Unveiling the Truth: The Controversial Role of Data Collectors in Real Estate

[alebrewer]

First, I'm not picking on you. Your reactionary-type corrective response is a fairly typical of the power users I've talked to.
The lender/AMC is in the driver's seat when engaging an appraiser. They can dictate what is an acceptable level of service by the appraiser, including dress. But leadership takes more than putting "dress professionally" in an engagement letter. It could be in a one-on-one when an appraiser joins a panel. It could be through group PowerPoints. It could be with borrower satisfaction surveys. The point is it takes effort.
There was a mid-size lender by the name of California Federal (CalFed). It was coveted by appraisers to be on their panel. They offered free CE at their headquarters and while it wasn't required to attend I always felt it was expected by the regional chief appraisers who would be in attendance. They were a lender who were clear about their expecations and one to emulate.

I think you're not comparing apples to apples, John... you're decrying my management capabilities (which I've already stated were relative to the AMC world in this case), and yet proffering an example of a regional lender. Big difference...

I've run both AMC's, as well as lender valuation departments. And I wholeheartedly agree with you that - for the most part - the relationship between appraisers and a lender valuation department is significantly different than that between (most) AMC's and appraisers. It's been my experience that the AMC relationship ALWAYS starts as a contentious relationship, and that it was my job (in the AMC role) to make that relationship less contentious. Something I was really good at.

I didn't have that uphill battle to climb WRT managing a lender panel. So, yeah - I'd fully agree that: (a) appraisers tend to be more receptive when dealing with lender panel managers than AMC's, (b) the panels are generally smaller for lenders than AMC's - allowing the management folks more time to develop individual relationships, and (3) the lender executive leadership (CEO, CFO, etc.) tended to be more involved in ensuring that our appraisers presented a good 'face' for said lender.

The last AMC I managed was processing about 4,000-5,000 units a month when I left. My favorite lender gig was (like you say) for a regional lender processing about 800-1,000 units a month. Again - big difference.

Bottom line, though, it seems you're trying to place the blame for appraisers dressing poorly on the lenders and/or AMC's. If so, that would be misplaced blame. If appraisers want to be treated as professionals, and not tradesfolk, dress the part.

 

[Tim Hicks (Texas)]

I think you're not comparing apples to apples, John... you're decrying my management capabilities (which I've already stated were relative to the AMC world in this case), and yet proffering an example of a regional lender. Big difference...

I've run both AMC's, as well as lender valuation departments. And I wholeheartedly agree with you that - for the most part - the relationship between appraisers and a lender valuation department is significantly different than that between (most) AMC's and appraisers. It's been my experience that the AMC relationship ALWAYS starts as a contentious relationship, and that it was my job (in the AMC role) to make that relationship less contentious. Something I was really good at.

I didn't have that uphill battle to climb WRT managing a lender panel. So, yeah - I'd fully agree that: (a) appraisers tend to be more receptive when dealing with lender panel managers than AMC's, (b) the panels are generally smaller for lenders than AMC's - allowing the management folks more time to develop individual relationships, and (3) the lender executive leadership (CEO, CFO, etc.) tended to be more involved in ensuring that our appraisers presented a good 'face' for said lender.

The last AMC I managed was processing about 4,000-5,000 units a month when I left. My favorite lender gig was (like you say) for a regional lender processing about 800-1,000 units a month. Again - big difference.

Bottom line, though, it seems you're trying to place the blame for appraisers dressing poorly on the lenders and/or AMC's. If so, that would be misplaced blame. If appraisers want to be treated as professionals, and not tradesfolk, dress the part.

I don't need my lender clients to make me feel all warm and fuzzy. I just need them to respect my work ethic like I respect theirs. AMCs can die a tragic death.

 

[DWiley]

And of these rapists and drug traffickers, how many were doing a high volume of appraisals for AMCs before getting caught?

All of the examples I cited were active appraisers doing work. Some high volume, some low volume. And, the AMC I worked for agreed that requiring regular background checks was a good risk mitigation tactic - but it is only that. There is no full proof solution.

 

[alebrewer]

I don't need my lender clients to make me feel all warm and fuzzy. I just need them to respect my work ethic like I respect theirs. AMCs can die a tragic death.

I think most are, Tim... at least outside the ones that weren't picked by the agencies - those guys will continue to prosper, at least for the foreseeable future. And I tend to share your feelings - not big on social gatherings, chatting on the phone, etc. Of course, when I was in those roles, it was part of my job, but as a field guy - I know I'm good, I know I dress well, so leave me alone and let me do my job. That is, until I've finished the coursework for my new career (two years).

 

[glenn walker]

First, I'm not picking on yoCal Fed man you really are o,ld u. Your reactionary-type corrective response is a fairly typical of the power users I've talked to.

The lender/AMC is in the driver's seat when engaging an appraiser. They can dictate what is an acceptable level of service by the appraiser, including dress. But leadership takes more than putting "dress professionally" in an engagement letter. It could be in a one-on-one when an appraiser joins a panel. It could be through group PowerPoints. It could be with borrower satisfaction surveys. The point is, it takes effort.

There was a mid-size lender by the name of California Federal (CalFed). It was coveted by appraisers to be on their panel. They offered free CE at their headquarters and while it wasn't required to attend I always felt it was expected by the regional chief appraisers who would be in attendance. They were a lender who were clear about their expecations, understood what leadership requires, and one to emulate. Alas, they were bought out circa 2003 (by WAMU, I think) and the base fee went from direct engagement at $425 to the AMC Chesapeake at $325. Suffice to say I declined the paycut.

Cal-Fed - Man you are as old as dirt LMAO

 

[glenn walker]

All of the examples I cited were active appraisers doing work. Some high volume, some low volume. And, the AMC I worked for agreed that requiring regular background checks was a good risk mitigation tactic - but it is only that. There is no full proof solution.

I have , many retired LEO's as friends and one common laugh is nobody has a record until they get caught and 80% never do

 

[Joe Flacco]

I think you're not comparing apples to apples, John... you're decrying my management capabilities (which I've already stated were relative to the AMC world in this case), and yet proffering an example of a regional lender. Big difference...

I've run both AMC's, as well as lender valuation departments. And I wholeheartedly agree with you that - for the most part - the relationship between appraisers and a lender valuation department is significantly different than that between (most) AMC's and appraisers. It's been my experience that the AMC relationship ALWAYS starts as a contentious relationship, and that it was my job (in the AMC role) to make that relationship less contentious. Something I was really good at.

I didn't have that uphill battle to climb WRT managing a lender panel. So, yeah - I'd fully agree that: (a) appraisers tend to be more receptive when dealing with lender panel managers than AMC's, (b) the panels are generally smaller for lenders than AMC's - allowing the management folks more time to develop individual relationships, and (3) the lender executive leadership (CEO, CFO, etc.) tended to be more involved in ensuring that our appraisers presented a good 'face' for said lender.

The last AMC I managed was processing about 4,000-5,000 units a month when I left. My favorite lender gig was (like you say) for a regional lender processing about 800-1,000 units a month. Again - big difference.

Bottom line, though, it seems you're trying to place the blame for appraisers dressing poorly on the lenders and/or AMC's. If so, that would be misplaced blame. If appraisers want to be treated as professionals, and not tradesfolk, dress the part.

The AMC relationship is contentious because

1) The AMC engagement process is insulting and unprofessional.
2) AMCs are generally working with a beaten down group of appraisers. (Different group of appraisers than the banks).

If at the bank, a manager is processing 800-1000 units per month, and at the AMC there are 4000-5000 units per month, then the obvious answer is that you need five managers processing 800-1000 units per month.

 

[John Hassler]

Bottom line, though, it seems you're trying to place the blame for appraisers dressing poorly on the lenders and/or AMC's. If so, that would be misplaced blame. If appraisers want to be treated as professionals, and not tradesfolk, dress the part.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't see this so much as a problem of scale but one of senior management not providing you the tools you need to grow to scale.

 

[alebrewer]

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't see this so much as a matter of scale but one of senior management not providing you the tools you need.

And by tools, you mean dress attire? Sorry - just not following what we're disagreeing about yet....

 

[John Hassler]

And by tools, you mean dress attire? Sorry - just not following what we're disagreeing about yet....

See Post 67 for a better explanation than mine.

BTW I'm sure you're dressed fine but please send a pic to my emissary GW for his review.