Awesome. That’s a movie reference from that biker and mechanical dog movie, jax I think, not sure. It’s also popular just because, send it!

When I was trying to navigate the amc world I dealt with all manner of inconsistencies. That happens in direct but less frequently, likely because of lower chair turnover or just basic better hiring practices. I had learned many volume based outfits impose 40 a day underwriting quotas, some much more than that. Depends on how much automation they utilize. It’s all checklist and data scraping now. Expecting them to read anything is not realistic outside of in house and in house is typically reserved for direct departments. The tangible yet unspoken difference in administrative approach seems to me at least, to be if they impose find something quotas. I imagine one typical consequence of such a high volume high pressure environment for report review by poorly qualified people is one which is typical to any workforce, a worker may just skip the duties entirely, click everything through, take a snack break or free surf or whatever. And within the realm of outsourcing they likely use batches approach, a dozen here, a dozen there, could be in house could be work from home. I had a heck of a time with one underwriter and when I finally stopped providing revisions after a fresh one rolled in, one after the other, always something new and inconsequential, around round 5 I refused to do anything more until the underwriter were to be identified and contact me directly. Although they refused to furnish identifiable information which itself is so unprofessional it’s unbelievable, I did finally get on the phone with them. Between the daytime soap opera in the background and the cat meowing in her lap, I knew right off where I was at. Needless to say that was my last order for reverse fha’s through Landmark.

I’m not sure how appraisers justify a fee decrease for amc’s, I have consistently added a hundo to those quotes for many years. Thankfully with a careful marketing strategy and the willingness to simply say no, it’s been many years since I’ve had to suffer amc abuse. I spent more time getting them to stop calling me than I ever spent signing up. I’ll find a new line of work before I turn back to amc’s. Identifying, soliciting, and acquiring direct assignment leads is as easy as calling down the line from easy to acquire top 100 lenders by state or similar data sourcing. I used to like soliciting to botique tiny outfit mortgage guys because I liked the random deal and ability to walk away freely. Lately I’m on with big boxer top 20’s because I’ll continue to get front line placement in the off seasons.

I’m not joking or bragging when I say literally, when amc’s ring me I put their number on call block. If they spam me shotgun requests to multiple appraisers I write back telling them if it happens one more time I’m reporting them to the state regulatory board for harassment because I have previously made my position clear to all of them in the previous decade through a failed but persistent attempt to help reform their methods so we could work together. “If you want to work with me all I require is an upfront consistent C&R fee, and direct assignment.” If appraisers are on an approved panel they should expect a fair share of assignment volume as their capacity permits. Round robin and all.

It’s easy to get ahead with direct providers with regular work samples. With all too many appraisers using typing services, on the go mobile click and go methods, illogical auto population of data through comps sharing, the list goes on. It’s easy to get ahead with the simple manual developed work sample.

What really kept me away from amc’s whom would pay was the fact they’re running the margins from a group billing pool without a direct relationship between the consumer fee and the appraisers fee. For every time I got the C&R fee it was an untold but inevitable consequense that some appraiser elsewhere would be put down and pressured into a lower fee, cost savings not returned to that borrowing consumer, in order to stay ahead of whatever robust fee I was wrangling out of them. Since day one I have always refused to cause injury to another or take advantage of someone else to make it in this industry. It’s a tough sales pitch but it hits with the right people. Natural protection through standard solicitation and client engagement rules. Back in the day we used to call that the peer standard, for whatever it’s worth today. Cheers.

Hey Baggins,

You’re probably right on regarding the “tech stuff” as my fingers are like a Ouija Board with “Read the Report” responses for the last 15 years. However, this is a little crazy with 1 report getting “gigged” 3 times while 2 others with significantly similar verbiage flew unquestioned within the same AMC in the same week.

There’s no question turnover in these AMC’s is significant, adding to the “moving target” scenario. But to have 3 different “reviewers” (used loosely) attempt to gig the same report while likely at least one of them let the next 2 fly implies an attempt to justify their existence.

When dealing with AMC’s it’s never disclosed that the underwriter with no appraisal experience who just got hired yesterday and stayed out drinking until 5:00 A.M. the night before and has no concept of which side of bed they fell out of that morning is going to review your work in the assignment conditions. Potentially sadistic, but I do choose to work with AMC’s because I tend to do work they can’t find anyone else to do and charge accordingly.

It’s less a matter of ethics and more a matter of ignorance (as opposed to stupidity) as I prefer to believe. However, and while I can’t display it on an invoice, there’s typically a “stupid tax” involved with my fees for these clients and, “God Bless”, most pay it.

In light of this, since I generally get paid for anticipated grief, I “DO JUST SEND IT BRO!”

Some tech guy must have added that to flagged words. Mis spell it, forget the space, or find a substitute. Language games are easy to pass by auto review systems. Flagged word and compulsory word inclusion identification is just another variant of spell checker.

Rage at unacceptable assignment conditions is a good thing and serves as a defensive mechanism which helps the appraisers find better clients with more reliable ethic. Ethics is about right and wrong, fair or not, in the business world manners and courtesy are not ethic, they are decorum.

A fresh start to me is leaving companies whom seek to take advantage of appraisers in the rear view mirror. If you give them an inch they will take a mile.

“SEND IT BRO!”

Ridiculous. Waste of time.

Been there too! I always push back on these things. For good reason. Your example of one street being more desirable than another is 100% ok to state. For example Paseo Del mar (Palos Verdes, CA) One side backs up to and overlooks the ocean from the bluffs above it. The houses on the opposite side (landward side) have a great view (usually too) but NOT AS DESIRABLE as the unobstructed ocean view from the westerly side of the street.

You used common sense. If you had said this part of town is not as desirable as another part of town for some ill-defined, purely subjective reason you MAY have gotten uncomfortably close to prohibited considerations. BUT YOU DIDN’T SAY THAT!

Whenever any reviewer has a case of terminal brain flatulence we all need to push back. If the first two instances were debatable, then certainly the third instance was not and THAT reviewer should have been called to task.

In responding in a separate addendum I pointed out their request, the fact it was objective and supportable, but also debatable, and I removed the verbiage. A second reviewer replied this was verbiage the lender should never have seen in the first place, so please remove any reference to this in your addendum. Rather stupid, but I’m frying bigger fish and acquiesced for expediency sake.

A third reviewer then stated the report was still unacceptable because it contained the word “desirable: in the comment addendum when I stated: “The Comparable Sales were carefully chosen, the best available at the time of this report, best reflect the utility and desirability of the subject in the current market and are the best available indicator’s of value for the subject.”

Apparently they must have had a FNMA English class this week stating the use of the word “desirable” is banned in all form or fashion for reports to be completed under FNMA Guidelines. I’ve used the aforementioned statement for at least 15, if not 20 years with never a peep. And, maybe not everyone took the class because while we’re monkeying around with this, I submitted 2 subsequent reports to the same AMC with identical verbiage that didn’t spend 15 minutes in underwriting before sailing through. Always a moving target.

We ALL need to call out our clients for these bull crap requests, as often times they don’t know what they are doing and their ignorance can cause us hours, days, and weeks over any given year.

Seek the truth.

Seek the truth.