Where Do You Think "geographic Competency" Begins And Ends?

[George Hatch]

I have never avoided the fee issue with AMCs in these discussions. But by the same token I understand why the fees the AMCs pay varies greatly by locale and is primarily driven by the supply and demand.

The number of California CGs in 2018 is 24% lower than it was in 2000. The number of SL+CRs in California is 21% higher than it was in 2002, but at one point was almost double. The CGs in my state have never had had a problem with competing with the AMCs for business or with fees, but the SL+CRs have. The reason the Calif. CGs have never had a problem is because they were smarter about trainees than the residential appraisers were. The CGs didn't dig themselves into a hole that provided the AMCs with the "if you won't do it we'll find someone else who will" leverage.

Moreover, the CGs have been working under a Lender-engagement gig all along - the lenders we work for were tasked from the outset with engaging directly so we never did become subservient to the mortgage brokers. So our side of the business has been working all along under the same type of engagement that the HVCC and Dodd-Frank finally brought on line for your side of the business.

These are all facts, and no amount of wishful thinking or selective memory is going to change them.

You should consider carefully the reasons why our respective situations are different. I started out working the Fannie gig the same as you. If I had made the same choices you did I'd be in the same position as you are right now. Conversely, if you had made the same choices I made you'd be in the same position I'm in now. The dominant variable hasn't been our externalities; its been our own choices.

 

[J Grant]

So you suggest every residential appraiser drop out of GSE work and do commercial instead? Where would that leave lenders and borrowers?

The supply of appraisers and choice of appraisers alone are not responsible for what happened, res license who got into the field prior to HVCC had no idea it would happen like that. It is not even AMC's that are the problem, it is the blended HUD fee provision exploited by the segment of AMC's and lenders to divert fees from reaching the appraiser- how did our choice, years ago to do residential work lead to that?

Of course st gen license appraisers who also do residential work are affected in arena of GSE work if they choose to do it. .

Personally I am doing well and have some good clients, though if I had to do it over, would have gotten the cert gen license early in career. Then again, if I had to do it over I might not have gone into appraisal -.we are where we are; Blaming appraisers who choose to res work for the abuses that happen on lender or AMC side is another of the positions you take that is harmful to the profession.

Why not put the blame where blame lies for abuses - on those perpetrating them?

 

[J Grant]

Gh-I understand why the fees the AMCs pay varies greatly by locale and is primarily driven by the supply and demand.
.
If AMC's were prohibited from taking their profit from the percent of what they pay an appraiser in fees, supply and demand would NOT be the driver of AMC fee paid to appraiser , just a S/D is not the driver of VA fees nor of lender direct fees in these same regional areas where an AMC pays far less. A fact you refuse to acknowledge.

Cost plus or similar would clean this up overnight.

Compare how direct lender order work and VA panel operate now, they typically pay appraisers a uniform fee appraisers agree to for regular work deemed not complex in regional areas , ( derived from surveys of non AMC fees) Therefore, the lender is not shopping for a $20 discount among appraisers when deciding who to assign an order to. Since they are not profiting from a spread of the fee, they have no incentive to shop for low fees, so it is not about just supply and demand driving fees. Surely you are aware of this?

It should not take a decimation of the appraisal field /under supply of appraisers to finally achieve some reasonable fees from an AMC, because an under supply creates its own set of problems. The problem with AMC fees are in large part a policy and regulatory issue,, not an issue of simple supply and demand alone, .

 

[Joe Flacco]

I have never avoided the fee issue with AMCs in these discussions. But by the same token I understand why the fees the AMCs pay varies greatly by locale and is primarily driven by the supply and demand.

The number of California CGs in 2018 is 24% lower than it was in 2000. The number of SL+CRs in California is 21% higher than it was in 2002, but at one point was almost double. The CGs in my state have never had had a problem with competing with the AMCs for business or with fees, but the SL+CRs have. The reason the Calif. CGs have never had a problem is because they were smarter about trainees than the residential appraisers were. The CGs didn't dig themselves into a hole that provided the AMCs with the "if you won't do it we'll find someone else who will" leverage.

Moreover, the CGs have been working under a Lender-engagement gig all along - the lenders we work for were tasked from the outset with engaging directly so we never did become subservient to the mortgage brokers. So our side of the business has been working all along under the same type of engagement that the HVCC and Dodd-Frank finally brought on line for your side of the business.

These are all facts, and no amount of wishful thinking or selective memory is going to change them.

You should consider carefully the reasons why our respective situations are different. I started out working the Fannie gig the same as you. If I had made the same choices you did I'd be in the same position as you are right now. Conversely, if you had made the same choices I made you'd be in the same position I'm in now. The dominant variable hasn't been our externalities; its been our own choices.

There you go making it about economic interests again. I don't have issues with fees okay? I have been averaging about $600 per report for the last three years and I am located in a oversupplied area. I don't charge at the top of the market but well above what is common. For the hundredth time It is about level of professionalism and level of competency in the profession. Both are good for public trust. Eventually it does result in higher fees. The purpose of higher qualifications is not fees.

 

[J Grant]

duplicate

 

[timd354]

The only reason companies try to "leverage technology" is so they can make a lot of $ .

Which is the same reason appraisers switched to forms software, starting taking digital photos, etc. Yes, the AMC's and the lenders are in it for the money, which is no different than why you are in the appraisal profession. It is pretty laughable to listen to you and other appraisers castigate AMC's and lenders for doing things to make more money as you continually bellyache about appraisal fees being too low. The level of hypocrisy and the lack of self-awareness about that hypocrisy is way off the charts.

 

[timd354]

Your students were so capable that we have a competency problem and there is no reason to increase qualifications. Great job. Go pat yourself on the back.

Congrats Flacco, that is one of the cheapest shots anyone has ever taken on this forum, which is saying a lot. Like one CE instructor in the San Diego market is in any way responsible for whatever competency problems this profession has on a national basis. That is some pretty sorry stuff right there

 

[J Grant]

Which is the same reason appraisers switched to forms software, starting taking digital photos, etc. Yes, the AMC's and the lenders are in it for the money, which is no different than why you are in the appraisal profession. It is pretty laughable to listen to you and other appraisers castigate AMC's and lenders for doing things to make more money as you continually bellyache about appraisal fees being too low. The level of hypocrisy and the lack of self-awareness about that hypocrisy is way off the charts.

You've made this stupid hypocrisy argument repeatedly, so..? None of us are hypocritical, about economic interests, and if anyone is, it is not me. Why do you keep bringing a personal attack such as hypocrisy up, just argue the issues, if you are capable of doing so . I find 90% of your posts involve a personal disparagement of one kind or another, you can rarely stay on topic. .

An appraiser using digital photos vs developed photos is not the same thing. It still results in a usable photo. We pay for our digital cameras and batteries and memory cards.

The reason the portion of appraisal fees are low reaching appraiser ( the fee is high to consumer ) is its own subject and not the same as a consumer goods change such as from developed film to digital photos- might have escaped you but millions of consumers use digital photos now vs developed film, which gives camera companies a vast market, and the opportunity to make volume sales of digital cameras, digital software programs, memory cards, etc.

Trying to make the two equivalent , that I am a hypocrite for using digital photos at the same time that I speak out about the blended fee provision impact of AMC is absurd.

I have no problem with AMC's being in it for the money. I do have a problem with their getting that money from the Appraiser rather than the lender, since it is the lender they provide the service to. And yes their getting their profit and costs from the appraiser rather than the lender can harm my economic interests ( which is why I work with very few AMC's ).

The fact that some of us may have concerns about this regarding the profession and serving borrowers, aside from the fact that we also can have economic interest concerns escapes you. We did speak out for years and signed our names to petitions about mortgage lender value pressure which was against our economic interests to do so.

The fact that a professional can hold two views simultaneously on a topic seems foreign to you. Though I really don't think that is the case, more the case that you enjoy attacking the easy targets of appraisers and calling them hypocrites is just another way to do so.

 

[George Hatch]

I don't know how you can divorce the fact that the banks have the leverage to outsource all their overhead into the appraiser's fee from the supply/demand where the lenders have more alternatives than you do.

If your market had the same supply/demand situation as the COW states don't you think your fees would be different than they are right now? AMC or no AMC

As for the Petition, the reason that resonated with the decision makers wasn't because it was framed in terms of your economic interests (because it wasn't) but because it was framed in terms of safety/soundness. It wasn't your economic interests that anyone cared about, but the threat of client advocacy to the impartiality of the appraisals coming in from that pipeline.

 

[Joe Flacco]

Congrats Flacco, that is one of the cheapest shots anyone has ever taken on this forum, which is saying a lot. Like one CE instructor in the San Diego market is in any way responsible for whatever competency problems this profession has on a national basis. That is some pretty sorry stuff right there

Whatever. He is the one saying that based on his teaching experience that there should be no bachelors degree requirement. I couldn't care less about his background. BS.