not. In areas such as mine, where we have a lot of rural properties, manufactured homes, and the average wage is below most of the rest of the country, typically the "subject" requires adjustments beyond the guidelines. No matter how many explanations you put in the report, they will ask for additional comps.
Additionally, by the time the mortgage broker finds an "investor" time has gone by and the "investor" wants the appraisal "updated."

Many times the type of mortgage broker described above is simply a telemarketer and does not have the knowledge that you and the rest of us have.

 

[George Hatch]

Pam,


I didn't make the second comment, but I did make the first one.


So when you said...

Any wholesale lender who rejected substandard appraisals outright would be out of business by sunset.

... you weren't talking about your wholesale lender?

Okay, whatever. Thing is, this is not personal between you and I. You are not your employer, are you? And I'm sure that you have absolutely no input as to how your employer does business or how your lists are managed. So how could this be personal? I don't know you and I have no reason to suspect that anything is amiss with you or your employer beyond the types of things you are commenting on in this thread. The only way this could be construed as personal and insulting is if you have embraced and promoted the kinds of activities we are complaining about. For the record and to repeat, again, we were never complaining about the kinds of things you delineated in your post on 09/24/2002 at 5:48 PM. That's all stuff that should have been covered in the original engagement for any mortgage client (well maybe everything but the interior wall lines on the diagrams). This whole thread was about stupid stuff.

The message I have received in this thread from you is that the entire burden for acting ethically in the engagement process rests solely on the shoulders of the fee appraiser. You have not acknowledged that clients and intended users have some ethical responsibilities. Matter of fact, it appears you have asserted the same philosophy in this thread that Peregrine Systems is using when they sue Arthur Anderson for not catching Peregrine's accounting activities; the accountants are to blame for not ferreting out the fraud, not the executives who initiated and perpetuated the failures. Only in this case, it's " the appraisers are responsible for covering up the shortcomings of the client and their intended users."

When the ethical argument you were pushing wasn't working for you, you reverted to a "Golden Rule" (he who has the gold makes the rules) argument:

Perhaps the simplest solution would be for all wholesale lenders/investors to add this statement to their lending/selling guide:

[Insert lender's name] will not accept appraisals with limiting conditions which limit the intended user(s) to less than the named client (originating broker) AND its successors and assigns.

Like I said, I have no reason to believe that you are professionally or ethically deficient in any way (and who would care if I did?). But IMO and based on your own responses on this thread, it sounds like your employer (whoever that is) may be having some avoidable problems. If the message you got from my posts was that there is something personal in this between you and I, then I apologize. If the message you got from this is that in my opinion there are lenders, including review staff, who are abusing appraisers, then I don't see anything to apologize for in that. Only you can decide if your situation fits the latter description.


George Hatch

 

[Pam]

"And I'm sure that you have absolutely no input as to how your employer does business or how your lists are managed."

You know what they say about assumptions.



"When the ethical argument you were pushing wasn't working for you..."

USPAP works just fine for me. I am not the one who has any problem whatsoever understanding the phrase, "An appraiser must identify and consider the client's intended use of the appraiser's reported opinions and conclusions in order to properly define the problem under study and to understand his or her development and reporting responsibilities in an appraisal, appraisal review, or appraisal consulting assignment."

"...you reverted to a "Golden Rule" (he who has the gold makes the rules) argument"

When appraisers were attempting to duck their responsibilities under USPAP by inserting improper limiting conditions, I merely suggested that lenders could counter this by requiring appraisals which are not improperly limited.

"If the message you got from this is that in my opinion there are lenders, including review staff, who are abusing appraisers, then I don't see anything to apologize for in that. Only you can decide if your situation fits the latter description."

:roll:

 

[Pamela Crowley (Florida)]

Pam,

I'm not sure anymore what your point is. Nobody here attacked you yet your responses are bordering on getting nasty. I don't know what your problem is or why you feel a need to defend yourself when you were not attacked. I am asking that you please think about what you write before you hit the submit button. You are making it personal when it was not and there is no need for this.

 

[Dale Smalley]

I look at alot if properties for a wholesale mortgage banker. This includes several titles Reviewer, Deal Killer, Slasher and the new one Crusher.
Since you guys lost track of what is going on with the bickering. This looks like they closed the loan and are now trying to sell a loan package to a third party. If the third party has any brains they will do some kind of due dilligence to verify the information including the value of the asset. And since this property is in AL there is probally a wide range of values in what they found. So now the third party says I am not buying at X this is too high for the area I will only pay Z. Now the mortgage guy stuck with the high ltv loan wants to know Y and goes back to the appraiser for more help. But instead of doing more work for no dollars to help the Mortgage company the name calling starts. and it goes something like the deal killer review arrpaiser does not know this area and slashed the values and crushed my deal and we cant sell our loan package. IT MUST BE THE REVIEWERS FAULT! Now please continue the name calling. That kind of talk turns me on.

 

[Chad J. Houser]

After lurking for a good while, I can no longer resist jump'n on in on this one.

In all fairness, I think that Pam's reaction is not wholly unreasonable (after all, her intelligence - or lack thereof due to illeagal substances - was at one point called into question).

Pam has a very valid point that George has simply not acknowledged: According to USPAP, the intended use of the appraisal must be considered (i.e. forethought) and reported. Normally that use is to assist in mortgage underwriting decisions. Problem is, from what I've seen, that as you go from Lender A down to sub-prime lender B, the restricitons get tighter and the underwriters jumpier, because they have to put more weight on the collateral, rather than on the borrower's credit. Nevermind the fact that most of us on this forum would do the same job for Lender A as sub-prime Lender B, and the appraisal report would be exactly the same.

Now George has a point. If we do an appraisal originally for Lender A as an intended user, and it is truly the best that can be done by that appraiser and with the information available, why does sub-prime lender B somehow think that they are entitled to some magic information that was withheld from A (at no additional cost mind you). When asked to do something like this, it's not the work that bothers me. It's the insinuation that I didn't do a thorough job to begin with, and maybe I just need to go to my little room and find those extra comps.

As for the hacks. Well geesh, if those things (clustered comps, etc.) really are getting sent to mortgage companies, and they accept them, they will get exactly what they deserve, and so will the good appraisers who remain: a lot of forclosure work.

As someone else on another thread so eloquently put it: "Fire away!"

-Chad

 

[Mike Garrett RAA]

It was I, not George, who questioned Pam's thought process. When someone makes an off the wall, seemingly wacky, comment it is not uncommon in my part of the country to ask them what they are smoking. It was not meant as a personal attack but rather a feeble attempt at humor which was obiviously lost somewhere in the thread.

Pam, if I offended you personally...I am sorry. I still think anyone who expects an appraiser to constantly change the names in an appraisal report because the mortage broker is "shopping" the deal...is wacky!

 

[Pam]

Pamela,

Reread the thread. I did NOT make this personal. The personal attacks and insults came from other sources, and I responded.

Since you have lost track of my argument -- my points are:

It is the appraiser's responsibility to consider the intended use of the appraisal report.

It is the appraiser's responsibility to identify the client AND OTHER INTENDED USERS (these "other intended users" may be identified by name or type)

If the appraiser accepts an assignment from a loan broker, the wholesale lender is an easily foreseeable "other intended user"

[NOTE: I have not advocated "retypes" in any way, shape or form]

When another intended user asks for information or clarification, it is not an additional assignment, it is a continuation of the already agreed upon assignment and therefore the appraiser is already obligated to complete the agreed upon assignment and is not entitled to an additional fee.

Mortgage bankers are in business to make loans. It is not their responsibility to police appraisers. (As an aside, do you all really want mortgage bankers to have that kind of power over you?)

If appraisers want to be considered professionals, then we should act like professionals. (This would be a topic for another thread, but generally professionals subscribe to a code of ethics and police their own, as well as are required to have substantial education and experience in their chosen field and exercise significant independent judgment.)

As for the personal insults, for the record:

I do not smoke (anything).

I am not a mortgage broker or loan officer.

I am an appraiser with a General Certification, a B.A. and an advanced degree, as well as 26 years of experience.

I am insulted by the assumption that I "have absolutely no input as to how [my] employer does business or how [our] lists are managed"

I am insulted by the assumption that my employer is poorly managed, is taking unnecessary risks, is (or soon will be) suffering extraordinary losses, is not practicing due diligence, abuses appraisers, etc. (Although the irony of the number of appraisals signed by appraisers who post to this forum that come across my desk is not wasted on me.)

Fire away (again), although this is getting old.

 

[Chad J. Houser]

Sorry Mike, didn't mean to accuse George of something he didn't do. I also use that phrase in similar circumstances. And I have also found that some people don't find it as amusing as you and I.