Fannie

By Ryan Lundquist

Excerpt: The Issue: I was asked to appraise something challenging, so I quoted a fee that was higher than a standard fee in Sacramento but still reasonable for the job because the house was funky. Anyway, I was comfortable with the fee and it was accepted by the AMC (Appraisal Management Company) that the lender hired to manage the appraisal ordering process.

But then things got interesting because through the course of the transaction someone showed me an email from the loan officer where I learned the AMC was actually charging the buyer $345 higher than the fee I quoted. What the? That seemed excessive, but the real clincher for me was the email showed a chain of conversation with the AMC where they said I was the one who quoted the much higher fee. Not only was the AMC gouging the buyer in my opinion, but there was a blatant lie that I was the one dictating this fee that was 43% higher than the one I quoted.

Look, I’m not a complainer and I am a total optimist, but this is not okay on so many levels.

———————————————————————-

 by Dave Towne

Excerpt: Through several of the ‘media sources’ I read recently, I’ve learned that “a particular AMC” based on the west coast has a slow pay reputation.

As so often happens with low echelon AMCs with few clients, when business slows down, their payment process becomes a Ponzi scheme. Ultimately they go out of business.

I currently have an outstanding report with that AMC, but the payment due date to me is March 7. So I’m respectfully withholding their name publicly from others, until and unless they don’t pay me on time.

Over past years I’ve written about how appraisers MUST keep close track of their submitted reports and payments due for them. Too many appraisers get busy and neglect to monitor their Accounts Payable for their business.

My comment: A good reminder of AMCs that are in trouble. Read Dave’s suggestions. I am very strict and have loss less than $2,000 in 30 years of fee appraising. It was my fault for poor client screening. I write about this topic regularly in my paid Appraisal Today newsletter, usually when business slows down.

Click here to read plus the many comments.

———————————————————–

By Isaac Peck, Editor

Excerpt: Many states also have AMC laws that have stringent requirements that AMCs must notify an appraiser when he or she is removed from an appraisal panel. Unfortunately, the lack of enforcement actions against AMCs for such violations has caused many appraisers to question whether such regulations have any effect at all.

However, in a precedent setting move, the Washington State Department of Licensing has recently become the first regulatory agency to fine an AMC for removing an appraiser from an appraiser panel without proper notification. In September 2015, the American Reporting Company (ARC) was sanctioned for “removing a real estate appraiser from [an] appraiser panel without proper notifications” and failing to “provide [a] real estate appraiser [the] opportunity to respond to removal from panel.”

Click here to read the full article for lots more info, plus the comments from appraisers.

———————————————————

WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 8, 2017) – Mortgage applications increased 3.3 percent from one week earlier, according to data from the Mortgage Bankers Association’s (MBA) Weekly Mortgage Applications Survey for the week ending March 3, 2017. The previous week’s results included an adjustment for the President’s Day holiday.

The Market Composite Index, a measure of mortgage loan application volume, increased 3.3 percent on a seasonally adjusted basis from one week earlier. On an unadjusted basis, the Index increased 16 percent compared with the previous week. The Refinance Index increased 5 percent from the previous week to the highest level since December 2016. The seasonally adjusted Purchase Index increased 2 percent from one week earlier. The unadjusted Purchase Index increased 15 percent compared with the previous week and was 4 percent higher than the same week one year ago.

The refinance share of mortgage activity increased to 45.4 percent of total applications from 45.1 percent the previous week. The adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) share of activity increased to 7.7 percent of total applications to the highest level since October 2014. The average loan size for purchase applications reached a survey high at $313,300.

The FHA share of total applications decreased to 11.8 percent from 12.3 percent the week prior. The VA share of total applications decreased to 11.6 percent from 11.7 percent the week prior. The USDA share of total applications remained unchanged at 0.9 percent from the week prior.

The average contract interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages with conforming loan balances ($424,100 or less) increased to 4.36 percent from 4.30 percent, with points increasing to 0.44 from 0.38 (including the origination fee) for 80 percent loan-to-value ratio (LTV) loans. The effective rate increased from last week.

The average contract interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages with jumbo loan balances (greater than $424,100) increased to 4.27 percent from 4.23 percent, with points increasing to 0.26 from 0.25 (including the origination fee) for 80 percent LTV loans. The effective rate increased from last week.

The average contract interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages backed by the FHA increased to 4.18 percent from 4.07 percent, with points decreasing to 0.32 from 0.37 (including the origination fee) for 80 percent LTV loans. The effective rate increased from last week.

The average contract interest rate for 15-year fixed-rate mortgages increased to 3.57 percent from 3.51 percent, with points remaining unchanged at 0.36 (including the origination fee) for 80 percent LTV loans. The effective rate increased from last week.

The average contract interest rate for 5/1 ARMs increased to 3.48 percent from 3.35 percent, with points decreasing to 0.20 from 0.29 (including the origination fee) for 80 percent LTV loans. The effective rate increased from last week.

The survey covers over 75 percent of all U.S. retail residential mortgage applications, and has been conducted weekly since 1990. Respondents include mortgage bankers, commercial banks and thrifts. Base period and value for all indexes is March 16, 1990=100.