Is There Money in Owning an Appraisal Management Company?

There is not much for me to add to this column (alternate link HERE) about Appraisal Management Companies by Ken Harney. Let's just say, if, in fact "there's a tremendous amount of value" his industry (AMCs) brings to the table, consumers should be aware of it before being forced to pay.

Should consumers be concerned? Here's what HousingWire had to say about one of the biggest AMC players:

"CoreLogic revenue explodes thanks to growing property valuation business"

"According to CoreLogic, the company’s revenue jumped 30% in the second quarter, rising to $500 million from $386 million in the same time period last year."

Looks like the "value" is in owning and running an AMC.

Two New Florida Bills - Amendments to Chapter 475

Two nearly identical bills have been filed for the 2017 Session of the Florida Legislature. On the House side, HB 927 was filed by Rep. Bob Rommel on February 21, 2017. Senator Kathleen Passidomo filed SB 716 of February 16, 2017. The bills are nearly identical, and appear to be attempts to amend Chapter 475, Part II to conform with the Final Rule on Minimum Requirements for Appraisal Management Companies. 

The major difference in the bills appears to be:

• The Senate Bill requires AMC compliance with the Truth in Lending Act (customary and reasonable fees). The House Bill does not have the same language. (see lines 503 - 505 of SB 716).
• The House Bill tightens up the restrictions on registration of AMCs by removing the FREAB's discretion to grant registration "after a lapse of time and subsequent good conduct and reputation" for individuals (officers, directors, general partners, managing partners, owners, or persons with 10% or more ownership interests) associated with an AMC applicant. (see lines 297 - 300 of HB 927). The Senate Bill deals with applicants in Section 475.6245 - Discipline of appraisal management companies, and grants the FREAB discretion to deny an application or renewal in the event the above named individuals is guilty of or committed listed violations. (see lines 306 - 323 and 332 - 505 of SB 716).

The filed bills each limit the responsibility of AMCs to their activities related to "covered transactions" or appraisals for "secondary mortgage market participants". This is troubling as the "covered transaction" is means a consumer credit transaction secured by the consumer's principal dwelling. (See lines 154 -155 HB 927 and lines 157 - 158 SB 716).

Language repealing the Post License Education Requirement for Registered Trainee Appraisers is in both bills. As a result of the most recent Appraiser Qualifications Board Real Property Appraiser Qualification Criteria, the post license education requirement had outlived its usefulness. It was confusing to licensees, costly for course providers, and is an unnecessary barrier for trainee appraisers. 

We've got a starting point, and can expect some amendments. Give the bills a close look and let me know what you think. I'll try to keep up with them when they start going through the committee process.

UPDATE - Minimum Requirements for Appraisal Management Companies - Rule in the Works

UPDATE! 03/24/2014- Link to proposed rule is available at the end of this post.

During their regular monthly board meeting on March 20, 2014 the National Credit Union Administration proposed an interagency rule to implement minimum requirements for state oversight of appraisal management companies. Six other federal agencies are expected to join in support of the proposal. These include the Federal Reserve, CFPB, Treasury Department, FDIC; Federal Housing Finance Agency and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

The text of the proposed rule will not be available until all the agencies approve the language, but the NCUA Board Action Memorandum states:

The minimum requirements in the proposed rule would apply to States that elect to establish an appraiser certifying and licensing agency with the authority to register and supervise AMCs (participating States). Under the proposed rule, participating States would have to require that AMCs: (1) register in the State and be subject to its supervision; (2) use only State-certified or licensed appraisers are used for Federally related transactions (real estate-related financial transactions overseen by a Federal financial institution regulatory agency that require appraiser services); (3) require that appraisals comply with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice; (4) ensure selection of a competent and independent appraiser; and (5)establish and comply with processes and controls reasonably designed to ensure that appraisals comply with the appraisal independence standards in the Truth in Lending Act.

The proposed rule would direct AMCs that are subsidiaries of banks and regulated by a Federal financial institution regulatory agency to meet the same minimum requirements, although such AMCs would not be required to register with a State.

We'll keep our eyes open, and post the proposed rule as soon as we see it published.

UPDATE! The proposed Interagency Rule is available at THIS LINK.

Standards of Practice for Appraisal Management Companies - Florida Rule

The regulation of Appraisal Management Companies became law in Florida July 1, 2011. There were efforts to delay implementation of the law, and additional amendments enacted in 2012 clarified a few points and definitions related to Appraisal Management Companies. The most important 2012 amendments covered Discipline of Appraisal Management Companies. Those became law October 1, 2012.

Shortly after October 1, 2012, the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board started drafting a rule to implement the new amendments. The effort was spearheaded by FREAB member Mike Rogers. The meetings, attended by individuals representing appraisers and appraisal management companies, were often contentious. Although there was give and take, the appraiser members of FREAB stood fast, and some important provisions were included in the new rule, 61J1-9.002 - Standards of practice for Appraisal Management Companies; Development and Communication of Real Estate Appraisals.

There are over 180 AMCs registered in Florida. The rule is effective June 26, 2013. The full text of the rule is at the link above, and after the jump in this post. Here are a few highlights:

(1) Upon issuance of a registration number by the Department, an appraisal management company shall disclose its issued registration number on each solicitation for engagement and each engagement letter utilized in assigning an appraisal request for real estate appraisal assignments in Florida.

(3) Before or at the time an appraiser accepts an assignment, the appraisal management company shall require the appraiser to declare in writing or via electronic means that the appraiser receiving the assignment is a competent appraiser for the performance of the appraisal being assigned.

(4) An appraisal management company must include instructions to appraisers in letters of engagement to decline the assignment in the event the appraiser is not geographically competent or the assignment falls outside the appraiser’s scope of practice restrictions.

(5) An appraisal management company cannot:

 (a) Require that an appraiser prepare an appraisal if the appraiser, in the appraiser’s own independent professional judgment believes that she or he does not have the necessary expertise for the assignment or for the specific geographic area and has notified the appraisal management company and declined the assignment;

(b) Require that an appraiser prepare an appraisal within a time frame that the appraiser, in the appraiser’s own professional judgment believes does not afford he or she the ability to meet all the relevant legal and professional obligations, and the appraiser has notified the appraisal management company and declined the assignment; or

(c) Require that an appraiser provide the appraisal management company with the appraiser’s digital signature or seal.

(9) Each solicitation for engagement by an appraisal management company for an appraiser’s services must include the following items:

 (a) The name of the AMC; (b) Appraisal management company’s registration number; (c) If the assignment is retrospective the effective date must be provided; (d) The specific intended use; (e) Type of value; (f) A description of the reporting level expected; (g) The identification of the subject to include the property address, county, property type and property rights as requested by the client; (h) Point of contact for discussion of conditions and scope of work; (i) Other assignment conditions; (j) The expected delivery date; and (k) The terms of payment to the appraiser unless otherwise in a contract.

Full text after the jump.

CLICK to Read More

AMC - Proposed FREAB Rules

The Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board met February 4th and 5th, 2013. Their agenda included a number of items of interest, including the docket of cases to be considered by the board, licensee counts, proposals for new rules and amendments to existing rules.

Two are extremely important to Florida appraisers:

61J1-4.010 - Supervision and Training of Registered Trainee Appraisers

61J1-9.002 - Standards of Professional Practice for Appraisal Management Companies; Development and Communications of Real Estate Appraisals

61J1 - 9.002 is a brand new rule, and is being proposed to implement amendments made to Chapter 475 Part II related to the regulation of Appraisal Management Companies. This rule is a work in progress and IS NOT final. The PRELIMINARY text is reproduced after the jump. Although changes were made to the document below during the meeting, it's important to take a look at what they're working on.

The photograph accompanying this post is of Michael J. Rogers, MAI, SRA. Mike is a past Chairman and current member of the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board. He is a State-Certified General Appraiser, and the principal of Rogers Valuation and Acquisition, Inc. in Pensacola, Florida. Although Mike is not involved with appraisal management companies, he has taken the lead to develop and fine tune the Standards of Practice for Appraisal Management Companies. It's his goal to ensure appraiser independence is preserved and that appraisal management companies comply with clearly  defined standards of practice.

Although others on the board support these initiatives, Mike could use some support and suggestions to ensure the standards of practice are meaningful, and actually make it through the rules making process. 

See the proposal after the jump.

CLICK to Read More

A New Year - Pay Attention to Business

November, December, and the first part of January have been extremely busy. Although I was able to fire off a Christmas post, the New Year's post never made it. There has been plenty of appraisal related news, but it's been important for me to produce some appraisal related work, and generate some appraisal related income over the past few months. The checks finally started arriving in today's mail, and there is much to talk about. 

Back in 2009, when Taylor, Bean & Whitaker bit the dust, their affiliated appraisal management company, Security One Valuation Services, LLC stiffed thousands of appraisers. Later that year, Larry Holzer folded his latest disposable appraisal management company, Global Appraisal Solutions, leaving hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid appraisal fees. That did not stop him from creating another AMC to sucker in a new group of appraisers.

In mid 2012 appraisers took it on the chin with the failure of AppraiserlLoft. Who knows how many were left holding the bag in that case. 

In late 2012, appraisers from around country heard that ES Appraisal/Evaluation Solutions filed for bankruptcy. A website set up for creditor appraisers shows a tally of over $1.2 million in unpaid appraisal and BPO fees. Now, the word on the street is National Real Estate Information Services (NREIS) will be closing their doors next month.

Appraiser Active is on a quest to improve the profession, but we appraisers are also involved in running a BUSINESS. Please remember when you become part of a "vendor" panel for an AMC, you are extending them credit. Many AMCs are making a big deal of insisting on background checks of appraisers joining their panel. It might be time to do some background checking on the folks you extend credit to.

Just about a month ago I heard from Kim Drago. She was promoting an new site for appraisers, AppraisalAdvisor. The concept sounds interesting. For those of you involved with AMCs, it might be worth a look.  We are not in a position to endorse these folks, but their LinkedIN page has a bunch of great advice and New Years' Resolutions.

Appraiser Active in Washington, D.C.

While browsing at Tampa International Airport, waiting to board my flight to Washington, D.C., I picked up a copy of the Tampa Bay Times. On the tarmac, waiting to take off, I noticed a familiar face looking at me from page 4B; the Business Section. 


The headline:


PINELLAS PROPERTY APPRAISER TO TESTIFY BEFORE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE


I'm pleased the writer, Elizabeth Behrman, decided to include these points:

"The bulk of my testimony has to do with ensuring appraiser independence, and the value and importance of appraiser independence," Gregoire said.

"Buyers don't expect the appraiser to just rubber stamp the sale price," he said. "They want a good, honest, objective appraisal by somebody that has the necessary qualifications to do a credible job."

As long as the appraiser can demonstrate that his data is supported and correct, the lender should just lay off," Gregoire said.

For those interested, the testimony I am offering on behalf of the National Association of REALTORS is at this LINK, along with that of the other panel members.


UPDATE: There is a link to the video of the entire hearing at the link above.

This is what the hearing room looked like, just prior to 10:00 A.M. That's subcommittee chair Biggert preparing to gavel the meeting to order.

AppraiserLoft Update

It might not be the largest scam pulled on appraisers, or even the latest, but it happens to be the one in the news today. According to Lily Leung at the San Diego Union Tribune:

AppraiserLoft, the company in question, has been at the center of several non-payment and late-payment claims from appraisers, former employees and other parties, before and after it shuttered suddenly in October, according to public records. 

In this bundle of cases, administrative law judge Diane Mihalsky found that the company failed to pay Arizona appraisers for completed work within the required 45 days set by Arizona state law -- 181 times. It appears AppraiserLoft either resolved or made attempts to resolve 10 of those cases, but appraisers in the remaining 171 cases say they haven't seen payments yet, court documents show. 

Mihalsky, in a June 6 order, recommended that the Arizona Board of Appraisal fine AppraiserLoft $5,000 for each of the 171 violations, totaling $855,000, and revoke the company's license as an appraisal management company.

AppraiserLoft joins Global Appraisal Solutions, Appraisal Mediation Solutions, (Larry Holzer affiliated companies), and Security One Valuation Services (a Todd Barfield enterprise), as the poster children of fly by night Appraisal Management Companies. The unpaid fees are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Please be careful in extending credit to unknowns.

Two Bills With Appraisal Implications: To Governor's Desk

The regular session of the 2012 Florida Legislature wound up on March 9th. Hundreds of bills were considered, but the papers and news sites spent their time watching the usual subjects. Appraiser Active watched several bills with important amendments to Chapter 475, Part II, and implications for Florida Appraisers. After winding their way through committee meetings, analysis by staff, negotiation and amendments, two bills with significant amendments to Chapter 475, Part II were passed by the Florida House and Senate; HB 517 and HB 887. Both are headed to Governor Scott for his signature.


Here are the highlights. 

Probably the most important is the amendment to 475.6245 Discipline of appraisal management companies. Included among the grounds for discipline is this language:

(v) Has required or attempted to require an appraiser to sign any indemnification agreement that would require the appraiser to hold harmless the appraisal management company or its owners, agents, employees, or independent contractors from any liability, damage, loss, or claim arising from the services performed by the appraisal management company or its owners, agents, employees, or independent contractors and not the services performed by the appraiser.

Both HB 517 and HB 887 revise the definition of appraisal management company and appraisal management services.

(c) "Appraisal management company" means a person who performs appraisal management services regardless of the use of the term "appraisal management company," "appraiser cooperative," "appraiser portal," "mortgage technology company," or other term. (d) "Appraisal management services" means the coordination or management of appraisal services for compensation by: 1. Employing, contracting with, or otherwise retaining one or more licensed or certified appraisers to perform appraisal 370 services for a client; or 2. Acting as a broker or intermediary between a client and one or more licensed or certified appraisers to facilitate the client's employing, contracting with, or otherwise retaining the appraisers.

The term "subsidiary" is defined with respect to the relationship between appraisal management companies and banking entities.

(t) "Subsidiary" means an organization that is owned and controlled by a financial institution that is regulated by a federal financial institution regulatory agency.

To comply with the Dodd-Frank Act, an exemption was created for appraisal management companies owned and controlled by a federally regulated financial institution.

Additional amendments require the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board to adopt standards of practice that "meet or exceed nationally recognized standards of appraisal practice, including standards adopted by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation.

Applicants for appraiser registration, certification, or registration as an appraisal management companies must sign a pledge indicating that upon becoming registered or certified, she or he will comply with the standards of professional practice established by rule of the board, including standards for the development or communication of a real estate appraisal.


If signed by the Governor, HB 517 has an effective date of July 1, 2012, and HB 887 will be effective October 1, 2012. Afterwards, the FREAB will certainly be busy working on rules to implement the new provisions.

AMC Indemnification: Bill Introduced to Limit Use in Florida

Over the past six months, Appraiser Active has posted several times about the use of indemnification clauses in Appraisal Management Company agreements with their panel appraisers. NAR has called for a ban on such agreements, particularly those that indemnify and hold harmless the AMC against any suit, threat, or claim on any work product or service provided as part of the contract agreement.

The 2012 Florida Senate and House have stepped up to the plate with the introduction of SB 1252 and H 887. The bills are virtually identical. Both include this language: (proposed amended/added text is underlined)

475.6245 Discipline of appraisal management companies.—


(1) The board may deny an application for registration of an appraisal management company; may investigate the actions of any appraisal management company registered under this part; may  reprimand or impose an administrative fine not to exceed $5,000 for each count or separate offense against any such appraisal management company; and may revoke or suspend, for a period not to exceed 10 years, the registration of any such appraisal management company, or place any such appraisal management company on probation, if the board finds that the appraisal management company or any person listed in s. 475.6235(2)(f):


(v) Has required or attempted to require an appraiser to sign any indemnification agreement that would require the appraiser to hold harmless the appraisal management company or its owners, agents, employees, or independent contractors from any liability, damage, loss, or claim arising from the services performed by the appraisal management company or its owners, agents, employees, or independent contractors and not the services performed by the appraiser.

It's a start. Next on the list of things to do is propose some amendments to pare the size of the FREAB back down to 7 members, and limit the guaranteed AMC representation down to 1 member.

In the meantime, let Senator Dennis Jones and Representative Clay Ingram know you of your appreciation and support.

Happy New Year. Stay tuned.

Appraisal Management Companies - Background Checks

In the past week a reporter for my local paper, the St. Petersburg Times, wrote an  article about applicants for real estate licenses with criminal convictions. Marc Puente described how some folks with what appear to be convictions for serious crimes find that is not an impediment to getting a Florida Real Estate License.

As a former member of the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board (FREAB), I found the article interesting and informative. Although the "character" requirements for real estate licensees and real estate appraisers are similar, on more than one occasion the FREAB denied an applicant the Florida Real Estate Commission found acceptable. After reading the article I took at look at the agenda for the December meeting of the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board. Their meeting is December 8th and 9th, 2011.

An item on the agenda is labeled "Summary of Applicants". The individuals named fall in to one or both of two categories:

• Their application disclosed a criminal history record, or disciplinary action against a professional license.
• Their application did not disclose a criminal history record, but the check of fingerprints by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and/or the Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed a conviction.

Florida appraiser and appraisal management company applicants are required to disclose any criminal history and actions against any professional license in Florida or any other state.

Do you all find it interesting that of 11 names on the list of Summary of Applicants, 8 are with Appraisal Management Companies?

Knowing that folks with dubious backgrounds have started Appraisal Management Companies, and that a well known AMC recently folded and left a reported $3,000,000 in unpaid appraisal invoices, I expect the members of the FREAB will give these folks the scrutiny the law demands

Valuation Support Services (VSS) - Appraiser Panel Agreement

As long as we're talking about AMC Appraiser Indemnification, here is a copy of the Valuation Support Services (VSS) Standards & Approval Documentation Requirements and their Appraiser Panel Agreement. This gem has some interesting twists and language. The full copy is available after the jump, but here are a couple of clauses I find interesting:

Page 4:

The intent of this Agreement between Valuation Support Services (VSS) and Appraiser is to outline the roles, responsibilities, commitments and escalations of the parties.

Conviction of Crimes: VSS is unable to enter into associations with individuals, who have been convicted of or plead guilty to any crime involving dishonesty or breach of trust, or have been convicted of or plead guilty to any felony or misdemeanor. Appraiser warrants he/she has truthfully and accurately answered the "Additional Information" questions on the VSS Appraiser Application, has provided full disclosure through letter(s) of explanation for all questions answered affirmatively. Appraiser acknowledges and agrees he/she will be directly involved in providing services in accordance with this Agreement and has met this standard.

Fees: VSS Reserves the right to charge fees for appraisal panel services rendered to Appraiser, such as systems access, technology and website applications utilized by Appraiser, and/or allocate the cost of state or federal appraiser/panel registration and similar fees. Advance notice, as practical, shall be provided to Appraiser along with a description of the fees to be charged. Appraiser agrees to pay VSS promptly per the payment terms specified in the notice provided. (Red Added for Emphasis) (It's RED in their agreement)

Page 6:

3. Appraiser will not accept orders directly from VSS' clients. Appraiser agrees that all orders must be received from Valuation Support Services (VSS) electronically.

4. VSS clients Appraiser may service include, but are not limited to: CoreLogic Appraisal Services, Prime Valuation Services, and RelsValuation.

Page 7:

17. Revisions to Sales Contracts: Appraiser acknowledges that in connection with his/her appraisals, he/she may receive revised sales contracts that change the purchase price due to alterations of the improvements. Upon receipt of a revised sales contract that modifies the purchase price due to alterations of the improvements, Appraiser will analyze the change(s) and make appropriate revisions to the appraisal report. The revisions to the report include changing the terms of the contract for sale in the contract section, adjusting the comparable sales as needed, and if the opinion of value is changed, providing a detailed explanation for the change in value.

(Hmmm. I wonder what a state regulatory board would have to say about this provision?)

Of course, on Page 9:

Indemnification: Appraiser will indemnify and hold harmless VSS, a division of RELS, LLC, and each VSS entity for any liability arising out of Appraiser's work product or for the release of any appraisals without VSS' permission. Appraiser is liable for payment of any legal fees, claims, damages, losses and liabilities resulting from Appraiser's work product or non-performance of the duties and obligations identified herein.

One of the best, however, is the requirement on Page 2:

Appraiser (signature)(Requires Digital Signature to be uploaded.):

All very interesting. Also interesting is the number of Florida Appraisers asked to send in a copy of a digital signature to OK this agreement, given the fact that VSS is NOT currently registered as an Appraisal Management Company with the Division of Real Estate or the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board. The MyFloridaLicense site does not show an application in process either. Does this outfit look like a Management Company for Appraisal Management Companies?

Agreement in full is after the jump.

CLICK to Read More

American Banker: Appraisal Management Companies Create More Problems

Here'a an opinion piece from American Banker - Appraisal Management Companies Create More Problems Than They Solve. Sure, a couple of the details about the Home Valuation Code of Conduct (HVCC), and lenders being required to place their appraisal orders with Appraisal Management Companies are not quite right, but it's hard to argue with this comment:

When the final chapter on this housing crisis is written, I hope that I am still around to see those who were responsible for its cause and the feeble attempts to fix it held responsible.

One of the worst fixes is the Home Valuation Code of Conduct. Enacted in 2009, HVCC was spearheaded by then New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. His objective was to rein in appraisal abuses by the lenders sending loans to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.

The author, Richard Booth, fails to point out the HVCC was negated by Dodd-Frank, but let's face it, the replacement has the same effect on appraisers and consumers.

Today many of these AMCs are directly or partially owned by mortgage wholesalers and large national banks. They hide behind the firewall of an independent company, but if they own that company, either in whole or a piece, who are they kidding?

Imagine needing a medical doctor and having to go through an intermediary who will decide which doctor you may visit, and that doctor is chosen primarily on his fee charged, not expertise.

Consumers are paying more for residential appraisals. The appraisers who are doing the work are receiving a fraction of what they once earned. Unfortunately this structure has chased away many good appraisers who are unwilling to do more work for much less money

and

Since the HVCC was enacted I have seen a steady decline in the quality of residential appraisal reports. I have witnessed appraisers who are traveling from out-of-state and without any basic knowledge of the subject community. Understanding the area in which you have accepted an assignment is a basic rule of appraising.

Appraisers are under pressure from their new bosses at the AMCs. An extremely knowledgeable appraiser confided in me that he is forced to produce more comparables within a specific time period, judge the future value of a home in a declining market and most recently provide aerial photographs for the subject property.

Read the entire article HERE.
.

Indemnification Clauses - UPDATE

A few days ago Appraiser Active posted about a from NAR President, Ron Phipps, to federal agency heads encouraging the bar of indemnification clauses used by Appraisal Management Companies (AMCs). Brian Davis, from Appraisal Scoop, was kind enough to spread the word, and many others read the letter on the NAR Appraisal Insight blog.

Now, Peter Christensen, from the Appraiser Law blog, has a very informative new post: "What's Wrong with Most Indemnification Clauses in AMC Contractor Agreements?"

Peter echos several points that were expressed as concerns in the NAR letter. For example:

5. The clauses negatively affect the quality of an AMC's appraiser panel. All things being equal, a rational lender should have less interest in retaining an AMC that uses an unreasonable vendor agreement. I believe that unreasonable contract language results in an overall lowering of the quality of an AMC's appraiser panel because, on average, fewer appraisers who are better trained, economically stable, and careful about reading legal verbiage choose to work for AMCs with the worst agreements.

7.  The bottom line.  Perhaps the bottom line is that a $200-$400 appraisal can't and shouldn’t be relied on to guaranty repayment of a $1 million loan if someone later deems the appraisal “faulty.”  Every appraiser performing valuations will have appraisals that can be deemed "faulty."  Good appraisers should be selected and used because they are trusted as competent, reliable and honest and render opinions of value that are on average accurate and reliable and within a range of acceptable errors.  They should not be employed as financial guarantors of value -- unless AMCs or lenders are willing to pay for the price of shifting that risk.

 Head on over to the Appraiser Law blog to read the full post. Spread the word!

NAR Encourages Bar of AMC Indemnification Clauses - UPDATED

UPDATED - August 15, 2011

In a letter to the heads of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, Veteran's Administration and the Federal Housing Finance Agency, NAR President, Ron Phipps, encourages the bar of indemnification clauses used by Appraisal Management Companies (AMCs).

Appraiser Active last mentioned indemnification clauses in a post about the LandSafe Appraisal Services Agreement. The folks over at the Appraiser Law Blog have written extensively about the danger to appraisers stemming from agreeing to indemnification.

A pdf of the full NAR letter is posted after the jump, but here's a preview:

Appraisers provide an independent and impartial analysis of the market, and acredible opinion of the value of real property. This analysis is a critical component of the mortgage transaction and, in recent months, has become thesubject of unnecessary pressure. The mounting use of indemnification clauses by AMCs may be interfering with the appraiser’s independence and objectivity. In many cases, appraisers are asked to sign contracts that include language to indemnify and hold harmless the AMC against any suit, threat, or claim on any work product or service provided as part of the contract agreement. In some instances, the appraiser is even required to indemnify the lender and the AMC for amounts equal to their costs in repurchasing a mortgage loan, regardless of any proof of culpability on the part of the appraiser.

Let's see if these government agencies respond to the challenge.

UPDATE - August 15, 2011: The Appraiser Law Blog has a review of the LSI Appraisal Independent Contractor Agreement. Here's an excerpt.

"LSI’s agreement itself is only three pages and does not contain many of the unreasonable provisions found in other AMC contractor agreements. However, like most AMC agreements, it does contain an indemnification provision. While the indemnification clause is not as extreme as found in some other AMC agreements, the provision in LSI’s agreement is still. . ."


"Also, we do have concerns stemming from the FDIC’s civil complaint for negligence and breach contract against LSI Appraisal relating to appraisals performed for WaMu in 2006-2008. The FDIC has specifically alleged in that case that appraisals supplied by LSI from approximately 200 of its panel appraisers were deficient and has suggested that many additional appraisals beyond the ones specifically identified may become part of the lawsuit. We will update our appraisers here on readimember.org if we begin to see LSI attempt to shift liability to individual appraisers in that case."

CLICK to Read More

New GAO Report Released - Residential Appraisals

The GAO has released their latest study of the Real Estate Appraisal Profession and the appraisal regulatory structure. This full title of the report is RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL - Opportunities to Enhance Oversight of an Evolving Industry. It's just out, and I've not had a chance to read it all, or very closely, but it looks like the Evolving Industry referred to is Appraisal Management.

Here's a LINK to the GAO site for the document. The full document is also posted vai SCRIBD after the jump. Let me know what you think in the comments. Here are a couple of interesting excerpts:

In contrast with appraisals, BPOs do not have standard requirements and are generally not considered a credible valuation method for mortgage originations. According to some mortgage industry participants, a key disadvantage of BPOs is that real estate brokers and agents who perform them are not required to obtain training or professional credentials in property valuation, and the BPO industry lacks uniform standards. At least one industry group has developed standards of practice for BPOs, which are reportedly used by some BPO providers, but adherence to these standards is voluntary. Similarly, the industry has not adopted standardized BPO forms, resulting in differences in the content and quality of BPO reports, according to some mortgage industry participants. Additionally, BPOs provide somewhat different information than appraisals—a sales price or listing price rather than the property’s market value. The enterprises do not permit lenders to use BPOs for mortgage originations, and guidelines from federal banking regulators state that BPOs do not meet the standards for an evaluation and cannot be used as the primary basis for determining property values for mortgages originated by regulated institutions.

In the section with observations about AMCs, you'll find this:

• Selecting appraisers. Appraiser groups said that some AMCs select appraisers based on who will accept the lowest fee and complete the appraisal report the fastest rather than on who is the most qualified, has the appropriate experience, and is familiar with the relevant neighborhood. They said that, with many experienced appraisers departing from the industry, less experienced appraisers, who are often willing to accept lower fees, are left to perform most of the work.
• Reviewing appraisal reports. According to some appraisal industry groups, some AMCs’ appraisal reviews overemphasize how close the appraiser’s value conclusion is to an expected value generated by an AVM, at the expense of other important elements of the appraisal, such as the appropriateness of the comparable sales. One group noted instances in which AMCs told appraisers which comparable sales to use when the appraisers’ original value conclusions were not consistent with AVM-generated values.
• Establishing qualifications for appraisal reviewers. Representatives of an appraisal industry group told us that some AMC reviewers may lack the expertise necessary to identify problems with quality. They noted that in some states appraiser licensing and certification requirements do not address qualifications for appraisal reviewers.

Read and Comment!

CLICK to Read More

U.S. House Committee on Financial Services - Hearing, July 13, 2011 - UPDATED

UPDATED - VIDEO LINK ADDED

Tomorrow, July 13, 2011, the U.S. House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity, will hold a hearing at 2:00 PM in 2128 Rayburn House Office Building.

The get together, entitled “Mortgage Origination: The Impact of Recent Changes on Homeowners and Businesses” has two panels of "witnesses" representing a wide array of government agencies and interest groups. These include the Federal Reserve, HUD, the Appraisal Subcommittee on the side of the government.

Interest groups to be represented include appraisers, mortgage bankers, mortgage brokers, Realtors, appraisal management companies and Hispanics. As is the custom, most of the witnesses have submitted written testimony in advance of the hearing. Some of it is interesting, some thoughtful. Portions are pandering, and some will infuriate. Most likely, you don't have time to read it all, but here are a couple of interesting excerpts:

Sara W. Stephens, MAI, CRE, representing the Appraisal Institute, includes these thoughts about Reasonable and Customary Fees:

Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve Board issued a rule that fails to implement the plain language and public policy intent of defining reasonable and customary fees as those not involving appraisal management companies – a retail fee, if you will. In our view, the reason Congress included this provision in the Dodd-Frank Act is to help ensure that appraisers receive adequate compensation for the education, experience, and time necessary to prepare credible appraisal reports. While the price of any service will always be a factor, quality and competency and transparency to the consumer should come first. Business models that helped fuel the fundamentally unsound run-up of the past decade placed far too much emphasis on pricing and bundling of services and focused scant attention on appraisal quality. Congress got it right; unfortunately, the Federal Reserve got it wrong.

National Association of Realtors representative, Steve Brown, has this to say about appraisals:

REALTORS® support and encourage credible, independent appraisals and valuations of real property, which are critical to the health of the overall real estate industry. A trustworthy valuation of real property 1) ensures the real property value is sufficient to collateralize the mortgage, 2) protects the homebuyer, 3) allows secondary markets to have confidence in the mortgage products and mortgage backed securities, and 4) builds public trust in the real estate profession. Professionally developed valuations provide an independent, objective analysis of real property. Valuations that are not credible or not independent harm communities and result in unintended consequences. The purchase of a home is the largest investment most people make. A valuation that does not properly reflect the owner’s equity and may require the owner to pay increased fees or inject unneeded additional liquidity into a collateralized loan to meet higher lending requirements. Valuations of real property that are too high give a false sense of security to homeowners seeking access to the equity in their homes and to lenders making a determination as to the security of their loan. Valuations that are too low may create a downward cycle of economic deterioration for neighborhoods and communities and cause increased cash requirements on lenders.

 and, Don Kelly, speaking for both the Real Estate Valuation Advocacy Association (REVAA), on behalf of REVAA and the Coalition to Facilitate Appraisal Integrity Reform provides some views of the landscape from the perspective of AMCs: 

Fair is a coalition of five of the nation's largest AMCs, which operate networks of individual appraisers and appraisal firms for the completion of appraisal reports (These five AMCs include: 1. LSI, a division of Lender Processing Services, Inc; 2. ServiceLink Valuation Solutions, LLC, a Fidelity Natioinal Financial, Inc. company; 3. Valuation Information Technology, LLC d/b/a Rels Valuation; 4. CoreLogic, Inc.; and 5. PCV/Murcor. Rels Valuation is an affiliate of CoreLogic, Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank).

There are significant benefits for both an appraiser and a lender when they work with an AMC......

That's as much as I can take on that one. You'll have to follow the LINK to read the rest of Don's comments.

If there ever was a time to contact your member of Congress, this is it.

UPDATE - VIDEO LINK ADDED

It's a long hearing, almost 3 hours. To save time, check Marc Savitt at 1:35, Sarah Stephens at 1:40 and her discussion of appraisal fees at 1:42. Don Kelly talks at 1:46 and tries to justify the AMC support of unreasonable fees at 2:46.

AMC Independence Clipped in Florida - July, 2011

Despite the efforts of the Florida Legislature and Appraisal Management Companies, the regulation of Appraisal Management Companies became effective July 1, 2011. The Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board posted the following on their site:

Regulation of Appraisal Management Companies – Effective July 1, 2011

On July 21, 2010 President Obama signed into law the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The Act requires State regulatory agencies to regulate Appraisal Management Companies (AMC). Florida’s regulatory program for AMCs was created in 2010 when House Bill 303 was signed into law. It became Chapter 2010-84 and amends Section 475, Part II, Florida Statutes..

The Department of Business and Professional Regulation has added information about the registration and regulation of Appraisal Management Companies to their FAQ site.

FS 475.6235 states in part, A person may not engage in appraisal management services for compensation in this state advertise or represent herself or himself as an appraisal management company, or use the titles appraisal management company, appraiser cooperative,appraiser portal, or mortgage technology company, or any abbreviation or words to that effect, unless the person is registered with the department as an appraisal management company under this section. However, an employee of an appraisal management company is not required to obtain a separate registration.

Additional guidance answers the question: Should I close my business while waiting for my license to be issued?

As of July 1, 2011, it is essential for an appraisal management company to immediately file an application to register with the Department; however, you can continue to operate while the Department and/or the board is considering your application for approval. Once approved, you will receive your license in the mail. An application that is denied must comply with the terms of the Final Order issued by the board.

The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate, and the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board continue to develop the program to meet the needs of our customers. Please refer to the FAQs for AMCs and check back for more information weekly.

As of today online registration is not available. A printable application is available HERE.

There's bound to be some growing pains, but the regulation of AMCs is great for Florida consumers and real estate appraisers. Thanks to the Director of the Division of Real Estate, Juana Watkins, and her staff for putting in the extra hours to make sure the information and applications were available on the effective date of the law. Great Job!

HB 5007 -Delay in Florida AMC Regulation - DOWN IN FLAMES!!

Since the beginning of this years' Florida Legislative Session, Appraiser Active has posted about the disaster that was HB 5007, "Reducing and Streamlining Regulations".

Well, yesterday was the last day of the 2011 session. HB 5007 had passed the House. It's companion, SB 1824, had passed the Senate. Both, however, had been amended several times in their respective chambers, and several differences had developed. The differences were significant enough for a Conference Committee to be appointed to iron them out.

The Conference report was adopted by the House, but late last night, my email inbox received this message:

H 5007 (2011) - Reducing and Streamlining Regulations - SENATE - Failed to pass as amended by Conference Committee Report; YEAS 18 NAYS 21.

LINK!!

LandSafe Appraisal Services Agreement

This LandSafe Appraisal Services Agreement made its debut within the past couple of weeks. It has prompted heated discussion on appraiser bulletin boards and facebook groups. For those of you not familiar with the name, LandSafe, Inc., established in 1994, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bank of America. Along with a wide variety of real estate closing services, LandSafe operates LandSafe Appraisal Services, Inc., an Appraisal Management Company.

A copy of the agreement is available at the link above, or below the fold. As an appraiser, it's your decision to become a party to the agreement or not, but you should take a long hard look at the obligations imposed on you.

For instance:

13.11 One aspect of the determination of Appraiser compliance with LandSafe Security Requirements is a review of Appraiser Security Controls. As a condition precedent to performance under this Agreement, Appraiser agrees to satisfy the following validation requirements: (a) participation in LandSafe’s Appraiser assessment process including the completion of online or on-site assessment(s), as appropriate, and remediation of any findings; (b) periodic discussions between LandSafe personnel and Appraiser Information Technology security personnel to review Appraiser Security Controls; and (c) if requested delivery to LandSafe of network diagrams depicting Appraiser perimeter controls and security policies and processes relevant to the protection of Confidential Information. Examples of these policies include, but are not limited to, access control, physical security, patch management, password standards, encryption standards, and change control.

and

14.1 Appraiser shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless LandSafe and its Representatives, successors and permitted assigns from and against any and all claims or legal actions of whatever kind or nature that are made or threatened by any third party and all related losses, expenses, damages, costs and liabilities, including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses incurred in investigation, defense or settlement ("Damages"), which arise out of, are alleged to arise out of, or relate to the following: (a) any negligent act or omission or willful misconduct by Appraiser or its Representatives engaged by Appraiser in the performance of Appraiser’s obligations under this Agreement; or (b) any breach in a representation, covenant or obligation of Appraiser contained in this Agreement.

17.1 Appraiser shall maintain at no additional cost to LandSafe, in a reasonably accessible location, all Records pertaining to its Services provided to LandSafe under this Agreement for a period of ten (10) years, and if such Records are used in a judicial (or other dispute resolution) proceeding related to an Appraisal Order(s), Appraiser shall retain them for ten (10) years following the disposition of the proceeding. Such Appraiser Records referenced above may be inspected, audited and copied by LandSafe, its Representatives or by federal or state agencies having jurisdiction over LandSafe, during normal business hours and at such reasonable times as LandSafe and Appraiser may determine. Records available for review shall exclude any records pertaining to Appraiser’s other customers deemed proprietary and confidential and Appraiser confidential and proprietary records not associated with the Services provided under the Agreement. Appraiser will give prior notice to LandSafe of requests by federal or state authorities to examine Appraiser’s LandSafe Records. At LandSafe’s written request, Appraiser shall reasonably cooperate with LandSafe in seeking a protective order with respect to such Records.


17.2 During regular business hours but no more frequently than once a year, LandSafe may, at its sole expense, perform a confidential audit of Appraiser’s operations as they pertain to the Services provided under this Agreement. Such audits shall be conducted on a mutually agreed upon date (which shall be no more than ten (10) Business Days after LandSafe’s written notice of time, location and duration), subject to reasonable postponement by Appraiser upon Appraiser’s reasonable request, provided, however, that no such postponement shall exceed twenty (20) Business Days. LandSafe will provide Appraiser a summary of the findings from each report prepared in connection with any such audit and discuss results, including any remediation plans. If audit results find Appraiser is not in substantial compliance with the requirements of this Agreement, then LandSafe shall be entitled, at Appraiser’s expense, to perform up to two (2) additional such audits in that year in accordance with the procedure set forth in this Section. Appraiser agrees to promptly take action at its expense to correct those matters or items identified in any such audit that require correction. Failure to correct such matters shall be considered a material breach of this Agreement.

Of course, there's more. Take a look at the assessment of the agreement at the Appraiser Law Blog, and their sister site, READI.
 
A complete copy of the LandSafe Appraisal Services Agreement is below the fold.

CLICK to Read More