Quite similar exploitation of workers by trade groups and associated ‘managers.’ Along with quite similar mis management from the very top of industry managers. Except instead of appraisal, in associated industry of property preservation and field management services (reo). If you ever wondered why the reo clean up job was so dang inadequate. At the heart of it all; Appraisal management companies whom also service these industries.

I’d like to say only in real estate but that’s sadly not true.

The ‘franchise model’. Where independence dies and exploitation goes next level.

A similar model is now being levied by the same companies, using PDC services.

I’m right there with you. I haven’t done an appraisal in one year this month. I put pencil to it a few months ago. Figured at my typical fees with AMC’s which are about the same (in absolute dollars) I was making 25-30 years ago, I was doing appraisals for about $150-$175 in year 2000 dollars. And, with all the expanded costs in all aspects and the added liability with a whiny, litigious public, there is simply no point in continuing. I had a few banks that ordered appraisals from me for awhile and paid decent/good fees, but they all went with AMC’s and the fees went down. Losing battle.

Huh?

Do you ever feel like the appraisal trade groups are not fairly representing the working appraisers?

Edwin, where did you hear or what evidence do you have about a possible 12% settlement rate? If you have any article I could read or other information let me know, I would like to see that for myself. Ken

Worhit, I dont believe so. Though I havent done any research on active or recent cases yet. It seems most attorneys either dont want to get involved or if they do, they are in such high demand, its effectively supply-restricted. I have heard the rumor that only ~12% of the HUD complaints have been settled and that all of those have been cash settlements and no findings based on merit, which reminds me of the ADA shakedowns in small downtown commercial spaces in the 1990s… Perhaps a FOIA request to HUD is in order to see exactly what they are doing with these allegations.

At its core, the appraisal process requires us to analyze the market as it actually exists, not as we wish it existed. Every day appraisers make judgments based on buyer preferences, market segmentation, school districts, property characteristics, location influences, and countless other factors that affect value. The concept of the “typical buyer” is not something appraisers invented for convenience; it is a fundamental component of market value analysis. Without understanding who is actually buying a property and what drives their purchasing decisions, it becomes difficult to explain why one feature contributes to value while another does not.

What I found particularly interesting is the discussion regarding the safeguards established in Inclusive Communities. Whether one agrees with every conclusion in this paper or not, the point regarding robust causation, legitimate business justification, and less discriminatory alternatives deserves serious discussion within the profession. Those safeguards are part of the legal framework and should be understood by appraisers just as thoroughly as the theories that create potential liability.

As someone who has personally spent years under investigation related to appraisal bias allegations, I believe the profession benefits from open discussion of these issues. Bias should never be tolerated, and legitimate discrimination complaints should be investigated. At the same time, appraisers should not be placed in a position where they are expected to ignore market behavior, buyer preferences, or supported market evidence simply because the results may be uncomfortable. Our role is to analyze and report what the market is doing, not to engineer outcomes.

The long-term health of the profession depends on maintaining that distinction. The answer is not less analysis or less transparency. The answer is better-supported analysis, stronger documentation, and a clear understanding of both USPAP requirements and the legal standards that govern fair housing enforcement. Appraisers serve the public best when they remain independent, objective, and committed to reporting the market as it exists.

I doubt that most of them can even read at a fourth-grade level, much less, understand anything about how valuation works.

Blame the AMC’s? Yeah, OK, but I blame the people who started the AMC’s. Remember who was President? I do. Barney is dead, but I don’t know about Dodd. But, that was a dose of poison we’ll never get over. Even with Trump in for a year and a half, the woke pathology is only getting worse.

To the powers that be, there is no such thing as “local” or “reality” except as they define it. I recognize what’s going on, but I can’t say it here or anywhere else. It will expose itself eventually, but maybe not before I’m dead and gone. Nope, I’m no conspiracy “theorist”, simply an observer of big forces outside of the appraisal industry.

Next time call it a “mosque” and see if you get the same reaction.

Sorry, kids, but we shouldn’t have to put up with this outrageous level of liability. If someone wants to pay me $10K for a house appraisal so I can hire an MAI and an attorney to review it before I turn it in, fine. Otherwise, they should leave us alone.

The normalization of discrimination. When one protected class group discriminates against another. Central planning never works. One hopes that the appraisal software’s ability to offer various map sourcing choices that will indicate religious centers alongside schools and other local amenity with an in image visual marker, will not be flagged. When you type something in, xml data review tools can be programmed to identify any given keyword or variant. When this information is contained within an image, not necessarily as easy to flag. At least for now. Blame the tech providers whom failed to advocate for their own customers or apply any sensible development standards which aligned with constitutional principals. Image.

I mentioned the synagogue in the location section and adjusted a comp that wasn’t within walking distance because it simply didn’t attract the same buyers. Underwriter comes back and tells me I can’t use the word “synagogue” and should call it a “house of worship.”

Which is funny, because “house of worship” could mean anything… a church, a chapel, a megachurch with a parking lot the size of a small airport. And none of those have the same walkability requirement. Catholics aren’t trekking two miles in dress shoes on Sunday morning. The whole point in this market was the walkability, and the one word that actually explained the location influence was the one I wasn’t allowed to use.

So I couldn’t use the word “synagogue” at all and couldn’t tie the adjustment to walkability, even though that was the actual market factor.

So basically I was supposed to support a location adjustment without being allowed to say what the location influence actually was. That’s the kind of thing that makes this whole topic so messy. We’re expected to analyze the market, but then told we can’t describe the very thing the market is reacting to.

In the Lanham case, the defense didn’t use anything that looked like Edwin’s safeguards in a formal way. What actually carried the weight was pretty straightforward: his methodology held up, he followed USPAP, and the plaintiffs couldn’t bring in an appraisal expert to show his work was wrong or a pretext for discrimination.

The judge basically said a lower value isn’t evidence of bias, and you need actual proof, not just an outcome someone doesn’t like. So the end result lines up with the same principles Edwin is talking about, but the attorneys didn’t frame it in that constitutional “safeguards” style.

It would be interesting to know if any legal team has actually used that framework directly in a bias case, or if courts are just landing in the same place without anyone labeling it that way.

Baggins, exactly! It’s wild watching the same folks who preach “protect the integrity of the valuation process” turn around and build systems that can nudge values wherever they want them. Then somehow we’re the ones expected to keep USPAP glued together while they rewrite the rules in the background. It’s like they want the credibility of an unbiased appraisal but the convenience of an AVM they can steer with a settings menu.

And the best part? When the numbers don’t make sense, guess who gets blamed. Not the algorithm with the “nondiscrimination quality‑control factor” baked in. Nope! It’s the human who had nothing to do with it. The hypocrisy would almost be funny if we weren’t the ones carrying the liability.

This is exactly the kind of stuff that makes appraisers look like the only adults in a room full of people trying to reinvent valuation without actually understanding how valuation works.