Tag Archives: business management

CU and Me: Let’s Be Practical For A Moment -Part 2

February 13, 2015

Editorial by Woody Fincham, SRA 

woody CU

Over the next several days I will be posting up my thoughts on the recent Fannie Mae Lender Letter Lender Letter  LL-2015-02.  This is part 2.  Part 1 is here.  

So let us dive in to looking at that Lender Letter.  Each of the quoted sections comes from the Lender Letter, which is cited above this. Following each are my thoughts on the quoted section.

“CU does not accept or reject appraisal reports or characterize an appraisal as “good” or “bad.” The CU risk score and messages pertain to risk and identify potential defects in the appraisal report. The lender is not obligated to “clear” or “override” the CU messages. The messages are meant to be used as red flag messages that lenders should use to assist with their appraisal analysis and inform their decisions based on a complete analysis and understanding of the appraisal report.[1]

I think this clarifies some of the biggest concerns to what CU is and is not.  Most large lenders and appraisal management companies (AMCs) have been using all sorts of third-party review rule sets and data pools for many years.  So this is nothing new under the sun. It really is the first time they are pulling in data that is verified by appraisers.  It has the potential to be a good thing, but it could very well be a bad thing.  It will depend on how the lenders use it in their respective review processes.  It is certainly bad for appraisers if they approach it the same way that they approached the 15% and 25% adjustment guidelines. I will not get into the old adjustment guidelines to deeply yet, but we all know that many lenders were set in stone about the 15% and 25% guidelines when Fannie Mae was not.  Yet lenders and AMCs still required adherence to those guidelines in some cases as hard and fast rules.

Working in a market as I do in Charlottesville, VA I understand where some concern would come from in the appraisal community.  Much of my personal work involves complex residential assignments.  From what I gather from those I have spoken to at Fannie Mae, and what information I have read about CU, I imagine many of my reports will become a four or five in their system.  I deal with properties that require regional research because they are status homes: essentially unique and custom to the market.  I would assume that these types of properties represent less than 5% of that MSA, and transfer infrequently.  The market is also small on the urban-side and voluminous in the rural and transition from suburban to rural type properties; acreage varies greatly.  The fact the MSA is in the Appalachian Mountains and that Fannie Mae requires segregation of finished basements from above grade living area; an overwhelming number of homes are built on slopes that have basements. I think you see that unless I am in a planned neighborhood or condominium development, it is unlikely my work product can be seen as conforming.  By circumstance, these properties will rate high in risk.

If I felt like my ability to perform work would be affected by the CU rick scores, then I would be up in arms as well.  Many of my colleagues believe that the CU risk score will affect them.  While I cannot say that it will (or will not), if AMCs/lenders decide to use the information to benchmark appraiser quality it could be a nightmare for some appraisers.  When you get to my thoughts on the 15% and 25% adjustment guidelines, later in this piece you will see more of my perspective on this.  I could be wrong, but I am not going to be overly concerned… yet. Until I see things happen contrary to Fannie Mae’s stated position, I will defer on an alarmist attitude.

“CU does not provide an estimate of value to the lender. CU provides a numerical risk score from 1.0 to 5.0, with one indicating the lowest risk and five indicating the highest risk. Risk flags and messages identify risk factors and specific aspects of the appraisal that may require further attention.”

I know many appraisers were convinced that this was not the case.  Many were positive that Fannie Mae was going to assign scores to the individual appraisers.  It is easy to see why that would be a concern, as the last major Fannie Mae policy change dealt with the Uniform Appraisal Dataset (UAD).  Appraisers are directly monitored on consistency of data for comparables with the UAD, but not with CU.

It is easy to mix it all up.  If you submit data in violation to their UAD standards, that does affect you.  The CU rating score does not.  It is relative to the report itself, not to the appraiser. With that stated, AMCs and lenders COULD use consistent high-risk scores on reports as a means to stratify appraisers as problematic from those that get lower ratings.  If this type of comparison was made a tracked, it could affect me.  I do not compete with the typical mortgage-use appraisers in my market.  Plenty stay in homogenous subdivisions and I cannot do the work that they do at the price points they do them.  If their resulting reports are lower-risk scores by the nature of the conformity these properties present versus the types of properties that I typically work with, I will be seen as an inferior appraiser.  Fannie Mae may state their position on such things but that does not mean the lenders and AMCs will not distill and extend the information they see further.

This is getting into the realm of conjecture; as such, there is not a whole lot of merit to it at all.  It does make one stop and ask questions though. I try not to worry about things that I cannot control so I will leave such thoughts alone for now.  But I will come back to the way lenders took the 15% and 25% adjustment guidelines out of context and altered the profession. I will have some more on that later, of course.

“CU’s selection of comparable sales considers the relevance of each potential comparable sale based on physical similarity, time, and distance. The selection process is not based on the relative “risk” or sale price of a comparable sale nor is there a “lower is best” approach. In fact, CU may assign a high risk score to an appraisal when the model identifies alternative sales that are potentially more relevant than the comparable sales used by the appraiser, regardless of whether the alternative sales are higher or lower in price.”

This certainly is concerning for appraisers.  Appraisers are paid to perform the research and when we do it, we can get defensive about someone questioning it.  Call it professional pride, but this can be a catalyst to incite negativity among us quickly. It is probably a good idea that appraisers write their reports with the above in mind.  Part of this may be addressed by including commentary regarding ideal and typical improvements for the shared competing market.

Since the risk flags are triggered by not using properties that are more similar on paper, commentary may need to change to deal with these items in mind.  Canned commentary certainly will not work in many situations. I know this means taking the time to write custom commentary in every report, but with enough foresight, it is easy enough to build a template that is set up as a skeleton to which specific report comments can be added. I have also suggested to a few colleagues, when asked, that they approach this similar to ERC (employee relocation) reporting.  Possibly embedding a chart of all the comparables surveyed from MLS prior to distilling then down to the comparables in the actual report. I realize this is more work, but if we start seeing lots of kickbacks on this issue, this might be a way to avoid it.

The way CU is setup, at least how it has been explained thus far, is that data is stratified by census block groups (CBG), which goes into the next quote…

“CU takes location into account using Census Block Group levels, which are subsets of Census Tracts. This is the most viable proxy for location in the absence of standardized neighborhood definitions, and more effective than use of arbitrary distance guidelines. Fannie Mae is not suggesting that appraisers use Census Block Groups to define comparable search areas, but appraisers remain responsible for indicating when comparables are from outside of the subject neighborhood and for addressing any differences.”

This has caused quite the banter in social media appraisal groups and pages. There are all kinds of issues with this concept.  The most obvious one is that appraisers do not stratify by CBGs normally.  It would be great if the software companies could create or add a way to also tag which CBGs each comparable comes from or address it in the rules set reviewer in each of the form packages.  This would at least allow a streamlined tool to allow the appraisers to comment on this item.  Perhaps even a data point that could appear in MLS data.  Most addresses are geo-coded now, so it would be an assumingly easy thing to do by over laying the CBG maps to existing maps.

Obviously, Fannie Mae chose this methodology because neighborhoods will vary market to market.  My concern with it comes from the staff reviewers at lenders and AMCs (Quality Control or QC Staff) that are not familiar geographically (geo competency) with the area. This certainly gets back to USPAP regarding writing the report at level commensurate to the intended users.  Explain away would the obvious answer, but that also require the readers and QC Staff to read the reports thoroughly.  I often hear from folks involved in QC review that they prefer cogent writing and brevity.  From some of the reviews I have personally gotten from lower-level QC staff (unlicensed appraisers); it seems many struggle with common terms in real property economics.  I struggle with dealing with those that gloss over when I use terms such as linkage, commercial zones, obsolescence, etc.

This also still sets up the appraisers to deal with non-appraisers applying arbitrary guidelines.  While distance guidelines are now going to be relaxed, in their stead I dread the likely possibility that QC Staff will want CBG differences addressed.  A bit later, I will address the sun setting of the 15% and 25% adjustment guidelines, but one has to see the possible pitfalls with CBGs that the lender-leveraged adjustment guidelines created.  QC staffs need to be well trained to deal with this.  Nothing prevents individual lenders and AMCs from requiring more than Fannie Mae’s suggestion as to how to implement the CU into their work processes.

“The risk analysis performed by CU is for exclusive use by the lender in their analysis of the appraisal report. After completing a thorough review, a lender should be able to have constructive dialogue with the appraiser to resolve specific appraisal questions or concerns. Although the lender may use output from Collateral Underwriter to inform its dialogue with appraisal management companies and appraisers regarding appraisals they supplied, the CU license terms prohibit providing these entities with copies or displays of Fannie Mae reports that contain CU findings, including without limitation the CU Print Report, the UCDP Submission Summary Report, or any other CU report. The lender must not make demands or provide instructions to the appraiser based solely on automated feedback. Also, the CU license terms prohibit using it “in a manner that interferes with the independent judgment of an appraiser.” Fannie Mae expects the lender to use human due diligence in combination with the CU feedback, and will actively follow up with lenders who are reported to be asking appraisers to change their reports based on CU feedback without any further due diligence.”

Fannie Mae is pretty clear the impetus is not to strong-arm appraisers with the feedback and analysis done by the system.  There is a real desire to keep human beings in the mix from Fannie Mae’s side.  The possible disconnect I see will be on the competency of the QC Staff.  The way many AMCs and lenders approach QC reviews is by hiring unlicensed staff people and expecting them to understand what valuation professionals do. Each appraisal is different and finding comments buried in a 20-50 page report is arduous at best; I can struggle with it and I have performed hundreds if not well over a thousand reviews in my career. The tactic that most QC staff uses now is simply kick to out a report because they cannot find a comment, or how the appraiser addresses the issues up front, and rely on the appraiser to point it out.  There are already copious examples of appraisers stating they are often already addressed in the original report.  Unless there is some reengineering of the process, this will only get worse as now the QC Staffs will be armed with more data.

One thing that we have already seen from CU is the copying CU comments being sent to the appraisers.  I have seen several examples from colleagues where something was flagged in CU and no human review was done.  No dialogue was attempted between the QC staff and the affected appraiser.  Fannie Mae has made it clear that the CU scores and flags are meant to be dealt with by QC staff actually having dialogue with the appraiser.  Instead, what we are seeing so far is many QC Staff people are simply copying and pasting CU comments and sending them as a standalone engagement for revision or commentary for the appraiser to deal with.  That is not creating dialogue; it is asking the appraiser to the work for the QC Staff.  One would think, after reading Fannie Mae’s letter that the expectation is for the QC Staff to check the report in question before calling on the appraiser to do anything.  If the appraiser has reasonably commented or dealt with the issues of concern, they should be good to go.

Much of this is going to remain an issue with AMCs and lenders that continue to utilize the services of uneducated and undertrained QC Staff.  Large lenders and AMCs that process lots of volume expect an awful lot of their QC Staff.  Each appraisal, if written well, is stand-alone research project. It should be read and understood with the same care it was prepared.  Pulling in someone that has never read an appraisal report as an hourly reviewer and expect them to get through the jargon and concepts that are summarized in a mortgage use report is counter-intuitive.  Either the Lenders or AMCs need to start hiring competent and credentialed valuation professionals, or spend the resources needed to train raw talent.  Both aspects are expensive, and neither is an option with the current compensation structures in the mortgage and valuation overlap of space.  We will certainly discuss fee levels in depth a bit later.

“Fannie Mae does not instruct or suggest to lenders that they ask the appraiser to address all or any of the 20 comparables that are provided by CU for most appraisals. It is also not Fannie Mae’s expectation that appraisals should contain only CU’s top-ranked comparable sales. In the majority of cases, there may be no material difference between comparable sales utilized by the appraiser and those identified by CU. Before asking the appraiser to consider any alternative sales, it is imperative that the lender analyze the relevance of the sale and determine if the use of such sale would result in any material change to the appraisal report. If the lender determines that there would be no material change, then they should not ask the appraiser to make revisions. Fannie Mae expects CU to enable lenders to accept appraisals “as is” with greater confidence.”     

The previous comments I have made are applicable here, too.  The disconnect lenders had, again the adjustment ratio guidelines come to mind immediately, understandably make appraisers wince at this idea.  The biggest concern, here again, is that QC Staff must be at a level of competency to understand that suggested comparable sales are just that, suggestions.  The way this was handled pre-CU was to send an appraiser comparable sales that were not used and ask the appraiser to then comment on not using them or to possibly also include them.  Of course, the comedy often ensues when the appraiser replies back that, “Two of the three comparables you sent me to consider are already in the report.”  This type of real world scenario proves that where Fannie Mae may need to concentrate some of this reengineering of the process is on those that do review and QC work.

Not to plug the Appraisal Institute (AI), but this may be the very reason that the AI created the new review designations, AI-GRS and AI-RRS.  Review is a completely different animal than Standard-1 and Standard-2 reporting.  I understand that hiring such professionals is a higher cost, which means more cost to the consumer, but let us face it; you get what you pay for.  At the very least, if the lenders want to have a positive outcome from the QC side, it should be built around utilizing well-trained professionals and the review designations are a step in the right direction in my opinion.  And it really may not need to be at the consumer’s dime so much as maybe it should come from the lenders.  The last I looked the larger lenders have no problems posting profit reports.

I spoke with a chief appraiser with a major AMC last week.  He informed me that they have three levels of human reviewers.  The first level is a combination of using technology to flag potential issues and areas that may need more in depth analysis. If there is enough need to elevate it upwards, it is then looked at by a non-licensed staff person.   On the next and final level, a human being that is licensed is involved.  It is apparently an effective way to do things, but even their internal processes still leave some room for improvement.  When so much volume is handled by any given entity, and cost is always the biggest concern, it is impossible to hire but so much real talent.      I will come back to cost a little later when I discuss fees and compensation.

End of part 2.

Stay tuned more to come over the next week. If you have any suggestions or want to share some war stories, please send them over to woody@woodyfincham.com.

[1] “Lender Letter  LL-2015-02,” Fannie Mae, https://www.fanniemae.com/content/announcement/ll1502.pdf (February 2015)

Advertisements

CU and Me: Let’s Be Practical For A Moment -Part1

February 12, 2015

Editorial by Woody Fincham, SRA 

woody CU

Over the next several days I will be posting up my thoughts on the recent Fannie Mae Lender Letter Lender Letter  LL-2015-02.  This is part 1.  

On February 4, 2015, Fannie Mae released a new Lender Letter[1].  This was a full week and two days after they kicked off the Collateral Underwriter (CU). Many things in the residential valuation profession can create a stir, but few things create quite the clamor that a major government sponsored entity (GSE) policy change creates.  I helped co-write[2] an article on depreciated cost to support adjustments last week. As always, there are interesting comments on anything that gets published in our profession. Most have been very supportive, a few less so.

In the comments for that article, a pro-appraiser commenter was defensive of appraisers regarding the balance of how much work that can be done at such low fees for the mortgage clients.  His supposition is that the topic of the article was great but that appraisers could not possibly be expected to do that much work for the fee levels that are so common in the profession. I share that empathy for fee appraisers. I truly do.  I came up through the fee side of things, it is in my DNA and I will forever think of myself as an appraiser from that light.

I also share in the reality that some of my colleagues in the residential mortgage space are not doing much of anything to support adjustments.  Many have relied on “professional judgment” and “experience” when it comes to addressing adjustments, and sometimes that is offered in lieu of actual support.  I agree that both of these things have some merit, but often they are used in lieu of doing deductive research to support how much something is adjusted for in the grid.  They both can work when it comes to knowing something should be adjusted or not, but how much is sometimes thumb nailed or otherwise guessed at with no real support.  Before that sets off a bunch of personal barbs towards me, if you are doing your job in a manner that you are happy with, then keep doing that.

Of course if someone is reading this and my comments offend you because you do not support your adjustments; please be aware that my intention was/is not to do so.  I tend to be a bit of a purist when it comes to developing and reporting valuation services and that is for me and those that I manage.  What works for you is between you and the USPAP police.

I realize as a businessperson, there has to be a sweet spot between quality, speed and price.  That can be a hard thing to figure out.  If you focus on speed too much, quality tends to decrease. The same is true of price, if you can only get a low fee for your work; it becomes more difficult for some to rationalize not cutting corners to do it for less money.    If you focus on writing a demonstration-quality report each time out of the gate, you will go broke because you take too much time and if you charge at a commensurate level, you cannot be but so competitive. Balance is key in this space, and it will vary from practice to practice and market to market.

When we wrote that piece, it was a suggestion to ferret out support by using something many of us are familiar with but may have not used in a while.  It was also written to introduce the topic to folks that have never used it or thought to use it.  This approach was offered in because many colleagues were being pushed towards alternatives that are being sold as expensive “wonder approaches”.  Rather than seeing honest people buy a bag of magic beans, we offered another less expensive alternative.  So the article was written with empathy towards fee appraisers.

So as these few pieces roll out over the next few days, I hope that my perspective adds some food for thought.  This is certainly not an attack piece on Fannie Mae.  Fannie Mae work is an important part of residential valuation, one that is much too big to shrug off and say, “Well, smart appraisers shouldn’t do lender work.” This sentiment is simply not possible for everyone, and we need to all voice our concerns for all of our colleagues in the profession. Residential lending work is a lucrative part of the valuation profession, a low hanging fruit if you will.

This will also not be an attack piece on AMCs as they serve a function to our mutual clients.  Whether we like or dislike AMCs, they are here and will remain a part of the landscape for the foreseeable future. Instead of wallowing in the pig pen of discontent, we need to figure out how to make the best of the situation.   There has to be some sort of symbiosis attainable, so that everyone can get what they need and can reasonably attain some of what everyone wants.What I hope this is seen as is a common sense observation based on how all three entities, appraisers, AMCs and lenders can coexist. No one has the perfect answer but I hope this might add some positive discourse.

balance

Balance

Stay tuned more to come over the next week. If you have any suggestions or want to share some war stories, please send them over to woody@woodyfincham.com.

[1] “Lender Letter  LL-2015-02,” Fannie Mae, https://www.fanniemae.com/content/announcement/ll1502.pdf (February 2015)

[2] Rachel Massey, Woody Fincham, and Timothy Andersen, “Depreciated Cost, a Test of Reasonableness,”

http://www.appraisalbuzz.com/depreciated-cost-test-reasonableness/ (February 2015)

Non-Lender Valuation: Consumers Should Tread Carefully

By Woody Fincham, SRA

This post was originally posted to the Appraisal Buzz

Competition, in a free market, is a fierce catalyst: one that can effectively sort out the bad apples from the bunch. Capitalism works, it is simple when left unfettered and when all parties are ethical in their approach to business. It works until politicians, however well meaning they try to be, step in with a”solution”. Through the Dodd-Frank reform and the Andrew Cuomo created Home Valuation Code of Conduct that predates Dodd-Frank, congress effectively went anti-small business again. I liken this profession’s recent undermining by congress to how they saw to sort out the small-family farmers by paving the way for companies like Monsanto and ConAgra.

Competition is fierce in the valuation profession these days. For competition to work, it does require a level playing field. Presently, in residential valuation, there is no such thing as a level playing field. There are still lots of mortgage-use reports to do, but these reports are being filtered through appraisal management companies (AMCs). The AMC model chooses the cheapest appraisers competency is a distant second to cost, and like most things, you get what you pay for.

The quality of appraisal reports ordered thorough AMCs is getting bad enough that members of the Appraisal Foundation (TAF) have been quoted recently in the media with some interesting points. In a recent Chicago Tribune, John Brenan, director of appraisal issues, is quoted as stating:

“First, there is no additional revenue to fund AMCs, so the fee that an appraiser would earn is now divided between the AMC and the appraiser. Appraisers are making less money, and they have a new middleman they wind up working through. They’re looking to engage the cheapest and fastest appraisers. So, we’re seeing appraisals done across the country where the appraiser does not have what is, in fact, required under standards we write for geographic competency” (Glink & Tamkin, 2013).

By Mr. Brenan’s comments, it is obvious that enough emphasis was not placed on the things that matter. Instead of requiring the banks to pay for the alteration, a market was enhanced for non-appraisal entities to make money. Instead of enhancing the appraisal process, they provided a market that actually counters retaining well-qualified appraisers. It is a pretty big deal when an organization like TAF is drawing attention to the deficiencies found in the appraisal profession. One should give pause when history has proven repeatedly what happens when the collateral of mortgages is not properly vetted. The recent mortgage bust was partially created by issues with appraisals.

I would also supplement that most of the problems fell squarely on the big banks and how they retained and utilized appraisal services. Instead of requiring lenders to do the correct thing with retaining qualified appraisers, AMCs were given preference as a means to outsource the responsibility or at least the appearance of responsibility. The lenders got the advantage of AMCs seeking out minimally qualified appraisers that follow narrow scope of works (SOWs). Rather than hiring appraisers that are both competent and confident, they hire those that are prone to following without question. They effectively dictate to a large section of these appraisers how to do their job.

I know what you are thinking: Fincham your title says non-lender valuation, so why are you writing about Dodd-Frank and AMCs? Good question…

Non-lender valuation is the last bastion of market share that exists where appraisers can actually bill at a commensurate rate. These types of assignments will include appraisal reports performed for many situations such as wealth-management, divorce, and other litigation related needs. Oftentimes, intended users need to find the most qualified and experienced appraisers. Well-vetted experts are most applicable when testimony is needed. As litigation and divorce proceedings have evolved over the years appraisers are not needed as much for testimony; a report will satisfy the streamlined processes. In these situations, attorneys are not as involved with selecting appraisers as they were in the past.

Attorneys understood the need of retaining the best appraiser he or she could find. They needed someone that could write reports well enough to be seamless and defensible but also handle cross-examination in a trial or handle the craziness that can be a pre-trial deposition. It takes a good professional to write the report, but an even greater one to be effective on the stand or to help with pre-trial preparation. In the case of wealth management: to talk to an accountant and walk them through a report or analysis on the phone.

With less emphasis placed on the interview skills of the appraiser, many attorneys have relegated the retainer of an appraiser back to the client. Most consumers do not really understand what they need. The consumer makes a call, or does an internet search, to find an appraiser based on the only criteria that the do understand: cost. They also negate the importance of selecting the right professional in case they may need testimony later in time.

They can contact a well-qualified appraiser that understands the work involved with their situational needs, or they can contact an appraiser that does mostly government sponsored enterprise (GSE) work. Appraisers that do mostly lender-use work within a very confined box, and unless they have a background in non-lender work, will likely not have the problem solving skills needed for thinking outside of that box. AMCs often provide such detailed instructions to their roster appraisers, that the appraiser is boxed into a very narrow scope of work (SOW). These appraisers are experts at meeting the SOW established with the AMC. However, what happens when these narrow SOWs are removed? You introduce someone that specializes in filling out a form to a world full of variables and possibilities.

An appraiser is only as valuable as their experiences allow them to be. Part of this value is knowing and recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches to value. An even bigger part is thinking in the abstract and knowing that in trials and depositions, an attorney will exploit a weakness in a report. They will discredit an otherwise good appraiser if that appraiser is incapable of dealing with questioning effectively. Appraisers that concentrate solely on mortgage-use reports have no background to be effective in these types of situations.

So How Does Dodd-Frank Tie In?

Therein lies my problem with the AMC bred and conditioned appraisers. The fees have been beaten down so low for mortgage work that the appraisers that only do AMC related work are now trying to compete in the more lucrative non-lender market. Here we have members of TAF acknowledging that the lender market is using less-than-optimal appraisers. That alone is enough to make a normal person pause and pay attention. This was Washington’s answer to a problem they did not understand, and by stepping in, they created waves that extend beyond their intended design. They destabilized the market for established and trusted professionals.

These same mortgage-use appraisers have discovered that non-lender work pays better: in some cases, much better. They capitalize on the naivety of the consumer base. In a sense, they are capitalizing on a competitive advantage, but only an artificial one that was created by the meddling of politicians. In a very real way, Dodd-Frank is now affecting the valuation profession outside of the mortgage business.

In that same Chicago Tribune article, David Bunton the president of TAF stated “Most appraisers not going to turn around a top quality appraisal in 24 hours, for half of the normal fee. So you get people who are less experienced, who have less business clientele, and they may end up driving 4 to 6 hours for $150. We’re concerned about quality” (Glink & Tamkin, 2013).

Mr. Bunton, we are all concerned over quality. Those of us that have refined our toolsets and experience are being passed over for appraisers that have been subsidized by a flawed mortgage market that is propped up by the AMC model. The weak links of that subset of appraisers are now matriculating into non-lender work. In a way, the biggest user of appraisal services, the mortgage companies have once again undermined the appraisal process. By law, appraisers are required to abide by USPAP to preserve the public trust. Until lenders and AMCs are required to follow it, it will remain nothing more than a very effective tool to make those that claim to be ethical blend in with those of us that actually are beholden to our professional integrity.

The bottom line for appraisers, attempt to educate your attorney clients and colleagues on the differences between what a true professional appraiser is and what a primary mortgage-use appraiser is. Reach out and network with your bar associations and other professional organizations. Distinguish yourselves from the group through education and networking opportunities.

The bottom line for consumers: be careful whom you attempt to retain. Be willing to ask an appraiser why they are a better pick than market of other appraisers. Be willing to check references and ask for a resume. Take your time and make sure this appraiser is well qualified and not just minimally qualified. The inverse to you using a well qualified can actually cost you more money. If you end up in a trial, the cost to have your attorney reorder a better report, or pay a well qualified appraiser to assist in pre-trial analysis. Even worse, you may find that across the courtroom, your opponent hired the appraiser you should have, and now your mortgage-use appraiser will be in contrast to a superior professional.

Works Cited

Glink, I., & Tamkin, S. (2013, December 26). How do you get a great appraisal? Try eliminating the AMC. Retrieved from Chicago Tribune real estate: http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/sns-201312221330–tms–realestmctnig-a20131226-20131226,0,4405990.column