“Author: Baggins
Comment:
My standard PCV fee is $450-$550, 2 weeks. If you truly follow the scope of work, you’ll roll out a 3 page addenda talking about all those irrelevant points in the engagement letter. I keep on telling PCV, if they stop trying to play appraisers against each other and make them compete with each other on fee, I’ll be happy to work with them again. Question; When does the consumer get the benefits of this so called ‘free market system’, when price savings from reduced costs of appraisal services are never returned to the consumer, and are instead held as variable opportunistic profit as a financial incentive to drive down appraisers fees? Typed that line so often, but I guess that’s how far these middle management businesses have come from understanding actual free market systems and properly implemented checks and balances. / Per the linked article which is the topic of this post; Until such time as listing agents need to comply with UCDP, this thing won’t work as intended. It’s the sales agents that push the envelope first. Where is the control system for them? Let’s be honest; Are the lenders loaning on collaterilzed property value, or the borrowers ability to repay regardless of property worth? If lenders were not backed by tax payer money, they’d probably change their ways over night. Can I place a derivative bet on the successful performance or not of the UCDP system?”

Baggins like most of what I read here but we also need to remember it is listing agents jobs to push the value envelope, otherwise there would never be any appreciation anywhere. They need to do it honestly and ethically, but they still need to do it.

Hi RA;

Agree. ALMOST none will ever pay it which is the whole reason for asking for extra amounts. (For those crazy enough to do so, God Bless them AND the extra income!)

My old mentors (old time SRPA B of A District Appraiser and HIS old boss) used to charge $100 for just about anything extra. New comps $100. Special non-typical photos after the fact $100. Rent survey $100. And so forth

More experienced appraisers are willing to start standing up, but we still have many too afraid of losing their one bid client. As they learn to diversify hopefully it will get better.

I started fighting via the coalition path; now the union and last week also the NAR -they have appraiser Realtor equivalents without having to be a broker. I have even tried to get my state coalition president to join the union and he is considering it.

It’s a numbers game. ONE coalition=pretty much nothing. 50 such coalitions = possible results; add in a union with the SAME members as the coalitions, and they get even more political pull. Toss in NAR with many tens of thousands of additional ‘interested parties’ where we share common goals; and I think we finally have a winning formula.

Then again, I have ALWAYS been willing to tilt with a windmill or two.

Mike

Mike

I appreciate your input and thoughts on the topic. PCV Murcor was not willing to pay us $50 for each additional comparable analyzed, not did I expect them to. I used it as a way to shut them down in their tracks because they were asking trying to give us a new assignment for no additional fee. I doubt that lenders will be willing to pay an additional $50 per comp analyzed for CU reasons either until enough appraisers begin to force the issue. I would simply use it as a means to get out of the the extra work. In the beginning many appraisers will be black listed for making such a statement but after a few encounters with doing this work for free most appraisers will begin to see the light and come back with such responses.

PCV Murcor is an appraiser (MAI) minority-owned national appraisal company that also has the government contracts with FDIC to review seized banks appraisals. I dealt with them on the commercial side and found them to be very competent, and highly professional on pushing out high speed commercial assignments, albeit CHEAP and too quick on turn time requirements. They bypass CoStars user license restrictions by pulling the comps for you and then sending them out to the appraiser if desired. They use that access as partial justification for paying lower fees than the work normally dictates.

After I stopped receiving commercial orders (id taken too long on another commercial order and told them it required even more time than the 10 days allocated), Id still get inquiries from the residential side on complex issues.

Not once were they willing to pay anything remotely close to the fee that the work called for.

Based on their lack of understanding of appraisal complexity dictating specific fees, it would not surprise me IF the residential side reviewers didn’t know their rear ends from a hole in the wall. Certainly the order processing folks did not (again, I exclude the commercial side from this criticism-they were outstanding in these areas).

I can not ever envision a scenario where I would reconsider 20 new comps or any new comps that appeared to be a shot gun approach to challenging value.

Give me one to five “better comps” AND state why EACH one is deemed a better comp and I will always analyze it to see if it makes a difference. If it does I want to know and correct a potential mistake on my part. If no claim of better comps exists, then there would have to be some other very specific reason for contending my value is low.

If the best of the five (or three or two) does not make a difference, then I am not wasting time of the remaining ones-unless they are willing to pay $100 for each extra comp they want analyzed.

I bet your getting the supplemental comps payment had more to do with them wanting to keep their federal (FDIC) contracts than anything else.

All this has nothing to do with CU though. CU is already giving birth to abuses. Most commonly the AVM “review” where a conclusion of inadequacy is transmitted to the appraiser based on AVM “Wonder Wizards” or “Value Wizards” and THEN the reasons are developed to support the wizards result (Flagstar).

Anyway David keep up the good fight despite retirement!

I’ll be forwarding your article to my Appraiser Guild so they can try to contact Mr. Harney.

Jack I disagree.

(1.) The possibility of a review of some type does not dictate how I perform my appraisals.
(2.) What makes you think our initial review is even performed by a human being?
(3.) AVMs are being used as “reviews” to reject appraised values and based on those different avm results, to conclude lack of credibility on the part of the fee field appraiser!
(4.) FNMA does not dictate appraisal policy or practices. If THEIR requirements have strayed too far from USPAP and generally accepted sound practices then it is our responsibility to challenge those practice. Not pretend that they are ok.

Hi David! Glad to see who ‘Retired Appraiser” actually is at last! Great article though with a couple exceptions (in my experience).

PCV Murcor is an appraiser (MAI) minority-owned national appraisal company that also has the government contracts with FDIC to review seized banks appraisals. I dealt with them on the commercial side and found them to be very competent, and highly professional on pushing out high speed commercial assignments, albeit CHEAP and too quick on turn time requirements. They bypass CoStars user license restrictions by pulling the comps for you and then sending them out to the appraiser if desired. They use that access as partial justification for paying lower fees than the work normally dictates.

After I stopped receiving commercial orders (id taken too long on another commercial order and told them it required even more time than the 10 days allocated), Id still get inquiries from the residential side on complex issues.

Not once were they willing to pay anything remotely close to the fee that the work called for.

Based on their lack of understanding of appraisal complexity dictating specific fees, it would not surprise me IF the residential side reviewers didn’t know their rear ends from a hole in the wall. Certainly the order processing folks did not (again, I exclude the commercial side from this criticism-they were outstanding in these areas).

I can not ever envision a scenario where I would reconsider 20 new comps or any new comps that appeared to be a shot gun approach to challenging value.

Give me one to five “better comps” AND state why EACH one is deemed a better comp and I will always analyze it to see if it makes a difference. If it does I want to know and correct a potential mistake on my part. If no claim of better comps exists, then there would have to be some other very specific reason for contending my value is low.

If the best of the five (or three or two) does not make a difference, then I am not wasting time of the remaining ones-unless they are willing to pay $100 for each extra comp they want analyzed.

I bet your getting the supplemental comps payment had more to do with them wanting to keep their federal (FDIC) contracts than anything else.

All this has nothing to do with CU though. CU is already giving birth to abuses. Most commonly the AVM “review” where a conclusion of inadequacy is transmitted to the appraiser based on AVM “Wonder Wizards” or “Value Wizards” and THEN the reasons are developed to support the wizards result (Flagstar).

Anyway David keep up the good fight despite retirement!

I’ll be forwarding your article to my Appraiser Guild so they can try to contact Mr. Harney.

Just because of the CU I’m not changing my search parameters! I know my market areas better than some computer or a lender 3,000 miles away. Also, the only problem is you provide them with all the comps you didn’t use. They are still going to turn around and ask you to provide an explanation for each why you did not use those comparables. Just my opinion that’s all I’m saying.

PCV Murcor and I parted company after they threatened to withhold payment for the assignment. The appraisal profession and I parted company in 2009 when I refused to kickback a portion of my fees to AMCs. Life is too short to hate your job and I reached the point where I despised both appraising and AMCs.