Fortunately, for me, 2010 is ending with a flurry of activity. Folks are calling in with requests for valuations for estate purposes, and several lawyers have inquired about engaging me for expert witness assignments. Unfortunately, that has kept me from posting here on Appraiser Active. My resolution for 2011 is to post more regularly, and to follow up on promises of information.
 |
| HAPPY NEW YEAR! |
Appraiser Active wishes you a Merry Christmas. We hope you have a chance to visit St. Petersburg some winter. It's expected to be about 70 degrees later today, although the temperature is only 51 at 9:45 A.M.
Read the full story HERE.
The first appraisal on their chosen home came in at $295,000, a figure that both the Stiners and the sellers agreed upon. The lender didn't like it, and ordered up a second appraisal. Based on comparable homes that were in a different neighborhood, the new appraisal came in $25,000 lower -- too low to allow the loan to go through.
They switched lenders and got another appraisal that, at $290,000, would have allowed the deal to go through. Their new lender was skeptical, and ordered up another appraisal. At the same time, the home they were selling was appraised three times, with each subsequent valuation falling.
Four months later, the Stiners and their buyer both gave up. Together, they were out $1,600 for seven appraisals. "As a result, we are now renting our home out, and renting the home we wanted to buy," says Beth. "We were frustrated and we weren't going to keep doling out cash for new appraisals. It felt like a game."
So what sort of changes are you likely to see? Experienced appraisers say probably not enough, at least in the proposal's current form.There's more, so please CLICK HERE and read the whole thing.
"It's just a rehash of the [code]," says Pat Turner, a Richmond area appraiser and critic of the Fannie-Freddie rules.
Leslie Sellers, president of the 26,000-member Appraisal Institute, a professional group based in Chicago, says the Fed's proposals include important core principles of freedom from coercion and outside influence on valuations but don't lessen the current system's tilt toward cut-rate fees and short turnaround times over appraisal quality.
Frank Gregoire, past chairman of the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board and incoming chairman of the National Association of Realtors' appraisal committee, says that "until the federal banking agencies decide to enforce some of the words they're putting on paper, the public can expect business as usual."
The Board is publishing for public comment an interim final rule amending Regulation Z (Truth in Lending). The interim rule implements Section 129E of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), which was enacted on July 21, 2010, as Section 1472 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. TILA Section 129E establishes new requirements for appraisal independence for consumer credit transactions secured by the consumer’s principal dwelling. The amendments are designed to ensure that real estate appraisals used to support creditors’ underwriting decisions are based on the appraiser’s independent professional judgment, free of any influence or pressure that may be exerted by parties that have an interest in the transaction. The amendments also seek to ensure that creditors and their agents pay customary and reasonable fees to appraisers. The Board seeks comment on all aspects of the interim final rule.HERE is a link to a pdf of the rule. I have also posted a copy of the pdf on SCRIBD. That is available after the jump.
Effective October 15, 2010 we are adopting appraiser independence requirements that maintain the spirit and intent of the Home Valuation Code of Conduct (HVCC). Freddie Mac has worked with the Federal Housing Finance Agency and Fannie Mae to develop appraisal independence requirements to replace the HVCC, which is expected to sunset this month.Here's the Freddie Mac Appraiser Independence Requirements:
The Appraiser Independence Requirements replace the Home Valuation Code of Conduct (HVCC). These updated requirements maintain the spirit and intent of the HVCC and continue to provide important protections for mortgage investors, home buyers, and the housing market.For those with an interest, the Fannie Mae Appraiser Independence Requirements:
The HVCC is being replaced by the Appraiser Independence Requirements; however, all conventional, single-family mortgage loans with application dates on or after May 1, 2009, must additionally comply with the HVCC until the earlier of the release of the Interim Final Rules by the Federal Reserve as required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, or November 1, 2010.
"Selling Notice: New Appraiser Independence Requirements Being Developed"No surprise in this release. About a month ago, in a post providing my view of H.R. 4173, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, this prediction was made:
Fannie Mae has issued the following Notice (the entire text of the Notice is included in this e-mail):
Fannie Mae is working with the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to develop and adopt appraiser independence requirements that will replace the Home Valuation Code of Conduct (HVCC). Until the revised requirements are released, the existing HVCC provisions in the Fannie Mae Selling Guide continue to apply. Updated requirements are expected to be substantially similar to the current provisions.
Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, HVCC will sunset when interim final regulations are released to implement the appraisal independence-related provisions of the Act, which is expected to occur on or about October 21, 2010.
Fannie Mae is committed to supporting strong appraiser independence requirements. The revised requirements will maintain the spirit and intent of HVCC, and continue to provide important protections for mortgage investors, home buyers, and the housing market.
The revised appraiser independence requirements will be based on Fannie Mae's experience under the HVCC and will continue to support the integrity of the appraisal process. As part of the process to develop the revised requirements, Fannie Mae has received input from key industry participants.
Fannie Mae expects to announce the revised appraiser independence requirements in an upcoming Selling Guide announcement.
Modifications to the TILA include the appraisal independence standards, portability of appraisals, customary and reasonable appraisal fees and sunset of the HVCC. Although it may appear as though appraisers will benefit from this section of the new law, it’s a bit early to get our hopes up. In all likelihood, the new rules for selection and retention of appraisers will look much like the HVCC.Let's see if my low expectations for the balance of the "reforms" are on target.
The speed at which house prices fall over the next few months could depend less on mortgage rates and Americans' appetite for home buying than on how banks decide to manage the huge number of foreclosed homes they own or may take from delinquent borrowers in the near future.
Unlike home owners, banks often are much quicker to slash prices to unload properties quickly.
The upshot is that, the more homes being sold by lenders, the faster prices tend to fall. That pattern was clear over the past two years: Price declines that began four years ago accelerated rapidly in 2008 as banks dumped foreclosed properties at fire-sale prices. By January 2009, the share of distressed sales had soared to 45% of all sales nationally; it was even higher in hard-hit markets such as Phoenix, according to analysts at Barclays Capital.
---
The Home Affordable Modification Program has fallen short of its goals. So far, fewer than 500,000 loans have been modified, below the target of three million to four million. Yet the program served as a "closet moratorium" on foreclosures that stanched the flow of bank-owned homes to the market, said Ronald Temple, portfolio manager at Lazard Asset Management.
The result: The share of distressed sales fell by November to 25% of home sales, and prices stabilized. After rising in the winter, the distressed share fell to 22% in June, before bouncing to 30% in July.
The problem is that these measures are wearing off. Demand plunged this summer after tax credits expired, and unsold homes are piling up. More foreclosures could move onto the market as borrowers fall out of the loan-modification program.
"We see the perfect storm brewing with rising supply and falling demand," said Ivy Zelman, chief executive of research firm Zelman & Associates and one of the first to warn of trouble five years ago. She estimated that distressed sales could account for half of the market by year-end if traditional sales didn't rebound
Speaking at the Barclays Capital 2010 Global Financial Services Conference, Capital One CEO Richard Fairbank was pessimistic about the housing market and about consumer demand -- but optimistic about his bank's prospects.
Fairbank, in remarks that were broadcast on the web, was asked by an audience member whether there will be a double-dip in the housing market. He chose his words carefully. "I think we feel very cautious about the housing market," Fairbank said. "I think that even despite some of the recent months where home prices have gone up, I think it's a very plausible case for home prices to go back down again."
“The trend lines of decreasing default notices and increasing bank repossessions converged in August, with virtually the same number of new default notices and bank repossessions for the month — a clear indication that the clogged foreclosure pipeline is being carefully managed on both ends by lenders and servicers,” said James J. Saccacio, chief executive officer of RealtyTrac. “On the front end, seriously delinquent loans are rolling into foreclosure at an unusually slow rate, while on the back end the dammed-up inventory of properties already in foreclosure is moving to REO in steady stream rather than a flood — presumably to prevent further erosion of home prices.”Full release HERE.
Below is a brief series of Q&A designed to reflect The Appraisal Foundation’s position with respect to the September 7, 2010 decision by the Appraisal Institute to withdraw as a Sponsor of The Appraisal Foundation.
Question: Why did the Appraisal Institute choose to withdraw as a Sponsoring Organization of The Appraisal Foundation?
Answer: Obviously, only the Appraisal Institute can provide their full reasoning for this decision. However, the simple response to this question is the Appraisal Institute was unwilling to accept sanctions imposed by The Appraisal Foundation as a result of their conduct as a Sponsoring Organization.
Question: What did the Appraisal Institute do or not do that The Appraisal Foundation objected to?
Read it all HEREAnswer: In simplest terms, The Appraisal Foundation expects its Sponsoring Organizations to communicate with it first regarding any matters that have a direct or indirect impact on our organization. The Appraisal Institute failed to comply with this expectation.
(1) In General.-Lenders and their agents shall compensate fee appraisers at a rate that is customary and reasonable for appraisal services performed in the market area of the property being appraised. Evidence for such fees may be established by objective third party information, such as government agency fee schedules, academic studies, and independent private sector surveys. Fee studies shall exclude assignments offered by known appraisal management companies.
At present it is unclear whether the “customary and reasonable” provision should be adopted in the 90 day interim final regulations. TAVMA believes that the effective date should be delayed under Title XIV Section 1400(c)(3) until after a formal rule making process. Additionally, we believe that the provision should not be adopted yet, because the “customary and reasonable fees” requirement is not an appraisal independence requirement. Further, the fee provision was added late in the Congressional Conference Committee process and never received any meaningful legislative discussion or clarification.It's amusing to read TAVMA's claim that AMC compensation of appraisers is the "predominate fee model now in use." The only reason it may be is because of the Home Valuation Code of Conduct. Appraisal Management Companies did not gain their share of the market by competition with appraisers; it was handed to them on a silver platter. TAVMA, your "predominate fee model now in use" is not market based, has no relationship to reality, and the new statutory requirement to ignore it in the determination of customary and reasonable for appraisal services is one of the few high points in the dismal legislation. Quit whining!
The wording of 129E(i) Appraisal independence requirements, “Customary and Reasonable Fees” seems to either ignore or outright reject FHA’s and HUD’s prior interpretation; however, it fails to provide any direction or guidance about what the term means and/or how it is to be calculated other than that fees negotiated with AMCs should be excluded from the determination, i.e., that market participants should ignore the predominate fee model now in use. It is unreasonable given this history and marketplace realities to expect the FRB to formulate a definition of “reasonable and customary fees” within the few weeks leading up to the October 20, 2010 effective date of the interim, final rule.TAVMA's plea to Bernake becomes REALLY desperate with their offering of this reason for delay:
Appraiser Trainees. Fee parity (non-negotiated fees) will create a preponderance of “experienced appraisers,” which on one hand is good in that the most experienced appraisers will compete on quality and service for assignments; however, what will be the impact on appraiser-trainee development? Will appraisal firms have any motivation to train new appraisers, and will less experienced appraisers be able to compete for appraisal work if fees are not a factor?Where was all this concern for appraiser-trainees in the past? How many appraiser readers of this post are willing to provide engagement letters or orders from TAVMA members with the wording "Trainee Appraisers cannot sign the appraisal", or word to that effect.
Maybe someone can explain to me why we need studies and surveys on customary and reasonable fees when appraisal fees have been reported for years on the HUD closing statements? I've always assumed that the information on the HUD form was collected and databased somewhere?Well said, Brian. This aint brain surgery.
If this hasn't been done in the past . . .it could certainly be implemented NOW. The HUD form shows exactly what the borrower was CHARGED for the appraisal . . . right?
The direct contact person at the Federal Reserve Board where you can send a letter to discuss your personal AMC and Customary and Reasonable Fee situations, or anything else having to do with appraiser independence. (Can include Stips and mandatory comparable requirements and mandatory Cost Approach).
Please do so in the next few days, as new appraisal regulations are being drafted now, with implementation set for October, or perhaps sooner.
Here is the contact information for the person at the Fed that is handling the Interim rulemaking on appraiser independence (including customary & reasonable fees):
Ms. Sandra Braunstein, Director
Division of Consumer and Community Affairs
Federal Reserve Board
1709 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20006
I strongly suggest you provide your own letter in your own words, rather than rely on ‘template’ content from another source. Keep it short and to the point.
The Federal Reserve must now translate the legislative language into rules that will govern how brokers, lenders, appraisers and investors behave from now on. Given the Fed’s long history of putting the financial industry first and consumer protection second, Congress will need to keep a close eye on the rule-making process.
My close friends know I harbor a few superstitions. One of them has to do with Friday the 13th. I never plan anything of significance for this day. Although I'm in the middle of several important assignments, there is no way my signature will be affixed to a document with today's date.
Instead, I offer this video about BPOs or Broker's Price Opinions.
Hat tip to Cherolyne Fogarty from Walk the Talk Presentations.
Picture this: You've signed a contract to sell your house. Your buyers say they have nailed down the right mortgage. All is well. But then the appraisal comes in low -- $25,000 to $50,000 under what was agreed upon in the contract.Fannie Mae, in their Announcement, links to language in the Selling Guide to make it clear that such actions by the lender or underwriter are NOT PERMITTED.
The lender insists on cutting the mortgage amount to reflect the lower appraised value. You refuse to negotiate anywhere near the price indicated by the appraisal, and suddenly -- poof! The whole deal is off. You, the buyers and the agents involved are all left sputtering over the appraisal that scuttled the transaction.
This scenario is not unusual in many markets across the country, say home builders, brokers and appraisers.
Here's one little-publicized reason why: Lenders unilaterally may be lowering the numbers on the appraisals submitted to them, in order to avoid accusations that the loans they sell to giant investors Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac are based on inflated appraisals -- even slightly inflated.
Changes to the Appraised ValueThat guidance certainly differs from reports we've heard from the field and relayed to Ken:
The lender is responsible for ensuring that appraisal reports are complete and that any changes to the report are made by the appraiser who originally completed the report. If the lender has concerns with any aspect of the appraisal that result in questions about the reliability of the opinion of market value, the lender must attempt to resolve its concerns with the appraiser who originally prepared the report. If the lender is unable to resolve its concerns with the appraiser, the lender must obtain a replacement report prior to making a final underwriting decision on the loan. Any request for a change in the opinion of market value must be based on material and substantive issues and must not be made solely on the basis that the opinion of market value as indicated in the appraisal report does not support the proposed loan amount. For information concerning the process lenders must follow to address a change of the opinion of market value, see Guidance on Addressing Appraisal Deficiencies, below.
Lenders must pay particular attention and institute extra due diligence for those loans in which the appraised value is believed to be excessive or where the value of the property has experienced significant appreciation in a short time period since the prior sale. Fannie Mae believes that one of the best ways lenders can reduce the risk associated with excessive values and/or rapid appreciation is by receiving accurate appraisals from knowledgeable, experienced appraisers.
Typically, Gregoire says, the lender orders a low-cost electronic valuation -- based on publicly available statistical data, with no onsite inspections -- to review the accuracy of what was submitted by the appraiser. If there's a discrepancy between what the computer says and what the appraiser reports, the lender's underwriters sometimes simply cut the number -- even if this means knocking the real estate transaction off track. Or they demand an immediate explanation from the appraiser.The fact that Fannie decided to specifically address this in the Selling Guide seems to indicate the practice of arbitrarily changing the opinion of value must be fairly widespread.
Fannie's new guidelines also attempt to clarify other issues that have arisen during the past year, including the widespread use of inexperienced appraisers who are unfamiliar with local market conditions. Real estate agents, builders and mortgage brokers have complained to Congress that rules adopted by Fannie and Freddie last year encouraged lenders to use "appraisal management" companies to value properties.Specific guidance is in the Selling Guide, page 476
Those companies, in turn, often pay appraisers deeply discounted fees -- half off traditional prevailing rates in some cases -- and require them to complete their assignments far faster than normal turnaround times. Critics have said that low-budget appraisers working for management companies frequently travel long distances to do their valuations, have minimal access to local data, and make excessive use of foreclosures and short sales as comparables
Fannie's letter attempts to clarify its "appraiser selection" standards. Top on the list: Appraisers should be experienced, "have the requisite knowledge" about local market conditions and have access to all local data sources. Fannie also emphasized that the demonstrated experience of an appraiser should always trump fees or turnaround times -- a clear swipe at management companies that bid out their work on the latter two criteria.
“The attorney general claims that defendants engaged in fraudulent, deceptive and illegal business practices by allegedly permitting eAppraiseIT residential real estate appraisers to be influenced by nonparty Washington Mutual,” presiding justice Luis Gonzalez wrote in today's unanimous decision. “We conclude that neither federal statutes, nor the regulations and guidelines implemented by the OTS, preclude the Attorney General of the State of New York from pursuing litigation.”Additional stories HERE , HERE, HERE and HERE.
Although discussion of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 has faded from the front page of the newspapers, in today's Washington Post, Ken Harney offers a column outlining some possible benefits to consumers and what he believes will go to the President's desk affecting housing and mortgage finance.Real estate appraisal improvements. The House bill would give the new consumer protection agency oversight on home mortgage appraisals and the power to create rules and standards to guarantee "appraiser independence" from pressures by lenders, realty agents and others. It also would require that once the new rules are adopted, the controversial "Home Valuation Code of Conduct" mandated last year by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be terminated. The code has been criticized by consumers, realty agents, builders and appraisers for encouraging lowball appraisals and the use of inexperienced appraisers willing to work for low fees. The Senate bill does not have appraisal provisions, but a bipartisan push is under way to convince conferees to adopt the House version.None of the "appraisal improvements" were included in the Senate amendment to the House Bill, H.R. 4173. Some of the "appraisal improvements" are worthwhile, others not so. Among the most meaningful are amendments to FIRREA that will require states to regulate Appraisal Management Companies. (If you follow the link, start at Sec. 9503 and use the FORWARD button under the THIS DOCUMENT tab at the bottom of the page to read all the text)
`SEC. 1124. APPRAISAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS.
`(b) Exception for Federally Regulated Financial Institutions- The requirements of subsection (a) shall not apply to an appraisal management company that is a subsidiary owned and controlled by a financial institution and regulated by a federal financial institution regulatory agency. In such case, the appropriate federal financial institutions regulatory agency shall, at a minimum, develop regulations affecting the operations of the appraisal management company to--
`(1) verify that only licensed or certified appraisers are used for federally related transactions;
`(2) require that appraisals coordinated by an institution or subsidiary providing appraisal management services comply with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice; and
`(3) require that appraisals are conducted independently and free from inappropriate influence and coercion pursuant to the appraisal independence standards established under section 129E of the Truth in Lending Act.
This project was made possible through a 6 month collaboration with RMLS of Minnesota, Live Valuation and the Center for REALTOR Technology. It was actually inspired by an appraiser getting the ear of Ed Newman from RMLS, who then got the ear of CRT who then got real jazzed up about this. This all coincided with some fortuitous events that led us to choose Live Valuation — who by the way, has one amazing programmer (Kannan), which you will soon agree to after you see the demo and the functionality, and the all out pure slick of this application.
So what the heck is the Appraisal Dashboard? Well, the basic summary is, it is a PHP web application that interfaces with live MLS data (MLS authentication and access required) and provides a visual search interface. The data can be exported (again, please refer to your particular MLS data rules/regs) into various formats that can be used with the Uniform Residential Appraisal Report and the MISMO format.That's all I have for now. We have not yet tried the application, but should be able to find some time in the near future.
Posts
All Comments
