Foster Owsley doesn’t even show up in an internet search anymore. Long forgot the relevance though. Name rang a bell but that was it.

Regretfully Julie, as you’ve failed to take care of the condition request in a timely manner, consider this your formal notice of removal from our panel. The good news however, is your last appraisal invoice will be paid in the next 90 days per company policy.

Happy Wassalia.

Seek the truth.

Garth you’re too negative about it all. You’re feeling down because the amc’s are abusive companies. You just need to market down long lists of lenders, signal to them you will not work for amc’s, and eventually you’ll run across direct assignment lenders and will land on their panel. Reminds me, another one sent me an invite just yesterday, I’d better answer that and say yes. You spend a lot of time getting there with careful marketing and steady solicitation but you know what they say in real estate appraisal; It only takes one or two good direct assignment clients and you’re golden.

Amc’s persist because appraisers continue to work for them. Nobody makes appraisers take those orders, they take them because they choose to click accept. You’ll see the light when you take the effort to land new clients. You’ll experience an immediate 100 to 200 per report fee uptick, reduction in kickbacks, more simple grading policies, and you’re somewhat more likely to deal with kind professionals as opposed to the crack the whip types, although be warned those people are still out there in the direct assignment world. Create manual manilla folders for all clients you market, keep them organized in hot or cold leads, write if they use amc’s or not, print out your emails for reference at a later date. When you run across ones that redirect you to amc’s let them know you’ll be available when they stop trying to force appraisers to work with amc’s because you’ve had enough and now are firmly committed to refusing all or most amc requests. Don’t market too fast, try like 1 or 2 a day. Keep them organized. Keep hot leads in the stack and like a light bulb switching on and off when you land a good one you’ll be busy and those leads will sit there. The thing you do not want to happen is to over market good clients because then you’ll lose one and unlike amc’s, there will probably be no going back. I’ve found instant approvals years later. Like recently this one who took months and months to consider my approval, finally gave me an approval, I just needed one more work sample current. Well, I’m too busy with the other guys whom picked me up when i asked to be picked up, never had time to send that in. They are on my to market list at the top of the stack, we’ll see if they are ready to work with me on time when I ask if I have need and time to work with another direct assignment client. I’m not a big money maker it’s not all that. So given the complexities and challenges, why would appraisers even consider suffering the middle management in the first place. I bailed on amc services years ago because it just became too much. Now I never deal with bids, always get direct assignment, and although challenging work with some of them, the orders keep on going. I have a steady modest income, very minimal kickback and revision request, and can basically ignore grading. There is no such thing as round robin, anywhere. It’s an illusion. Dare to dream but that’s long gone and not coming back. The way to win with direct assignment is to be willing to accept their predisposed fee for complex and easy work. If they dump only the tough stuff on you, keep marketing, eventually you’ll find one that pays the same for easy and complex work, and it will balance out and you’ll rarely be able to negotiate, but also will not need to negotiate because you’re enjoying full fees without sharing with middle management. Go online and surf for top 100 lenders in your state, market down the line, fill out apps, research them thoroughly before contacting, be professional, kind, to the point, and brief. Eventually you’ll get some traction.

After all, that’s how the amc’s stole those clients away from appraisers, effective marketing. Lenders are getting the picture and it’s not as bad as you think. There are a lot of lenders whom got away from amc’s. Cut your teeth in hard money lending if you can’t get traction on the GSE side. If more appraisers approached marketing this way, more lenders would get the message and switch back to direct. As long as the amc can provide coverage, expect the lenders to keep working with them. Especially in times of low rate and high demand, more lenders switch away because what a contrast; here is this appraiser saying he has no work and wants a client pickup, but will not work with amc’s. While on the other hand here is our selected amc saying ALL the appraisers are busy and nobody is even available, and they have boasts of max coverage and tens of thousands of approved appraisers. The lender says one of these guys is not being truthful and I think you can figure quite quickly the lender will understand it’s the big box amc whom is pulling them around. Now and then there are still caring people in lending, not usually, not often, but they are out there. Change can happen if we believe it will happen and we work hard for it. You could always bounce to the assessors office or something and press the easy button. Cheers.

Responding to “Residcert 12/5/19”

I do not have but 1 AMC where I DO set MY own Fee & where I can not rely on that AMC for Income due to low #s of orders in the area.

1) TRUE: Months back I was informed by an AMC Rep’ (my Boss) indicating the Fee schedule was “set” by what “the AMC determined to be Fair & Reasonable”. (work or don’t they don’t care) When I do request a Fee increase, I ONLY get that assignment after the REP’ decides whether I do or not. 90% of more of the time, the order is declined & re-assigned, even IF it’s $25 more. AND where this AMC is retaining half (+) of the Total Fee.

2) After my increase request, I am offered LESS assignments (as punishment).

3) POINT: the AMC Order system is set-up for the appraiser to fail. I ask for extended time away “to take care of an elder” over Thanksgiving & directly informed the AMC Rep’ & also their “Survey email” blast of listing dates of time out (dates where assignments would not be sent). While in Time Out, I received 4 assignments where I had to directly contact the Rep regarding the “acknowledged time out” & had to “System” decline each of them. Dings my rating UNFAIRLY.

Since back to work, I’ve received ZERO. POINT: this appears to be not a Round Robin assignment format & I am NOT one of the “Reps Favorite “. So again, IT has the appearance AMC Rep’ (your Boss) manipulate their system in order TO MAKE the appraiser look BAD. Look Bad: means I declined TOO many assignments; however, I did everything they requested regarding “Time Out” & with my Due Diligence of Notices. I am not Independent.

4) Point: same AMC, in speaking with a different Rep’, said “yes the system will appear there was a correction you needed to make. Although, it wasn’t but the system will indicate it WAS & your rating will be impacted. It is really is up to your specific Rep’ with the # of orders assigned “. unquote. Meaning: the AMC software system sucks & they know it is NOT a fair “rating system” so my BOSS decides when & if I work.

5) After years of being on their Approved List: Never has an Order been late that WAS my fault. Rarely, do I ever have an “actual report typo-or correction”. I feel pressure to kiss-a** to this AMC Rep in order to receive ANY work. POINT: there are no state rules by which an AMC must be fair to an Appraiser. The appraiser can be fired without a Formal Letter BY non-use of that Appraiser.

6) The AMC Rep is YOUR BOSS & where this AMC is the 3rd largest in the USA. WORD: Independent, a joke. In this area where there is AMC take-over for GSE work you must be a slave & also to their 10 (+) page Contract & 5 day turn where the clock does not stop, even for national Holidays.

6) Self-Employed Independent: I guess there is a very fine line BECAUSE I am an employee without fair treatment.

Responding Posts will say: GO get other work. Around here, to keep being an Appraiser, there isn’t OTHER work to sustain a Business. WHEN will the AMC be held accountable = NEVER. State Boards do not have the authority & Federal Gov’ allowed this to happen.

***FAKE NEWS: appraisers take TOO long & appraiser CHARGE is TOO high. Example: Lender FEE to borrower: $675, AMC retains $350, Appraiser gets $325. Where requested by Appraiser a higher Fee for complexity, the AMC shops (delays the process) for “any appraiser’s lower Fee” prior giving it to the initial Appraiser (no delay).

AMCs gone rogue, low fees, pressure, Appraiser’s high operating cost, and then Add to this Evals, 1004P, etc.: the demise of the appraisal profession.

For me, I will not be completing these products. The appraiser is the only one liable and for 5 – 7 years. Even my 92 year old mom, retired from RE said: “what appraiser would be that stupid, how can appraisers afford their business expenses, & the Power-that-be to allow this is insanity! In time, this type of lending will fail & the tax payer will be the ones cleaning it up AGAIN!” I think, this coming year unless something is done, they truly will need Waivers. The career is all but dead!

We all learn about them in our own way. Glad you saw the light. For what it’s worth you summarized it much more succinctly than I did.

You are the best. I’m going to look you up and call you weekly and even daily for inspirational appraisal advice.

We let appraisers set their own fees. That’s codeword for the appraiser whom provides the most thing of value will be assigned the order. If amc’s don’t know how to present a consistent fee by now, we can’t help them.

Baggins,

Maybe I’m missing something or just don’t get sarcasm. I believe the link you provided, for me at least, is downright scary at minimum. If I understand tis correctly, this was originally organized some 11 years ago in a different appraisal world with what appears to be no updates based upon the current world nor what appears to be any fluid method to adjust accordingly.

First, I personally have an issue with any entity that labels themselves a “Protection Institute”. Second, the States will never relinquish said procedures in the goals is this is proposed government cannibalism. The same likely goes for GSE Consolidation.

And citing Andrew M Cuomo as a “dedicated Leader”? Draw your own conclusions but, please do so with reasonable research.

The question they hope we’ll be asking at the end of this proposal is “why wouldn’t we want to do business this way”? That’s simple. First, this proposal is beyond outdated. Second, it simply creates what appears to be a compilation of GSE’s into what’s no doubt a quasi-judicial, if not an anticipated fully judicial body with no stated oversight. Oh wait, a bi-annual report to Attorney Generals who can’t litigate their way out of a paper bag, but are great political animals.

I have no idea where this proposal is today, or if it ever got any traction. I wouldn’t say the idea is without merit and not worthy of discussion, but it’s stale as an argument today. Good gig if you can sell it though. Maybe throw in some free housing for illegals and run for President.

Bull crap! AMC’s set the fees to ensure they retain most of it.. ….’but I am available by phone and email for further questions’ …….oh, your such an “authority” you sell out!

Julie, stop with the BS. Every one know that this “bifurcated appraisal process” is the first step in pushing independent fee appraisers out of the picture so AMC’s can take over. Why is it that the AMC’s collect the greatest portion of the fee for these products when they are suppose to be acting as a “firewall” to protect appraiser independence? You’re a sell out.

The root conflict of interest is that taxpayers back any of the risky behaviors of private lenders, or assist them through gse’s with operational costs. The invisible hand is tied up when the government has a financial stake in private lending.

Oh my, the above financial services upload file is a necessary read. Am scared now, bad feelings.

A 200 million dollar a year operational budget, built in technology fees, push for a national repository, and total control of both appraisers and appraisal management companies. You don’t say… Joan is making an aggressive push to take over the whole industry. The C&R portion is hopeful but coupled with their approach towards technology and efficient process the inevitable conclusion will be advocacy for hybrids on steroids with removal or disbandment of what remains of the spaghetti map of actually effective regulatory guidelines and institutions. Cherry on top is we get to adopt European standards. Yaee! Oh wait, didn’t we go to war and create an entirely new country to buck those off several hundred years ago? Is it me or did Joan just restructure the IVPI proposal for personal gain and a complete industry take over? Why not just revisit the actual IVPI proposal instead?

This singular blog may very well be the greatest source of pro appraiser advocacy and unbiased objective research in the entire appraisal industry.

http://www.workingre.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IVPI-Proposalfinal.pdf

Maybe in the wrong spot but, I regret to inform you that, in my brief foray into experimenting with bifurcated reports, towards the end the lenders were doing what I personally deemed to be “abusing” this system. Not only were they attempting to order this product for high LTV purchase appraisals, they were doing so for complex refi’s and purchases as well.

I’m reasonable and there’s a time and place for everything. But this is a prime example of “give them an inch and they’ll take a mile”. Problem is, it does take a little collaboration and this was something I just couldn’t consciously be a party to. I believe therein lies the substance of the “hybrid problem” you refer to Baggins. “Scope Creep” has now become “Appraisal Creep” for those unwilling to realize exactly what they’re accepting in terms of assignments.

Learned something new from the pros, cool. Thank you both. That explains this unusual company whom tried a few times to send me orders. Talk about a tough gig. Lending One, Easy Knock program. From the engagement letter:

The Short Term Rental loan is a term loan where the buyer gives the sellers an option to purchase the property back at a previously negotiated price at the end of the loan, all while paying a negotiated monthly rent. In most cases this is not considered an arm’s length transaction as the contract price and contract rent are not the result of the typical buyer’s and seller’s actions. The concept is similar to a reverse mortgage.

My favorite part of the agreement terms;
Please note that representatives of LendingOne may perform an administrative, comprehensive or technical review of the report. Your full cooperation in any such review is deemed to be an integral part of this assignment. You further agree that as part of this assignment, you may be required to, and will, testify on behalf of LendingOne.

Court appearance for no additional charge with open ended intended user reviewers add, sure, what could go wrong. Can you imagine the inspection? So you lost your home, sort of, and are going to be paying rent instead, then you can get a new 50yr private mortgage loan. How does this work again? (Imagine being a consumer of lending services whom did not understand that in the first place, now explaining your new short term save your home rental agreement to the appraiser stupid or daring enough to have accepted this order.) It might be difficult for me to maintain my preferred conversational approach where I talk about the up side of refinancing the terms shorter, how to avoid getting moved to servicers like ocwen, general good home maintenance and credit management advice.

The necessary tie in to have a better understanding of then vs now, is this question: Has there been substantial changes in loan to value ratio requirements since those points in time when default rates were lower? I knew this was all tied up in the mortgage insurance game somehow. There appears to be a direct correlation between increasing defaults and reduced quantities of in house loan origination. The insurance becomes mandatory when the loan is bundled and sold, the servicing outsourced. FHA took so many losses already, pmi never drops off and you pay it through the life of the loan. Generates a lot of repeat refi biz though. Bingo!

I came in at the very end of the days where PIR’s were ordered to drop off pmi and other sensible loan changes. 2075’s were $150 a pop and all you had to do was take a photo. The current illusion presented to appraisers is that a hybrid is somehow as simple as a pir. After all, they’re both low priced quickie orders right? The lending use behind them appears to be dramatically different, which appears to be the substance of the ‘hybrid problem’.

For those interested, I’ll go into detail But, for purposes of this forum, I’ll provide the “Readers Digest” version.

2004: Good year by most everyone’s conclusion. I completed 238 HUD Foreclosure Reports that year. The whole nepotism thing took over not long after, and I didn’t subsequently do a bunch of work for the new HUD contractor in my market area. Basically, a 4% default rate has become “acceptable” in the industry.

The industry took a rather larger turn circa 2010-2011 predicated upon the circa 2007-2008 “crash”. The irony isn’t lost. From 2001 to 2007 the “fog a mirror” lending criteria was used which, inevitably, ended the way it did. During this period, large packages of mortgages were bundled and sold to Wall Street as “Mortgage-Backed Securities”. I withhold comment on appropriate due-diligence.

When foreclosure activity took off circa 2007 to 2010, many lenders and the GSE’s specifically took a beating with costs associated with the foreclosure process to include the maintenance, utilities, taxes and insurance on the vacated properties they acquired in addition to the stigmatized prices they were receiving and heat they were getting for “devaluing” neighborhoods. So, in government fashion, “let’s go back to the well!”

By 2011, the lenders and GSE’s in essence discontinued the foreclosure process if the owner didn’t vacate because, at least, they kept the utilities on and provided, at minimum, modest maintenance as well as generally prevented vandalism. So now what they do is bundle the non-performing assets and sell them to hedge funds at significant discounts, yet thereby avoiding the “foreclosure hassle”. I think the last “HUD Bundle” went for $14m+/-.

In many instances this is a good thing, as the note holder can often restructure the note to allow the borrower’s to remain in their home. This is an extremely lucrative game if you know how (and can afford) to play. Even the hedge funds cull these and “Mom and Pop” investors can get in on the game (to a degree and at that level).

There’s sophisticated software available that will allow you to determine which institutions have “seasoned” non-performing assets that have reached a point they can logically and in fiscal fashion dispose of. Big racket these days.

That was to Julies post – not Bill’s.

Hmmm. HORSE SHIT!

Anon-much of what you say is spot on. The other side of the coin though (and I am NO proponent of CRN) is that under state enforcement and licensing we have a Heinz-57 varieties type enforcement. The ONLY way THAT will be remedied is by federal licensing and elimination of arbitrary and capricious state enforcement policies.

I spoke with Jim Park about this some time ago. (I cannot represent HIS views one way or the other on net benefits)-It WOULD result in more uniform enforcement.

I see that as such a huge positive as to offset the normal reluctance of getting the feds involved in anything. Lets no lose sight though that FIRREA is federal; interpreted by a private corporation; influenced by MISMO; and AARO (State regulators doing end runs around their own legislatures).

I see no seat at the table for commercial vested interests such as CRN at all. AI; ASA, AGA, Coalitions (and all the other recognized professional peer associations) would likely have to agree to perform regional/local reviews. But I d also see a pre-screening dismissal process versus the current guilty til proven innocent process.

The current system is not working. States argue they cannot afford proper SR3/SR4 USPAP compliant reviews. Anything less is a cheat and deception to appraisers and consumers. There are actually fairly simple solutions, but the feds need to keep the so-called stakeholders out of the enforcement side. They don’t have appraisal licenses. Let appraisers set standards and minimum fees (C&R thresholds). Let stakeholders decide what level of detail THEY want in valuation. If Congress agrees-then give them a “less than” an appraisal product but stop undermining real appraisals to do it.

Interesting aside Baggs. Back when I was Budgetary Counselor for the Nations largest federal credit union (NFCU); starting delinquency rates in banking ran about 4% in all consumer credit. The credit union had a start rate from 2%-3% and end of month carry over (beyond 30) rate of less than 2%.

A 4% default rate on secured home loans is HORRIBLE! If that is a good number, then what it demonstrates is that something in excess of 2% (50% of all delinquencies) are being pushed into charge off (NODs and repos) needlessly. The specific factor causing this would be MMI or PMI / VA 25% guarantees that require specific steps at specific points in a delinquency or the loss of insurance can result. It eliminates the potential for many if not most loan renegotiations or ‘work outs’.

Excellent commentary. Thank you Mark. Personally, I’m shocked anything happened. And well under the governments normal 10 year cycle. Someone is going to form a committee or something to examine exactly why. Don’t hold out too much hope on private insurers functioning as the invisible hand, after tarp the lenders lobbied for bail outs to become bail ins, when it all pops next time around the burden will automatically fall directly onto the taxpayers shoulders. New bumper sticker for 2020: Honk if I’m about to pay your mortgage, again.

The goal of responsible consumers should be to pay off any and all loans as fast as possible and never extend the terms time frame. Isn’t it interesting the way mortgage lenders push the 30’s as a standard. Now with awesome new cost saving auto services. No appraisal required and next to nothing cost home inspections. Valid valuation sort of loses it’s gravity in a runaway climate like this with such inadequate accountability. The illusion persists, it’s more important to regulate what the borrowing consumers are experiencing, rather than apply such standards up the ladder to the monied lenders. I think I had read about this before, circa mid to late 1700’s.