Comments on: ESA Bankruptcy, Chase Culprit or Victim?

By: Mike Ford

Mike Ford — Sun, 21 Sep 2014 20:32:52 +0000

Generally concur with the views and opinions on the surface.

There are however differences. The author caught the mechanics lien one in the final paragraph. Another difference is the way work is obtained.

In the case of the house, ANY sub contractor that can convince the owner of his expertise can become hired directly by the owner. That cannot happen with AMCs and lenders. We are now prisoners of a system that is inherently unfair to us as a profession.

There was never evidence that Chase paid more than the going rate. The inference that higher than typical fees were a factor is insulting to appraisers, AND the agents that did BPOs for Chase/ESA. The truth is that most fees fell short of “reasonable and customary”, though not by as much as with other AMCs.

Throughout most of the pre HVCC fee appraisal history in the United States, appraisers ALWAYS collected a check for their fee when they met the agents and or sellers/ buyers at the property to do the appraisal. That system worked well.

Appraisers could also be declined by brokers based on bad experiences an agency had with them. That’s not the same as saying the broker could choose who did the appraisals. Merely that they had a right to reject those that had proven themselves to be consistently low or to have ridiculous unnecessary conditions. Realistically I don’t see this as being viable anymore.

No one at any level in the process appears to trust appraisers to have the requisite integrity anymore, to sell our own services ethically, and impartially.

THAT needs to change,. If you cannot trust us then the regulations are too lax, or their enforcement is. I am a professional. I KNOW how to say no, AND when to say it.

Ultimately the author is mostly right though. Beware of ALL high volume AMCs. Never let them get into you any deeper than you can afford to walk away from. Along the same lines, never let them become your sole client.

With low fees of $350 or less, I’d not trust them for more than TWO appraisals at a time. If the fees are in the $450 to $500 range, Id probably be more patient for payment and trust them for THREE, but no more.

By: Susan B

Susan B — Wed, 03 Jul 2013 18:01:43 +0000

Metlife had this same issue awhile back when their AMC went under and they paid all the appraisers. They stepped up and agreed that they made a boat load of money on these deals so paying out our piddly fees was reasonable I guess. They are no longer in the lending business and were in the process of moving out when this all happened. But the bigger issue here is this is a problem with the AMC model. HVCC/Dodd-Frank is what caused this issue. We are the mercy of these AMCs to give us work, we can not market ourselves, we just have to get on lists and hope for work and then to hope to get paid. Its ridiculous and the whole concept needs to change. The lender should pay the appraiser and they can pay the AMC their fee for the use of their services so that the lender is ultimately responsible for the fee. Or better yet just get rid of AMC’s all together, there are more bad than good ones who get paid for doing nothing more than having a website to filter orders through. Just crazy people. When will someone finally see that the AMC model is not working for this industury except to make banks owning AMCs more money for doing nothing. Makes me sick everytime I pay an AMC fee or get a request for an appraisal with a fee that is insulting. Yet clearly there are bottom feeder appraisers that accept this work.

By: Mark Apsley

Mark Apsley — Sat, 29 Jun 2013 15:33:01 +0000

It sounds like MR Trotier is a spokesperson for Chase. Chase has an obligation to vet it agents. Chase was made aware long before ESA went under that appraisers were not getting paid. To claim they were a victim too is not a credible position. Chase is in possession of stolen work product and needs to pay up.