“Bitter and mad as hell” says it all! After 40 years in this profession, it’s painful to see how far real estate appraisal has fallen from what it once was.

There was a time when being an appraiser meant something — we were trusted professionals, a respected and essential part of the lending process. Our work mattered because it protected lenders, borrowers, and the market as a whole. It was demanding, yes, but it was meaningful and profitable.

Fast forward to today, and the landscape looks very different. The rise of *hybrid* and *alternative valuation* products has cheapened the profession and diluted the credibility of true appraisal work. Guidelines have been stretched, rewritten, and interpreted so inconsistently that they’ve become almost absurd — more about checking boxes than providing real analysis.

We now face “safeguards” that don’t actually protect anyone, just slow us down. AMCs have turned the process into a profit machine for everyone *but* the appraiser — cutting fees, increasing our workload, and inserting layers of bureaucracy that make efficiency and quality almost impossible. Meanwhile, they rake in billions with little to no oversight or accountability.

CO had an amc rule that amc related appraisals, appraiser must disclose their fee billed in every report. 1. Nobody ever enforces the rule. 2. It never made any difference. 3. During review process, amc’s would black out this disclosure so review appraisers would never know either.

What is necessary is separation of fees. To stop the unearned fee raking and junk fee incorporation.

Distinctly different services require clearly separated fees. Amcs do not perform appraisals. Amc’s are agents of the lender. Their fee should not be magically incorporated and improperly co mingled with independent appraiser service fees.

I am in the state where we disclose our fees within the appraisal report. It has been for few years. Did it make any difference? Absolutely not !!! The borrower does not care where the money goes. If the appraiser would get a dollar, he/she may think it was a typo and move on. Disclosure of the fees is irrelevant

Brian,

You took the time to respond to this post, but didn’t offer any support. You are in a blog that shows at least one supporting document (screen shot) of your platforms fees, which you say is in accurate, but don’t show support. We need support. If you are to expect anyone to understand what you are doing and why, show support. None of us are asking for much, but to come on this specific blog and make generalized statements do not help your cause. If you don’t have any appraiser’s willing to work, you don’t have any appraisal’s. Then what, the default of appraisal waivers? I can’t see how you, nor anyone else makes money on the that, with exception to the lender and FNMA. Please, step up to the mic and speak.

I find it amazing that Mr. Zitin has been asked on more than one occasion what the appraiser will receive as compensation, yet to date: Crickets!

That says it all ladies and gentlemen!!!!!!!!!!!

Until I am told to stop, every order from here on out is going to have my fee in my scope of work addenda right behind the intended user’s name. I just wonder how long it takes them to notice or even if they read my report.

Why don’t people like Brian from Regorra, or the amc managers, or the managers of corelogic and scope assignment systems, simply be honest and clearly state what the appraisers are being paid upfront and what the upfront fee splits are, at the time of order placement? Use their internal statistics for orders previously handled, to create fair fee schedules and market rate statistics for appraisers to rely on?

Because at it’s heart, these are dishonest processes ran by dishonest people.

Hardly the right fit for serving ethical professionals tasked with all these ethical responsibilities.

Audit the amc industry and all the tech companies whom serve them.

Recurring violations of Dodd Frank Regulatory Z rules on Valuation Independence and associated requirements to pay market rate fees to all appraisers for any appraisal related to federally related transactions, the fee to be in alignment ‘as if no amc was involved.’

One day these companies are going to experience data penetration or an internal whistleblower event where the information gets out anyways, which has probably happened already but must of us simply don’t know about the event. A concerned person should get a job at these companies and share what they find with the world. How long do they think they’ll keep a lid on this level of exploitative process, masking that with pointless never ending public relations fluff?

Thanks for posting this, Chase. That screenshot says it all: $60 to the PDC, $190 to the AMC. A 76% cut for the middleman.

And if they’re already taking that much from the PDC share, what happens when hybrids scale? Will appraisers be handed 24% of the fee while carrying 100% of the liability? This isn’t just about one screenshot, it’s about a business model that treats appraisers as disposable while monetizing every layer around them. The liability stays with us, the data comes from someone we’ve never met, & the fee gets carved up before it even hits our inbox.

If this is the future, it’s one where appraisers fund the tech, absorb the risk, and get paid in crumbs. Consumers aren’t saving. They’re funding the markup. And the AMCs? They’re cashing in on both ends.

And at this rate, it won’t be long before we see the next screenshot: the one that shows what appraisers are actually being paid for these 24-hour hybrid specials. Something tells me it won’t be flattering.

Audit the amc industry and tech companies whom serve them.

Here’s another one going around, I really hope it’s propaganda and just a doctored image:

Smoke and mirrors – just like politics!

The solution is extra ordinarily simple; Properly separated fees for distinctly different services. Whatever a borrower pays for an appraisal, 100% goes to the appraiser. Whatever the lender needs for pdc’s, amc fees, tech fees, or otherwise, comes from a different funding source.

What’s the point of using an amc? Answer; To support valuation independence per Dodd Frank and other regulatory rules, by way of implementing the required minimum mandate; Separation from mortgage loan production and appraisers. So a repeat of lenders only sending requests to appraisers that bow to valuation pressure will not happen. Of special note, this separation from loan production can happen without using an amc what so ever. These rules were formed when it was standard industry practice to distribute orders equally among all of any lenders approved appraisal panels. There was no grading, preference to send disproportionate work to one limited set of appraisers, and there was no financial incentive to drive appraisers fees down, consumers fees up, and pocket the difference. If a lender did that directly it would be a felony, a violation of unearned fee rules and junk fee billing rules. The entire amc industry has become a regulatory work around and a profit center carve out or profit center pass through for activity which would be illegal anywhere else.

What’s the point of the assignment platforms in theory under this model? Answer; To facilitate the separation from mortgage loan production, and provide a one stop area where either a lender or an amc can engage with an appraiser.

Companies like Regorra, scope, mercury, and others, seem to believe the purpose of their company is to advocate for lenders and the amc’s, to function as a cost pass through where they take a substantial portion of the appraisal fee, while completing only a minimal amount of work. Providing the tools these companies need in order to apply systematic pressure to appraisers, blacklist appraisers whom do not play ball at will. While these companies consistently refuse for over a decade to provide appraisers the technical tools we need for fair engagement. Many appraisers have had direct conversations with these tech companies and they steadfastly refuse to offer appraisers technical tools which would assist a more equitable and fair engagement process.

Less than one in four licensed appraisers that are left even try to work with amc’s anymore, mostly the new people and the most unethical appraisers whom have learned how to exploit these systems and tools for personal gain, to enjoy disproportionate lions share of work orders, often by way of outsourcing. The idea of the PDC, hybrids, desk only, allowing no inspection reports, skipping in person comps pictures, all that hails from this obscure sub set of the appraisal community whom for the most part disregards the principals of fair billing, consumer protection, and standard ethical expectations.

The system is broken. There is no need for companies like Regorra in the first place anymore. Mercury systems formed this model decades ago, as a specific way for appraisers to AVOID having to work with amc’s, to retain full fees, and direct engagement models with lenders. That was the original intent of these types of engagement and models. They have been manipulated and exploited beyond recognition, unrecognizable from their original intent. Amc’s as well as the tech companies whom serve them have become mortgage lending production. They are now a defacto branch or arm of loan production, constantly advocating for originators interests, constantly disregarding the merits of fair engagement and professional ethic which appraisers are required to abide via licensing and uspap requirements. Even third party auditors and reviewers of the appraisal industry have refused to incorporate or help, specifically calling the appraisal industry a pay to play industry with objectionable modeling.

When the CFPB safe harbor rule is finally nullified, there will be a new open door to levy retroactive fines of 10k/20k per each individual instance, of amc companies and their facilitators, including lenders, as amc’s legally function as an agent of the lender, for failure to pay ‘customary and reasonable’ fees, as defined by tables such as the VA billing rates. As systems in this country correct, eventually this industry will be on the menu for total auditing and correction, accountability due.

We’re not journalists. We’re ethical process experts. And we’re had enough of the out in the open exploitation of both appraisers and consumers best interests.

I ran the numbers.

Hybrid fees typically range from $75 to $125. At the low end, $75 per hybrid, in line with the reduced fee schedules many appraisers have flagged, you’d need to complete 1,667 hybrids a year to hit $125K. That’s 80 hours a week if each takes 2.5 hours, which is realistic once you factor in verifying comps, reviewing third-party data, & reconciling valuation, including checking property characteristics, photos, & measurements from the PDC report, confirming neighborhood influences, verifying comp sales via MLS & public records, adjusting for condition & features, writing commentary to support the valuation logic, & completing the form with defensible conclusions.

That’s not just a workload, it’s exposure.

1,667 hybrids means 1,667 times your name is on a report you didn’t inspect firsthand. If the PDC misses a defect or misrepresents a condition, you’re the one on the hook. NOT them.

More hybrids, more exposure. More exposure, more risk.

Speed & scale don’t replace credibility, & they don’t protect your license.

Modernization shouldn’t mean marginalization. Appraisers deserve better than volume-based promises & vague earnings claims. Let’s keep the profession grounded in integrity, not marketing.

Bragging about appraisal fees is one reason we’re in this mess. Lenders and AMC’s resent you and I making even a penny.

You know it’s a lie.

LMAO! Soon they’ll be “outsourcing” appraisals to India. They can do remote appraisals while scamming old ladies.

And you are? Oh, yeah, never mind. I’m guessing just another DEI type living off of the education, experience, expertise and labor of others.