Thursday, October 8, 2009

Congressional Hearings - HVCC Problems Exposed


Early this morning, we posted some information about a Congressional Hearing on "The Future of the Federal Housing Administration’s Capital Reserves: Assumptions, Predictions and Implications for Homebuyers", and mentioned at least one of the several witnesses will discuss the Home Valuation Code of Conduct (HVCC).


It turns out that one other witness at that hearing, Boyd Campbell, brought up changes to the FHA Appraisal process in his written testimony and HAVOC in verbal testimony.

FHA has also released mortgagee letters on appraiser independence, effective January 1, 2010. We support FHA’s language related to geographic competence, especially as it relates to the use of Appraisal Management Companies (AMCs). FHA does not require lenders to utilize AMCs, and reinforces the importance of geographic competence. Consumers and REALTORS® have encountered significant problems with appraisals when the appraiser is not familiar with the community in which the home is located. FHA’s mortgagee letter states that lenders and appraisers are both responsible for the quality and accuracy of the appraisal. FHA states that the lender is responsible for determining whether an appraiser’s qualifications are sufficient prior to assigning an appraisal. Appraisers are reminded that USPAP applies to all appraisals performed for properties that are security for FHA. In addition, FHA’s letter states that if the lender orders an appraisal through an AMC or another third party organization the lender must ensure that specific guidelines are followed to ensure the FHA appraiser is compensated appropriately and that the fee charged to the consumer for the appraisal report is consistent with the market rate for appraisals.

The letter also provides guidance on the subject of appraisal portability. NAR believes it is important for borrowers to have complete flexibility in choosing a lender, and should not be hampered by having to repeat an appraisal simply because they switched lenders. NAR feels strongly that consumers should not be required to pay excessive fees for appraisals, nor be subject to appraisals conducted by appraisers who are not familiar with their market. Mortgage brokers and lenders underwriting staff will be prohibited from ordering the appraisal. This will create a firewall between lending staff and the appraiser and enhance the independence of the appraisal process. To further support the independence of appraisers and to ensure uniformity in the real estate industry we have called on FHA to work with the GSEs to established a combined frequently asked questions (FAQ) document that will be codified in existing appraisal policies. In a recent meeting, FHA Commissioner David H. Stevens has asked his staff to begin discussions with the GSEs to further explore this recommendation. We support these changes by FHA.




The witness list included Joseph Confora, Broker Owner of Century 21 Selmar Realty, on behalf of the National Association of Realtors®. His testimony touched on a number of subjects, and included quite a few comments and recommendations concerning the HVCC:


APPRAISAL: THE HOME VALUATION CODE OF CONDUCT

The tax credit is a good thing, but a major stumbling block for consumers and for practitioners is the current operation of the property appraisal process. In fact, current appraisal practices threaten to undermine the efficacy of the tax credit. NAR supports the independence of appraisers and the integrity of the appraisal process. We commend Attorney General Cuomo and both government sponsored enterprises (GSE), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, for their efforts to address appraisal fraud in the mortgage industry. We wish, however, to express concerns about the Home Valuation Code of Conduct (HVCC or the Code) they have issued. We support its intent to address appraisal fraud, but we have serious concerns about the implementation and adverse unintended consequences it has had on the real estate industry.

The HVCC has been in effect for five months. The Code is causing delays in closings and even canceled sales, which lead to artificially low existing home sales. While our monthly index of pending home sales shown steady growth in potential home sales for seven straight months, NAR’s Chief Economist, Lawrence Yun, notes that not all of these contracts are turning into closed sales. He notes that “The rise in pending home sales shows buyers are returning to the market and signing contracts, but deals are not necessarily closing because of long delays related to short sales, and issues regarding complex new appraisal rules.

and


HVCC May be Increasing Costs to Consumers

The HVCC agreement reached between the Attorney General Cuomo and the GSEs, and approved by Director Lockhart, does not address the costs of the real estate transaction. Appraisers now must consider their obligations under the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) and the Appraisal Foundation and the additional burden of complying with the HVCC. Higher costs may also be an issue for lenders. The creation of a new set of standards to follow and a new oversight organization may lead to increasing the cost of the real estate transaction. According to NAR survey data, the cost of the appraisal has increased by as much as $100 for consumers.

and

AMC Regulation Improving at State Level

Because the HVCC requires mortgage brokers to arrange for appraisals through third party organizations, AMCs now have an increased role in the real estate appraisal process. In fact, the number of our appraiser members obtaining more than half of their assignments from AMCs increased from 13 percent to 40 percent after May 1, 2009. These AMCs are giving appraisers assignments in areas where they lack geographic competency. For a variety of reasons, appraisers may feel compelled to take these assignments. More than 70 percent of Realtors responding to our June survey report appraisers lacking geographic competency for their assignments. Recently, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the FHFA, and FHA have all reaffirmed the existing geographic competency rule found in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). While the geographic competence problem existed prior to the implementation of the HVCC, the problem is exacerbated by the increasing prominence of AMCs since May 1, 2009.

NAR believes there is a critical need for regulation at the state level. Aside from geographic competency, our survey found that appraisers have less time to complete an appraisal report and the quality of appraisals is deteriorating. Perhaps most importantly, both Realtors and appraisers report that overall fees to appraisers are declining, so the cost of an appraisal is increasing for the consumer.


and one of the best points!

Lender-Owned AMCs Cause Conflicts of Interest

The proposed HVCC would have barred lenders and affiliates of lenders from relying on an appraisal report obtained by, or through, an appraisal management company (AMC) that is more than 20 percent owned by the lender or affiliate of the lender. The final Code does not limit lender ownership of AMCs. We disagree with this result. NAR believes that lenders should be prohibited from using an appraisal report from an AMC where the lender or the lender’s affiliate maintains any ownership stake. Allowing lenders to obtain appraisal reports from AMCs where the lender has a stake in ownership does not meet the goal of the HVCC to assure the independence of the appraisal process.

There is much more in the written testimony. You can read it all right HERE.

In my view, there's quite a bit to like about this testimony from the NAR representatives. Nevertheless, there is room for improvement. After all, this hearing was before the Committee on Small Business. There should have been some discussion of the adverse impact of the Home Valuation Code of Conduct on thousands of small, independent appraisers and appraisal companies. Soon, the data will be available about the number of appraisers leaving the profession, primarily because of HAVOC.


Looks like Appraiser Active will have to get busy and compose some talking points for the next hearing.

HVCC - Will be Mentioned in Congressional Hearing


Today the House Committee on Financial Services, Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity will start a hearing in the early afternoon. Although the subject of the Subcommittee Hearing is "The Future of the Federal Housing Administration’s Capital Reserves: Assumptions, Predictions and Implications for Homebuyers", at least one of the several witnesses will discuss the Home Valuation Code of Conduct (HVCC).

The prepared testimony John Councilman, Federal Housing Committee Chair, National Association of Mortgage Brokers, includes these comments:

All the emphasis is mine.


The HVCC is a highly controversial shift in appraisal policy that is the result of a joint agreement reached between the GSEs, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”), and New York Attorney General, Andrew Cuomo. The HVCC purports to enhance the independence and accuracy of the appraisal process. However, what the HVCC truly accomplishes is an increase in consumer costs, a decline in appraisal quality, the extension of closing deadlines, and the virtual extinction of independent appraisers.

.....

The impetus behind these new appraisal policies – the HVCC and the new FHA guidelines – is the perception that appraisers were being pressured or improperly influenced by mortgage originators. However, the HVCC is failing to provide any greater protection for appraisers. Appraisers are still subjected to significant pressure and undue influence, but instead of coming from mortgage originators it is now coming from the Appraisal Management Companies (“AMCs”) that were granted a virtual monopoly over the appraisal process by the HVCC.


In fact, a growing number of appraisers are reporting that the pressure and attempts to improperly influence their professional judgment is far worse under the AMC dominated regime prescribed by the HVCC than it ever was when appraisers were permitted to work directly with originators. Specifically, appraisers are reporting that AMCs are requiring them to prepare appraisals in violation of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (“USPAP”) and generally accepted appraisal guidelines.


Today, unlike when an appraiser had multiple mortgage broker and/or loan officer clients, the HVCC has restricted their work to be on behalf of only one or possibly two AMCs. Under this construct, if an appraiser fails to comply with any AMC "request,” they will no longer receive appraisal assignments from possibly their only client. With many knowledgeable and skilled appraisers unwilling to work under such conditions and consequently leaving the profession, the appraisers that remain willing to work for the AMCs are generally far less qualified and experienced. This has resulted in a rapid decline in appraisal quality since the implementation of the HVCC, which directly contradicts the widely purported view of HVCC proponents that turning over virtually exclusive authority for appraisal ordering to thirdparty AMCs would produce more accurate appraisals.



The prepared testimony of each witness is available on the House Committee on Financial Services website. The hearing will be web cast as well.

It would be nice if the NAR testimony made some of the same points. Unfortunately, it's pretty vanilla and much less forceful.

By the way, H.R. 3044 is stuck at 110 cosponsors. Follow the links and encourage your member of Congress to support the bill.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

TAVMA Blog


Appraiser Active has linked to the TAVMA Blog previously. It prompted a few comments and an interesting discussion about Appraisal Management Companies and the effect on them as a result of efforts by states to bring them under the regulatory umbrella.

This post, interests me. Here's an excerpt:

And, although I've not written an article on the topic, I'd say that the HVCC has to some extent forced some good appraisers – and bad and in-between appraisers too to be fair – out of the market. My theory about where HVCC may play a role involves appraisers who built their marketing strategy around direct-orders from mortgage brokers and Realtors. Banning broker- and Realtor-ordered appraisals abruptly severed these appraisers’ direct marketing ties to some long-time clients. Some were able to acquire new clients and join one or several AMC fee panels. However, it is likely that others lost their traditional client base (i.e. brokers) without an immediate alternative or perhaps the business development acumen to sustain the business.

Yet if demand for appraisers has dropped by half over the past 6 years as measured by mortgage originations, and the number of certified and licensed appraisers has trended upward during that time frame, wouldn't it make sense that there'd be shakeout in the ranks of appraisers?

FWIW, there has been a shakeout in the ranks of appraisers, but at least here in Florida, the dramatic drop has been in the number of TRAINEE Appraisers. during the last renewal cycle (November 30, 2008), over 4,000 Trainees failed to renew their license. Here is the current licensee count. It will be interesting to follow the renewal statistics in states AFTER the HVCC implementation. Talk on the street is the Appraisal Subcommittee is worried about their budget for the coming year because of dismal appraiser renewal numbers.

I've had some interesting back and forths with Jeff. This seems like it will start another one. What do you think?

Jeff was supposed to be on the AARO Panel with me next weekend. It's too bad the cast of characters has changed.

AARO - Association of Appraiser Regulatory Officials


The ASSOCIATION OF APPRAISER REGULATORY OFFICIALS (AARO) will be meeting October 10 - 13, 2009 in Washington, D.C. for the Annual Conference. This is the second of two meetings AARO has each year.

According to their bylaws, their MISSION is to improve the administration and enforcement of real estate appraisal laws in member jurisdictions. The agenda for the Fall, 2009 program reveals the effort to meet that mission. In addition to regular meetings of their committees on AQB Oversight, ASB Oversight, Investigator Training and Education, several panel discussions and guest speakers are scheduled. These include:

Consistent Enforcement - Enforcing USPAP
  • Joe Traynor - Chair, The Appraisal Foundation Consistent Enforcement Task Force
  • Jenny Tidwell - Appraisal Policy Manager, Appraisal Subcommittee

Updates

The Changing Face of the Appraisal Profession

HVCC - Appraisal Management Companies and Broker Price Opinion Issues

Lender Policy Updates and Issues

  • Peter Gillispie - Federal Housing Administration / Department of Housing and Urban Development
  • Robert Murphy - Fannie Mae
  • Jacqueline Doty - Freddie Mac
  • Gerry Keifer - Veterans Administration

From 2000 through 2008, when I was a member and Chairman of the Florida Real Estate Appraisal Board, I attended nearly every meeting of AARO. Each provided great opportunities to meet with other state regulators as well as individuals involved in appraisal policy development, appraisal standards development and enforcement and refinement of appraiser qualifications.

Although I won't be able to attend the entire meeting, each of the above discussions is on my calendar. I'll try to live blog a bit from the AARO meetings next weekend and provide a full update after returning to the Sunshine State.

FWIW, you can catch my article about the HVCC on page 4 of the latest AARO Newsletter.

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Security One Valuation Services - UPDATE from Todd Barfield


It's been about a week since we posted the email from Todd Barfield. He provided some information about what is going on with the FDIC and checks issued to Appraisers from Security One Valuation Services, LLC; many of which were returned to the depositor unpaid.


Since many readers and commenters are still asking questions, and there has been no apparent resolution, we asked Todd Barfield for an update on the situation. Here's what he has to say:




The communications between the FDIC and legal counsel for SecurityOne Valuation Services, LLC (SecurityOne) have been substantially unproductive. We do recognize the FDIC is dealing with a lot of issues other than those of SecurityOne and believe we have established a good working relationship. Therefore, we have been patient in awaiting some meaningful response. However, that patience is near exhaustion. SecurityOne starts from a position of disadvantage; that is SecurityOne is not even sure what the FDIC’s current position is. At this time we have not received any of the requested documents regarding the account at Platinum Community Bank. These documents will be key to resolving SecurityOne’s issues with the FDIC.


SecurityOne is in doubt as to what restrictions the FDIC is unilaterally imposing on significant liquid assets of SecurityOne. However, we simply do not have information adequate to evaluate the potential outcomes.

This is unfortunate for all of us. There have been various threats of litigation from vendors against SecurityOne Valuation Services LLC. We are hopeful that these vendors will reconsider any legal remedies at this time. Consequently, once our vendors begin legal proceedings for collection on SecurityOne Valuation Services LLC, it is most likely the entity will have no choice other than to file for bankruptcy protection. This will not be beneficial to anyone involved and will only reduce SecurityOne’s ability to pay its creditors if the funds are released. Additionally, there would be more government intervention.

Thank you for your patience and we apologize for the inconvenience.

That's all we have for you at this point. Please let me know if you hear any news; good or bad.

FREDDIE MAC UPDATES HVVCC PAGE - IVPI Complaint Form Added


Since the Home Valuation Code of Conducte (HVCC) was implemented on May, 1, 2009, we've been wondering when (and if) the Independent Valuation Protection Institute (IVPI) would be established.


Well, folks, today we get a bit of information. Freddie Mac has updated a page with some information about the IVPI. Here's what Freddie has to say:




Independent Valuation Protection Institute

We are working with the New York State Attorney General, FHFA, Fannie Mae and other mortgage market participants to develop the Independent Valuation Protection Institute (Institute).

When established, the Institute will offer, among other services, a method for receiving complaints related to non-compliance with the Code. In the interim, a Web site is being created to receive and register complaints from appraisers, individuals and entities on non-compliance with the Code. The interim Institute Web site is currently under development and will be launched in November 2009. The sample complaint form [PDF] that will be used for complaint submissions on the interim Institute Web site is now available to preview. While the complaint form is available for previewing today, it may not be submitted until the interim Institute Web site is
launched.

The provisions related to the the Institute are not effective until the Institute has been established.

Make sure you follow the link to the sample COMPLAINT FORM.


This is my favorite part:


Thank you for your submission of a Complaint Regarding Improper Appraisal Conduct as described in the Home Valuation Code of Conduct. You may not hear anything further related to your complaint or the outcome of the resulting investigation. Your complaint will be taken seriously and appropriately investigated.
For some reason, I thought the IVPI was supposed to offer a "hotline" for complaints? Here's the language in the HVCC:

The Independent Valuation Protection Institute

An Independent Valuation Protection Institute (Institute) shall be created as approved by the parties. Subject to section IX, when the Institute is established, the lender will provide information to appraisers and borrowers regarding the availability of the Institute's services, which are expected to include: (1) a telephone hotline and email address to receive any complaints of Code of Conduct non-compliance, including complaints from appraisers, individuals, or other entities concerning the improper influencing or attempted improper influencing of appraisers or the appraisal process, which the Institute will review and report as provided in IV.B(8) and IV.C(2) of this Code of Conduct; and (2) the publication and promotion of best practices for independent valuation. The lender shall not retaliate, in any manner or method, against the person or entity that makes a complaint to the Institute.

Comments?

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Todd Barfield (Security One Valuation Services, LLC) Speaks


Last week, Appraiser Active mentioned that Todd Barfield, one of the owners of Security One Valuation Services, LLC, gave us a call to provide some explanation about what is going on behind the scenes. He was invited to send us an email with more information and assured it would be posted here. He no longer has control of the Security One web site and says he has no means of communicating with appraisers that have received checks that have been returned unapid.

The email below was received this morning from Todd Barfield. It is reproduced exactly as it was received.



In our efforts to keep the appraisers informed about this unfortunate situation with SecurityOne Valuation Services LLC (SecurityOne), below are some emails providing correspondence with the FDIC to SecurityOne. Please note, SecurityOne representatives and its legal counsel were working diligently to protect the funds and move the money from Platinum Community Bank several weeks prior to it’s closing, however, these requests were denied (the FDIC was not involved at that time). In addition, we encountered several delays once Taylor, Bean & Whitaker (TBW) filed for bankruptcy protection. After discussions with the restructuring group for TBW, SecurityOne was permitted to resume operations and continue paying our appraisers. There are additional investigations we are pursuing in relationship to the account at Platinum Community Bank. At this time, SecurityOne and the FDIC have not been provided the necessary account information to determine if the funds qualify for The Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP). The FDIC has been very cooperative, however, to our understanding, must fully investigate SecurityOne’s affiliation with Taylor, Bean & Whitaker. Realistically, SecurityOne and its vendors are in a very unusual position because the bank funds are frozen.


Without belaboring too much detail, we are all in a similar situation and consequently the payments for SecurityOne’s legal representation have been returned also. Fortunately, our legal counsel believes we are very close to some answers on the insurable status of the funds and they will continue working on this for a limited period of time.

SecurityOne will continue to process payments and replace the returned checks once the funds are released.


Thank you for your understanding and support.

The following program may be applicable to SecurityOne’s account at Platinum. As indicated on the FDIC website, Platinum did not elect to “opt out” of this program, however, the FDIC legal department is researching this matter for clarification.

The Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program (TLGP) is a program adopted by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) on October 13, 2008 during the Global financial crisis of 2008 to encourage liquidity in the interbank lending market.


Several stated purposes of this program are (1) "to decrease the cost of bank funding so that bank lending to consumers and businesses will normalize." [1] and (2) "to strengthen confidence and encourage liquidity in the banking system by guaranteeing newly issued senior unsecured debt of banks, thrifts, and certain holding company, and by providing full coverage of non-interest bearing deposit transaction accounts, regardless of dollar amount."

The TLG Program became effective on October 14, 2008 and was subsequently revised based on bank feedback. Many FDIC insured entities have chosen to not participate ("opt out") in one or both of these programs.

EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE FROM FDIC TO SECURITYONE VALUATION SERVICES LLC

Monday September 21, 2009 (it appears there is a typo on the date 08.04.2009 which should read 09.04.2009)

We are receiving a tremendous amount of phone calls regarding an appraiser blog reporting on SecurityOne Valuations and the returned checks. It may reduce the volume of calls both to your business and the FDIC and help your business's reputation is people knew the reason the checks were being returned. Perhaps you could post something like this on the blog:

"Platinum Community Bank was closed but the Office of Thrift Supervision on 09.04.2009. The FDIC was appointed as receiver of the institution and paid out the insured deposits. ALL deposit accounts were closed which means that checks that had not cleared our account as of 08.04.2009, are being returned to the payee with a notation "Bank Closed" or something similar. SecurityOne Valuations is working with the FDIC to release our funds so we can begin replacing the returned checks."

People just need to know what is going on. We would appreciate your assistance on this matter.


Wednesday September 16, 2009

I have requested information from my contractors onsite. It may take a few days for a response. However, I did want to let you know that I can not provide any information as to correspondence with the OTS. Number 3 in your letter requests document copies of "instructions or other communications with the OTS." I suggest you contact the OTS for this information. Thank you.


Tuesday September 15, 2009


This email is in response to the SEVERAL emails and phone calls from Security One Valuation Services to the FDIC.

Currently, there is an account hold in place on an account was originally set up with funds from TBW or funds that shared ownership with TBW or an officer of TBW. TBW is now involved in a fraud investigation for both the Platinum Community Bank Receivership and the Colonial Bank Receivership. The Receiver has the ability to hold accounts that may be related to a fraud investigation. If Security One can prove that none of the funds in the account stem from TBW or belong to TBW or any of its officers then we can release the hold.


The FDIC's specific statutory basis for freezing a depositor's funds of a failed bank is codified in 12 U.S.C. § 1822(d), which allows the FDIC to withhold payment of a portion of an "insured deposit" of a depositor pending the determination and payment of a liability of the depositor to the bank involved. The Corporation may withhold payment of such portion of the insured deposit of any depositor in a depository institution in default as may be required to provide for the payment of any liability of such depositor to the depository institution in default or its receiver, which is not offset against a claim due from such depository institution, pending determination and payment of such liability by such depositor or any other person therefore.”


Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thank you.

At this point, that's all I have. We'll stay in touch and provide updates when available

Friday, September 18, 2009

Security One Valuation Services - UPDATE


Earlier today Appraiser Active received a telephone call from Todd Barfield. As many of you know, Todd was/is one of the principals of Security One Valuation Services, LLC. Todd has been following Appraiser Active, the posts about Taylor, Bean & Whitaker, Security One, and the comments about appraisal fees and bounced checks.


Todd provided quite a bit of information and background along with some explanation about what is going on behind the scenes. Because he is interested in letting folks know what is going on, and no longer has control over the Security One website, I invited him to write a post for Appraiser Active. I expect he will take me up on the offer.


Information will be posted here on Appraiser Active just as soon as it becomes available.


Tuesday, September 15, 2009

HVCC Moratorium Bill Update - 10/2/2009


UPDATE 12/9/2009
UPDATE 11/10/2009
UPDATE 10/15/2009
UPDATE 10/9/2009
UPDATE 10/2/2009
UPDATE 9/29/2009


Shortly after Congress returned from their summer recess, members started signing on as Cosponsors of H.R. 3044.





As of today, there are 86 Cosponsors.

As of today (September 19, 2009), there are 91 Cosponsors!



As of today (September 28, 2009), there are 99 Cosponsors!

As of Today (October 2, 2009), there are 108 Cosponsors!



As of Today (October 9, 2009), there are 110 Cosponsors!

As of Today (October 15, 2009), there are 112 Cosponsors!

As of Today (November 10, 2009), there are 121 Cosponsors!

As of Today (December 9, 2009), there are 123 Cosponsors!

Although there has been quite a bit of news about amendments passed in Committee to alter the Home Valuation Code of Conduct, it appears as though there is still interest in H.R. 3044


If your US Representative is not on the list, PLEASE contact your Member of Congress and ask them to co-sponsor H.R. 3044.

The bill has not yet been heard in committee, but adding cosponsors will help ensure that will happen.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Never Forget


No additional explanation necessary