Were you required to verify the source of the water/sewer utilities marked on the appraisal?

I had my limited license and still am currently working to become and appraiser. Again my apologies to you all for your horrible experiences while at my tenure at that company.

Typically a review is ordered when there is no AMC and the loan is being sold to an investor.

I’m just going to post here to sneak in another one of these pictures. Ha!

Amc’s are large and in charge partner. As long as the amc does not bill separately for their services, they’ll ride on the backs of the appraisers until the bitter end. If that end ever comes. They are no longer just independent entities trying to scrape by an operational margin by forcing appraisers to discount with relentless shopping. Nope, now they’re tied into larger corporations much more frequently, and this consolidation continues industry wide. So theoretically, the amc’s tied into the big corps could run at a loss indefinitely and still provide such a profitable function to these companies, they’d run them in the red forever. Until the appraisers fee is separated and amc’s are forced to have cost plus billing, they will never ever go away. Audit time.

That’s not true as a standard though. Each lender may set their own individual policies. Those reviews may be random, or they may be triggered individually by a certain scoring via automatic review results. Many lenders, especially those whom are managing the entire process themselves, may be more risk adverse. This theoretically provides a safer climate for appraisers. Issues are managed internally without as many additional parties.

Then add on various state policies, and additional lender policies. More reviews which could really come back at the appraiser negatively happen with amc work than without. And even if not, the resolutions are different. So I suppose we could both be correct on this issue. The key difference being the dispositions, one side is more likely to handle internally, the other is more likely to just point the finger at the appraiser and file complaints as a standard process. An originating front line appraiser hopes to be unaware of reviews. You know they happen but hope to never hear about it. In my state there is some additional requirement that the amc guarantee that one in so many appraisals gets some sort of additional measure of review, over and above existing lender policy. I think it may be a state based, I’m not sure. Not sure of that one exactly, I never bothered with it, as I’m not doing work for them. But the point from where I sit was obvious, an additional layer of scrutiny for amc’s with the state involved. As if the mis mash of scrutiny the lenders applied, is not enough to deal with already.

One dares to imagine a better way of managing panels and dealing with reviews. Underwriters used to be in charge of appraiser approval lists, back in the day. More frequently is my understanding. Wouldn’t it be nice if upon negative reviews, appraisers could be more routinely cycled out and other more careful appraisers cycled in. Sadly the review function now serves more as a stop gap or additional liability layer protection for complicated scenarios and manual underwriting events. A call for long term awareness of repurchases and the appraisers tied to them seems appropriate. Nobody is going to actually do that though. Repurchases and defaults are not broadcasted and are swept under the rug asap, everywhere. And it would be too complicated of a system, because many laymen would not understand that some areas carry naturally higher default ratios, of no fault of the appraiser for having provided service there. You know, in a perfect world there would be more transparency and less interested party influence, actual errors which result in repurchase would result in more consequences than just claims. Perhaps we could enjoy a new climate where amc’s would not be able to consistently prefer sending lions shares of orders to the extreme discounters whom we suspect carry those higher ratios. Reasons the fnma cu system refuses to publish all the data?

That or requiring round robin and separating billing so amc’s billed for their distinctly different services separately. That is a very simple solution. If you try to talk to any given amc about either round robin or cost plus billing, you’ll quickly find they refuse to even talk about it. A sham wow job every time. There is nothing unbiased or impartial about amc workflow distribution to appraisers, absolutely nothing. It’s as biased as it comes, with just as much risk as a stupid mb pushing comp searches to value shop. Except they’ve monetized that process of shopping, by way of improperly go mingled fees. Oh I said it again, the taboo statement of this industry; amc’s and appraisers should not share a singular bill.

A review is a review is a review. Not anymore. Now it’s a state review, an internal review, a third party review, an administrative review, a forensic review, a mortgage portfolio review, a blind safeguard third party review after funding, a desk review licensed, a field review licensed, or as I just dealt with, a borrower picking his own comps because now he’s allowed to ‘review’ and request rov’s too. Like where is the underwriter on all this? Think there could possibly be conflict of interests with amcs being owned by title and insurance companies lately? Dang.

It’s actually the opposite. I do 10-12 field reviews a month and 80% of them list No AMC. Without the middle man it triggers more reviews because they want to make sure the appraiser isn’t in the pocket of the lender. So much for “You’re more likely”.

Yeah Cotton. Some jobs, just not worth it. The regulatory structure which drives appraisers to the ground and gives free passes to systemic institutionalized amc fraud is perhaps one of the best examples of a subverted regulatory system which is for sale to the highest bidder. I’m not on about any one given amc, the need to be crooked is baked into their business models in general.

The meaningful regulation was the Dodd Frank Reg Z on Appraiser Independence, C&R rule, which should have resulted in 10k a day 20k per day for recurring instances, of the EXACT behavior that amc’s still engage with today. This still has the potential to be the largest class action in history. Please advise when the fictitious CFPB safe harbor rule on C&R fee compliance will be rescinded.

Oh wow, get a load of this. I thought the Yelp Class thread could not get any better, but it did. Marvelous! It’s like the only positive reviews are low information borrowers and the 1 stars are packed full of apparently licensed people. PR only goes so far and Yelp is not just going away. Can you imagine trying to BS your way through those, having to post with your real name in defense of that company? Skewered lamb. One sympathizes.

https://www.yelp.com/biz/class-valuation-troy

I’ll owe a pepsi and a hamburger to anyone whom can prove there is an amc out there whom always bills for their services separately, and pays a consistent uniform fee to every single one of their panel appraisers, assigning reports without bias, without any variable fee raking. The entire amc industry is built around defrauding consumers and deceiving appraisers, appeasing the incompetence of select lenders whom find themselves unable to navigate the relatively simple regulatory requirements of engaging with appraisers. ‘Management’ you can rely on. It’s like twice the danger, you get a predatory assignment company and an incompetent lender at the same time.

No. I did, I was making an additional point. I agree with you, no argument there.

I don’t think you read my post correctly. I was saying the AMC advocating for the borrower.

Ha, this is great. One thing I always see appraisers get wrong is that you’re not allowed to be an advocate. Yes, you can’t be an advocate for some random shmo, but you sure as hell better be an advocate for your work and report. So important.

How could you not advocate for the efforts in your report. If you don’t, do you not trust your own work and report?