ACOW, the Appraisers’ Coalition of Washington, is your statewide organization for all appraisers. ACOW’s primary purpose is to monitor the state legislature with our paid lobbyist for any activity affecting our profession. This happens more frequently than you may know. The secondary purpose is to hold an annual event where several state approved CE seminars are presented over two days. This is an excellent venue to fill your CE requirement dance card, and to mix and mingle with your peers.
It has become apparent that the level of enthusiasm among statewide appraisers to support and promote ACOW membership ($45 annual) is less than hoped. ACOW may not be able to continue to be your eyes and ears in Olympia. And the annual event (August 19-20) may be affected, forcing cancellation. ACOW is managed by a dedicated group of appraisers who volunteer their time and effort. A small portion of dues income is used to pay a professional support staff for limited ancillary services.
ACOW is fortunate to have one of the finest lobbyists in Olympia, at a fee far less than he normally charges other groups. And at a fee much less than other lobbyists for other organizations charge their clients. I’ve checked. But due to lack of ACOW membership, we risk having that relationship end. Without his services, we appraisers may face some serious negative consequences when we are not directly and continuously represented.
So my questions to you are these:
1- If you are not now an ACOW member, will you commit today to log onto the ACOW web site and select the best payment option (credit card or mailed check) for you? www.acow-wa.org (Apologies to those ACOW members who received this msg. No time to sort out current membership due to urgency.
2- Please respond to this message and let me know if you will commit to attend ACOW at the Summit, Aug. 19 & 20, 2011 – Howard Johnson Inn at Snoqualmie Pass.
Thank you for your support.
Dave Towne
Friday, April 8, 2011
A Serious Warning for Appraisers about E&O Insurance
Excerpted from this article by Peter Christensen
"… No one can deny that appraisers, and the AMCs and lenders who hire them, are the subject of record levels of appraisal liability claims. The most frequent source of claims as a group continues to be financially troubled borrowers, who collectively account for more than 50% of appraisal-related claims, and the single biggest source of claims continues to be the FDIC. Most claims also continue to relate to appraisals delivered between 2004-2008.
"The reaction to this crisis by some E&O insurance providers has been to pull back from the risk faced by appraisers and severely limit appraisers' insurance coverage. This reaction is exposing many appraisers and the parties who hire them to risks for which the appraisers have no coverage. In the most extreme example, the Five Star Appraisers E&O program and certain underwriters at Lloyd's of London decided in late 2010 that they would not renew any insurance policies for appraisers who needed coverage for appraisal work they did in the past (aka "prior acts") and discontinued their existing policy. Instead, appraisers were offered the chance to purchase a new "no frills" policy which does not cover any of the appraisers' "prior acts" before the date of the new policy. This means that appraisers who choose this policy have no coverage under that policy for any appraisal work they have done in the past.
"…The new Five Star/Lloyd's is cheap -- and can be cheap -- because it provides no coverage for most of the claims that appraisers are now experiencing…"
The article includes a list of some of the most worrisome exclusions in the new Five Star coverage.
http://www.appraiserlawblog.com/2011/04/very-serious-warning-for-appraisers.html
"… No one can deny that appraisers, and the AMCs and lenders who hire them, are the subject of record levels of appraisal liability claims. The most frequent source of claims as a group continues to be financially troubled borrowers, who collectively account for more than 50% of appraisal-related claims, and the single biggest source of claims continues to be the FDIC. Most claims also continue to relate to appraisals delivered between 2004-2008.
"The reaction to this crisis by some E&O insurance providers has been to pull back from the risk faced by appraisers and severely limit appraisers' insurance coverage. This reaction is exposing many appraisers and the parties who hire them to risks for which the appraisers have no coverage. In the most extreme example, the Five Star Appraisers E&O program and certain underwriters at Lloyd's of London decided in late 2010 that they would not renew any insurance policies for appraisers who needed coverage for appraisal work they did in the past (aka "prior acts") and discontinued their existing policy. Instead, appraisers were offered the chance to purchase a new "no frills" policy which does not cover any of the appraisers' "prior acts" before the date of the new policy. This means that appraisers who choose this policy have no coverage under that policy for any appraisal work they have done in the past.
"…The new Five Star/Lloyd's is cheap -- and can be cheap -- because it provides no coverage for most of the claims that appraisers are now experiencing…"
The article includes a list of some of the most worrisome exclusions in the new Five Star coverage.
http://www.appraiserlawblog.com/2011/04/very-serious-warning-for-appraisers.html
Thursday, April 7, 2011
April 14 Meeting Agenda
Board of Directors Meeting – Preliminary Agenda
Thursday, April 14, 2011, 6:00 p.m. – Please Plan to Begin Promptly
Lamb Hanson Lamb Office – Seattle
4025 Delridge Way SW, Suite 530
Seattle, WA 98106 (206.903.1500)
For the Lamb Hanson Lamb Office, the building elevators close at 5:30pm; for the Lamb Hanson Lamb offices at 5:30pm.
If attending and plan to arrive after this time, please call ahead of time to arrange for access
(For directions, go to: http://acow-wa.org/MtgDates.html)
To attend the meeting via phone conference: -dial 1.218.339.4300 -when prompted dial access code: 872158#
Call to Order
1. Establish Quorum: Justin Slack, President
2. Approval of Agenda: Justin Slack, President
3. Approval of Prior Meeting Minutes: Justin Slack, President
Officer Reports
1. President’s Report: Justin Slack, President
2. Treasurer’s Report: Joe Creech, Treasurer
a. Monthly and Current YTD Status
Committee Reports:
Ad Hoc Membership Committee Dave Towne
Summit (Topics) Dave Towne
Old Business:
1. Legislative/Regulatory Issues:
a. WAC Rulemaking for new WA AMC law
b. HB 1371 REAC/ Advisory Committee
2. Administrative Topics:
a. Chapter Member outreach
b. Paying Lobbyist in 2011
c. Fundraising Ideas for remainder of year
New Business:
1. Administrative Topics:
a. Green Rountables (Olympia/ Bellevue—March 2011)
b. 2012 ACOW Status
Announcements:
1. Next ACOW Meeting Date: May 5, 2011
Adjournment: Justin Slack, President
For more on ACOW, click: www.acow-wa.org
Board of Directors
Justin Slack, President
Mark Noble, Vice President
Joe Creech, Treasurer
Michael Imes, Secretary
Jodi Standaert, Director
Barry Wilson, Director
George Nervik, Director
Thursday, April 14, 2011, 6:00 p.m. – Please Plan to Begin Promptly
Lamb Hanson Lamb Office – Seattle
4025 Delridge Way SW, Suite 530
Seattle, WA 98106 (206.903.1500)
For the Lamb Hanson Lamb Office, the building elevators close at 5:30pm; for the Lamb Hanson Lamb offices at 5:30pm.
If attending and plan to arrive after this time, please call ahead of time to arrange for access
(For directions, go to: http://acow-wa.org/MtgDates.html)
To attend the meeting via phone conference: -dial 1.218.339.4300 -when prompted dial access code: 872158#
Call to Order
1. Establish Quorum: Justin Slack, President
2. Approval of Agenda: Justin Slack, President
3. Approval of Prior Meeting Minutes: Justin Slack, President
Officer Reports
1. President’s Report: Justin Slack, President
2. Treasurer’s Report: Joe Creech, Treasurer
a. Monthly and Current YTD Status
Committee Reports:
Ad Hoc Membership Committee Dave Towne
Summit (Topics) Dave Towne
Old Business:
1. Legislative/Regulatory Issues:
a. WAC Rulemaking for new WA AMC law
b. HB 1371 REAC/ Advisory Committee
2. Administrative Topics:
a. Chapter Member outreach
b. Paying Lobbyist in 2011
c. Fundraising Ideas for remainder of year
New Business:
1. Administrative Topics:
a. Green Rountables (Olympia/ Bellevue—March 2011)
b. 2012 ACOW Status
Announcements:
1. Next ACOW Meeting Date: May 5, 2011
Adjournment: Justin Slack, President
For more on ACOW, click: www.acow-wa.org
Board of Directors
Justin Slack, President
Mark Noble, Vice President
Joe Creech, Treasurer
Michael Imes, Secretary
Jodi Standaert, Director
Barry Wilson, Director
George Nervik, Director
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
SEC Proposes Credit Risk-Retention Rules
MARCH 30, 2011
By Jessica Holzer Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The Securities and Exchange Commission voted unanimously Wednesday to issue draft proposals forcing firms that package loans and other assets into securities to hold a portion of the credit risk on their balance sheets.
The "risk-retention" rules, mandated by the Dodd-Frank financial law, will hit every corner of the securitization markets, from car loans to mortgages. The law requires banks and other issuers of securitized assets broadly to retain 5% of the credit risk on the theory that they will adopt more prudent lending standards because they will have "skin in the game." Issuers that pool assets that meet certain conservative lending standards will be exempted from the risk-retention requirement.
Wednesday's proposal is identical to draft rules issued by five other regulators, including the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., earlier this week. The Dodd-Frank law directs six federal regulators to write the rules jointly.
Under the proposal, certain "safe" residential mortgages that meet a 20% downpayment requirement will be excluded from the risk retention rules. Issuers of securitized assets backed by certain commercial loans, commercial mortgages and car loans that meet underwriting standards set forth by federal bank regulators will also be exempted.
In remarks at the meeting, Commissioner Kathleen Casey, a Republican, said she wanted to see stakeholders and the public comment on whether the requirements are too restrictive or permissive and whether the exemption for certain residential mortgages is appropriately crafted.
"This proposal cannot be the final word on risk retention regulation," she said. "This market is too fundamental to our economy to get risk retention wrong. Thus, the rules that we ultimately adopt must support or, at a minimum, not unduly hinder the securitization market."
Meanwhile, Commissioner Luis Aguilar, a Democrat, requested that people comment on whether securitizers could skirt the proposed rules.
The proposal is now open for public comment until June 10. A second vote by the commission and approval by the five other regulators is required before it can be made final.
-By Jessica Holzer; jessica.holzer@dowjones.com
By Jessica Holzer Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--The Securities and Exchange Commission voted unanimously Wednesday to issue draft proposals forcing firms that package loans and other assets into securities to hold a portion of the credit risk on their balance sheets.
The "risk-retention" rules, mandated by the Dodd-Frank financial law, will hit every corner of the securitization markets, from car loans to mortgages. The law requires banks and other issuers of securitized assets broadly to retain 5% of the credit risk on the theory that they will adopt more prudent lending standards because they will have "skin in the game." Issuers that pool assets that meet certain conservative lending standards will be exempted from the risk-retention requirement.
Wednesday's proposal is identical to draft rules issued by five other regulators, including the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., earlier this week. The Dodd-Frank law directs six federal regulators to write the rules jointly.
Under the proposal, certain "safe" residential mortgages that meet a 20% downpayment requirement will be excluded from the risk retention rules. Issuers of securitized assets backed by certain commercial loans, commercial mortgages and car loans that meet underwriting standards set forth by federal bank regulators will also be exempted.
In remarks at the meeting, Commissioner Kathleen Casey, a Republican, said she wanted to see stakeholders and the public comment on whether the requirements are too restrictive or permissive and whether the exemption for certain residential mortgages is appropriately crafted.
"This proposal cannot be the final word on risk retention regulation," she said. "This market is too fundamental to our economy to get risk retention wrong. Thus, the rules that we ultimately adopt must support or, at a minimum, not unduly hinder the securitization market."
Meanwhile, Commissioner Luis Aguilar, a Democrat, requested that people comment on whether securitizers could skirt the proposed rules.
The proposal is now open for public comment until June 10. A second vote by the commission and approval by the five other regulators is required before it can be made final.
-By Jessica Holzer; jessica.holzer@dowjones.com
License Fee Increase?
I have just been notified there is a provision in the new budget which will raise appraiser licensing fees. ACOW is working on it.
If you object to this provision, you should get a note off to your reps ASAP. You need to also be calling both the House and Senate Ways & Means Committee to oppose.
http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/Budget/Detail/2011/HOBill0404.pdf
Respectfully,
Michael Imes, IFA
If you object to this provision, you should get a note off to your reps ASAP. You need to also be calling both the House and Senate Ways & Means Committee to oppose.
http://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/Budget/Detail/2011/HOBill0404.pdf
Respectfully,
Michael Imes, IFA
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Fee Pressure From Law Firms
BV firms seeing more fee pressure from law firms
It’s a sentiment offered by a number of BV (Business Valuation Resources) firm insiders who completed our short survey on law firm clients. The respondents also indicated that law firms are getting worse at explaining the scope and legal issue of the engagement.
These trends indicate a need to educate your attorneys. Don’t take on a litigation engagement without sufficient time to prepare and disclose your expert opinion pursuant to the applicable rules. Make sure to get all the timeframes and deadlines in a case as soon as possible, so that you can send your “wish list” (document/discovery request) to the attorney with ample allowance for responses.
Make sure the scope of your expert designation fits your experience and proposed testimony. Lastly, be realistic about costs and don’t whittle the scope of the engagement to fit the client’s budget if it compromises your ultimate opinion and/or compliance with professional standards.
BVWire Issue #102-5, 29 March 2011
It’s a sentiment offered by a number of BV (Business Valuation Resources) firm insiders who completed our short survey on law firm clients. The respondents also indicated that law firms are getting worse at explaining the scope and legal issue of the engagement.
These trends indicate a need to educate your attorneys. Don’t take on a litigation engagement without sufficient time to prepare and disclose your expert opinion pursuant to the applicable rules. Make sure to get all the timeframes and deadlines in a case as soon as possible, so that you can send your “wish list” (document/discovery request) to the attorney with ample allowance for responses.
Make sure the scope of your expert designation fits your experience and proposed testimony. Lastly, be realistic about costs and don’t whittle the scope of the engagement to fit the client’s budget if it compromises your ultimate opinion and/or compliance with professional standards.
BVWire Issue #102-5, 29 March 2011
Friday, April 1, 2011
Let The Whining Begin
Guess what day it is? That is correct, DF is now in effect. Granted there is still a lot of legal rambling out there, but now is the time for all of you to stand up and be heard! Below Valocity has sent out a notice that pretty much says you aren’t in control, they area. Well…Blahh Blahh Blahh.
When is everyone just going to say, “no”? If we all did, they would be forced to play by our rules. All of our fellow peers that aren’t aware should be reminded how much power we have working together! It is our profession, not theirs. Urrrr. Just say, no!
Michael Imes
michael at appinc dot net
[Check out this hogwash - AMCs can certainly be depended upon to struggle valiantly to be allowed to continue skimming their fees from our work. M. Tabor]
An Important Message from Valocity Regarding Dodd-Frank
With the April 1st deadline for full implementation now just hours away, we wanted to reach out to every affiliate appraiser on Valocity's panel to bring you up to speed on the Dodd-Frank bill. We know how important this is to all of our appraisers and we have spent great effort over the past year to see that appraisers receive higher compensation for their work.
Dodd-Frank was signed into law in July of 2010. If you have been following the news on this saga, you are aware that the original intent of Title XIV covering Customary and Reasonable Fees, was based on the presumption that AMCs should pay appraisers "retail" fees or fees calculated absent AMC involvement.
We were disappointed that at the 11th hour certain lobbyists and others with influential voices were able to add an additional "presumption" that allows Customary and Reasonable to be calculated with the inclusion of fees historically paid to appraisers by AMCs. To add insult to injury, this newly-added method of calculating Customary and Reasonable was referred to as Presumption 1, while the original method, which excluded historical AMC fees, was suddenly being referred to as the "alternative" presumption.
Valocity has been actively involved in monitoring the progress of Dodd-Frank from its inception all the way to today. We have been doing everything in our power to strongly recommend to our lending clients that the safest and best path to take is to adopt Presumption 2. We recommend it not just because it offers them the best chance of avoiding any regulatory entanglements, but quite frankly, because it's the right thing to do for the industry as a whole and for appraisers in particular.
Valocity has always prided itself on its commitment to appraisal quality. And that begins with attracting and retaining the best and most experienced appraisers to our nationwide panel. We try very hard to operate in the most appraiser-friendly manner we can. To accomplish that, we have been working with our lending clients and promoting a "Cost - Plus" approach where they pay customary and reasonable to the appraiser based on Presumption 2, and then pay a management fee for all of the other services that Valocity provides as their AMC.
Many lenders continue to be extremely tight-lipped about which Presumption they will adopt, and how they feel about the cost-plus approach. But they ultimately drive the decision because they bear the burden of potential exposure to significant fines by the Federal Reserve if they are deemed to be paying fees that are not Customary and Reasonable.
Some of our clients have already indicated that they will modify their fees. Some of them have indicated that they feel they were already in compliance with Customary and Reasonable. And still others, even at this late hour, have yet to fully communicate with us what their intention is. Some clients have come right out and asked us what they should do. For them, we have of course, advocated a Presumption 2 approach.
We should know within a week which direction virtually all of them will go. But with the April 1st deadline looming, we felt it was important to make all of you aware of the many variables that are still in play.
Valocity has vehemently lead the charge with our clients in promoting Dodd-Frank's original intent of paying "retail" fees. Clearly lenders realize there are now two distinctly different options. We are awaiting client decisions as their legal departments weigh the options and give us final direction. At the end of the day, we have to do what we can to stay competitive and to continue to provide you with a steady flow of work at the best fees we can possibly offer. Right now, we continue to be staunch supporters of Presumption 2. But like any organization in any mortgage industry sector, we have to be flexible and willing to adapt to ever-changing circumstances.
We are aware of how important this is for all appraisers, and we will do our best to keep you informed as we gain further clarity in the coming days and weeks. We encourage you to keep a good outlook and to focus, as you always have, on continuing to produce the industry's very best appraisals. We are hopeful that there will still be some positive adjustments by lenders as they begin to receive negative feedback from appraisers.
As always, if you have any questions or concerns, please contact Valocity directly at 866.367.8611 or infoval@valocity.com.
Sincerely,
The Valocity Team
Note: A comment was submitted to this post that I will not publish with the vulgar reference. If you want to resubmit without the obscenity, I'll post your comment. It would also be nice if you had more of the courage you demand of the rest of us, and did not hide behind "Anonymous."
When is everyone just going to say, “no”? If we all did, they would be forced to play by our rules. All of our fellow peers that aren’t aware should be reminded how much power we have working together! It is our profession, not theirs. Urrrr. Just say, no!
Michael Imes
michael at appinc dot net
[Check out this hogwash - AMCs can certainly be depended upon to struggle valiantly to be allowed to continue skimming their fees from our work. M. Tabor]
An Important Message from Valocity Regarding Dodd-Frank
With the April 1st deadline for full implementation now just hours away, we wanted to reach out to every affiliate appraiser on Valocity's panel to bring you up to speed on the Dodd-Frank bill. We know how important this is to all of our appraisers and we have spent great effort over the past year to see that appraisers receive higher compensation for their work.
Dodd-Frank was signed into law in July of 2010. If you have been following the news on this saga, you are aware that the original intent of Title XIV covering Customary and Reasonable Fees, was based on the presumption that AMCs should pay appraisers "retail" fees or fees calculated absent AMC involvement.
We were disappointed that at the 11th hour certain lobbyists and others with influential voices were able to add an additional "presumption" that allows Customary and Reasonable to be calculated with the inclusion of fees historically paid to appraisers by AMCs. To add insult to injury, this newly-added method of calculating Customary and Reasonable was referred to as Presumption 1, while the original method, which excluded historical AMC fees, was suddenly being referred to as the "alternative" presumption.
Valocity has been actively involved in monitoring the progress of Dodd-Frank from its inception all the way to today. We have been doing everything in our power to strongly recommend to our lending clients that the safest and best path to take is to adopt Presumption 2. We recommend it not just because it offers them the best chance of avoiding any regulatory entanglements, but quite frankly, because it's the right thing to do for the industry as a whole and for appraisers in particular.
Valocity has always prided itself on its commitment to appraisal quality. And that begins with attracting and retaining the best and most experienced appraisers to our nationwide panel. We try very hard to operate in the most appraiser-friendly manner we can. To accomplish that, we have been working with our lending clients and promoting a "Cost - Plus" approach where they pay customary and reasonable to the appraiser based on Presumption 2, and then pay a management fee for all of the other services that Valocity provides as their AMC.
Many lenders continue to be extremely tight-lipped about which Presumption they will adopt, and how they feel about the cost-plus approach. But they ultimately drive the decision because they bear the burden of potential exposure to significant fines by the Federal Reserve if they are deemed to be paying fees that are not Customary and Reasonable.
Some of our clients have already indicated that they will modify their fees. Some of them have indicated that they feel they were already in compliance with Customary and Reasonable. And still others, even at this late hour, have yet to fully communicate with us what their intention is. Some clients have come right out and asked us what they should do. For them, we have of course, advocated a Presumption 2 approach.
We should know within a week which direction virtually all of them will go. But with the April 1st deadline looming, we felt it was important to make all of you aware of the many variables that are still in play.
Valocity has vehemently lead the charge with our clients in promoting Dodd-Frank's original intent of paying "retail" fees. Clearly lenders realize there are now two distinctly different options. We are awaiting client decisions as their legal departments weigh the options and give us final direction. At the end of the day, we have to do what we can to stay competitive and to continue to provide you with a steady flow of work at the best fees we can possibly offer. Right now, we continue to be staunch supporters of Presumption 2. But like any organization in any mortgage industry sector, we have to be flexible and willing to adapt to ever-changing circumstances.
We are aware of how important this is for all appraisers, and we will do our best to keep you informed as we gain further clarity in the coming days and weeks. We encourage you to keep a good outlook and to focus, as you always have, on continuing to produce the industry's very best appraisals. We are hopeful that there will still be some positive adjustments by lenders as they begin to receive negative feedback from appraisers.
As always, if you have any questions or concerns, please contact Valocity directly at 866.367.8611 or infoval@valocity.com.
Sincerely,
The Valocity Team
Note: A comment was submitted to this post that I will not publish with the vulgar reference. If you want to resubmit without the obscenity, I'll post your comment. It would also be nice if you had more of the courage you demand of the rest of us, and did not hide behind "Anonymous."
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Nine Months of Shadow Inventory Linger
CoreLogic reported that the residential shadow inventory as of January has declined to 1.8 million units. This represents a nine-month supply that can only slightly be treated via modification and short sales.
The number was calculated by including the number of distressed properties not listed on MLS that are seriously delinquent, in foreclosure, or REOs. Transition rates are used to determine which are most likely to become REO properties, and those that are not yet delinquent, though they may be soon, are not included in this estimate.
Of the 1.8 million that are currently shadow inventory, 870,000 are seriously delinquent, 445,000 are in foreclosure, and 470,000 are in REO. There are also around 2 million negative equity loans that are likely to become shadow supply in the near future. New Jersey, Illinois, and Maryland have the highest level of distressed months’ supply, and North Dakota, Alaska, and Wyoming have the lowest.
Source:
http://www.livevalmag.com/articles/383-nine-months-of-shadow-inventory-linger
The number was calculated by including the number of distressed properties not listed on MLS that are seriously delinquent, in foreclosure, or REOs. Transition rates are used to determine which are most likely to become REO properties, and those that are not yet delinquent, though they may be soon, are not included in this estimate.
Of the 1.8 million that are currently shadow inventory, 870,000 are seriously delinquent, 445,000 are in foreclosure, and 470,000 are in REO. There are also around 2 million negative equity loans that are likely to become shadow supply in the near future. New Jersey, Illinois, and Maryland have the highest level of distressed months’ supply, and North Dakota, Alaska, and Wyoming have the lowest.
Source:
http://www.livevalmag.com/articles/383-nine-months-of-shadow-inventory-linger
Appraisal Topic Instructors Wanted - ACOW at the Summit
Appraiser CE Instructors:
ACOW is looking for several CE instructors and topics for the Aug. 2011 ACOW at the Summit.
Contact Dave Towne at 360-708-1196 or dtowne at fidalgo dot net
ACOW is looking for several CE instructors and topics for the Aug. 2011 ACOW at the Summit.
Contact Dave Towne at 360-708-1196 or dtowne at fidalgo dot net
Monday, March 21, 2011
Your opinion still matters
When Attorney D. Charles Mauritz’ (Duffy Kekel LLP) spoke in BVR’s conference room last Friday at NACVA’s local chapter meeting, he placed a heavy emphasis on the most valuable contribution a valuation expert brings to the table—an opinion. Mauritz reiterated the all-to-familiar phrase that valuation is “more art than science,” and that it’s the appraisers who produce reports that are more science than art who worry him.
While it is important to present the data in a report, it’s how you interpret the data that truly matters. As your report flows from introduction to conclusion, clearly state your opinion about why your determinations and processes are relevant. In essence, a valuation report should leave the reader with no “whys”—Why did the expert choose these comparable transactions and not others? Why did the expert weight the income approach higher than the market approach? Why did the expert arrive at 6% for a company specific risk premium? A valuation report should provide answers and an expert’s opinion, not leave the reader with questions. “That’s what we [attorneys] are paying you for,” says Mauritz.
From BVWire Issue #99-2, 8 December 2010
While it is important to present the data in a report, it’s how you interpret the data that truly matters. As your report flows from introduction to conclusion, clearly state your opinion about why your determinations and processes are relevant. In essence, a valuation report should leave the reader with no “whys”—Why did the expert choose these comparable transactions and not others? Why did the expert weight the income approach higher than the market approach? Why did the expert arrive at 6% for a company specific risk premium? A valuation report should provide answers and an expert’s opinion, not leave the reader with questions. “That’s what we [attorneys] are paying you for,” says Mauritz.
From BVWire Issue #99-2, 8 December 2010
Friday, March 18, 2011
CE Seminar in Spokane to Support ACOW
CE Seminar in Spokane to Support the Appraisers’ Coalition of Washington
Loss Prevention Program for Real Estate Appraisers
April 30, 2011, 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
Red Lion Hotel at the Park, 303 West North River Drive, Spokane, WA
Free for appraisers who (1) join ACOW after February 25, 2011 or, if already an ACOW member, make a $20 donation, and (2) register with READI
Approved for 4 Hours CE Credit in WA (#AP544), ID and OR
To support the Appraisers’ Coalition of Washington and its membership, LIA Administrators & Insurance Services (LIA) and its Real Estate Advisors Defense Institute (READI) are presenting their 4-hour live CE seminar entitled "Loss Prevention Program for Real Estate Appraisers” in Spokane, Washington on April 30. 2011.
The CE seminar is being given as a membership drive/fundraiser for ACOW. The seminar is free to all appraisers who:
1. Join ACOW on or after February 25, 2011 or, if already a member, make a donation to ACOW of $20 or more at the seminar; and also
2. Register for free membership in READI at www.readimember.org. READI is a loss prevention resource for appraisers whose mission is to work against unfair appraiser liability and to support appraisers’ professional organizations. (Appraisers can use code 201700 to register for READI. If they are insured by LIA, appraisers should use code 201500.)
The presenter of the CE seminar is Peter Christensen, LIA’s general counsel. The seminar addresses legal claims and issues affecting residential and commercial real estate appraisers. The information is based on actual claims and lawsuits filed against appraisers, including specific cases in Washington. The purpose of the seminar is to educate appraisers about how to reduce their liability risks. It is the same course that LIA gives to Appraisal Institute and NAIFA chapters and that LIA will give at the Appraisal Institute’s Annual Meeting this year.
Please register for the class by email to class@readimember.org – and, as applicable, indicate if you either joined ACOW after February 25, 2011 or, if already a member, intend to donate $20 or more at the seminar. If you do not wish to join ACOW or make a $20 donation to ACOW and register with READI, the cost of the seminar is $50 (which LIA will donate to ACOW). Space is limited. If you reserve a space, please be sure to attend.
LIA Administrators & Insurance Services is the registered provider of the seminar in each state. It is approved for 4 hours of CE in the following states: AL, AZ, CA, FL, HI, ID, MA, MN, MS, NC, NH, NV, OK, OR, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA and WI.
.
Loss Prevention Program for Real Estate Appraisers
April 30, 2011, 8:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
Red Lion Hotel at the Park, 303 West North River Drive, Spokane, WA
Free for appraisers who (1) join ACOW after February 25, 2011 or, if already an ACOW member, make a $20 donation, and (2) register with READI
Approved for 4 Hours CE Credit in WA (#AP544), ID and OR
To support the Appraisers’ Coalition of Washington and its membership, LIA Administrators & Insurance Services (LIA) and its Real Estate Advisors Defense Institute (READI) are presenting their 4-hour live CE seminar entitled "Loss Prevention Program for Real Estate Appraisers” in Spokane, Washington on April 30. 2011.
The CE seminar is being given as a membership drive/fundraiser for ACOW. The seminar is free to all appraisers who:
1. Join ACOW on or after February 25, 2011 or, if already a member, make a donation to ACOW of $20 or more at the seminar; and also
2. Register for free membership in READI at www.readimember.org. READI is a loss prevention resource for appraisers whose mission is to work against unfair appraiser liability and to support appraisers’ professional organizations. (Appraisers can use code 201700 to register for READI. If they are insured by LIA, appraisers should use code 201500.)
The presenter of the CE seminar is Peter Christensen, LIA’s general counsel. The seminar addresses legal claims and issues affecting residential and commercial real estate appraisers. The information is based on actual claims and lawsuits filed against appraisers, including specific cases in Washington. The purpose of the seminar is to educate appraisers about how to reduce their liability risks. It is the same course that LIA gives to Appraisal Institute and NAIFA chapters and that LIA will give at the Appraisal Institute’s Annual Meeting this year.
Please register for the class by email to class@readimember.org – and, as applicable, indicate if you either joined ACOW after February 25, 2011 or, if already a member, intend to donate $20 or more at the seminar. If you do not wish to join ACOW or make a $20 donation to ACOW and register with READI, the cost of the seminar is $50 (which LIA will donate to ACOW). Space is limited. If you reserve a space, please be sure to attend.
LIA Administrators & Insurance Services is the registered provider of the seminar in each state. It is approved for 4 hours of CE in the following states: AL, AZ, CA, FL, HI, ID, MA, MN, MS, NC, NH, NV, OK, OR, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT, WA and WI.
.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Harold Huggins Realty, et al vs. FNC, Inc. - Going to trial
.
"In Harold H. Huggins Realty, Inc., P.E. Turner & Company, LTD., Residential Appraisal and Consulting, Inc. and Alfonoso V. Torres doing business as Front Door Appraisals vs. FNC, Inc., a trio of appraisers filed a federal class action lawsuit against the technology firm seeking damages for negligent misrepresentation, misappropriation, breach of implied contract and other charges."
"As with any complex litigation, particularly a class action suit, the clock and calendar have gone around several times while parties make and argue motions, and the defendant seeks to have the action dismissed. The latest action was the plaintiff's appeal of the district court's order granting the defendant's (FNC, Inc.) motion to dismiss the case under Federal rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b)(6). (NOTE: I will not even pretend to know what that means.)"
"February 24, the Court of Appeals rendered their decision in favor of the plaintiffs. The Appeals Court reversed the decision to dismiss and remanded the case back for further proceedings."
Source: Frank Gregoire blog, "Appraiser Active"
Click here to read the full info
As a reminder, this is the complaint against FNC, Inc. and their AppraisalPort "service."
A lower court ruled against the litigants, but the 5th Circuit reversed that decision on Feb. 24, 2011. The appraisers are now allowed to continue their legal action. The defendants can appeal to the US Supreme Court, but there is no guarantee that the appeal would be heard. The Conclusion of the Court Decision contains this information:
“The plaintiffs [the appraisers] in this case have prudential standing primarily because of the zero-sum competitive relationship that exists between them and FNC in the field of real-estate-valuation services.
Lenders who use the National Collateral Database would otherwise use the plaintiffs’ appraisal services, FNC was able to create the National Collateral Database only because it stole the plaintiffs’ work product, and FNC’s taking of the plaintiffs’ work product was made possible by the false advertisements FNC ran touting the confidentiality of AppraisalPort.
But for the false advertisements FNC targeted at the plaintiffs, the National Collateral Database would not have been able to compete effectively with the plaintiffs’ appraisals.”
.
"In Harold H. Huggins Realty, Inc., P.E. Turner & Company, LTD., Residential Appraisal and Consulting, Inc. and Alfonoso V. Torres doing business as Front Door Appraisals vs. FNC, Inc., a trio of appraisers filed a federal class action lawsuit against the technology firm seeking damages for negligent misrepresentation, misappropriation, breach of implied contract and other charges."
"As with any complex litigation, particularly a class action suit, the clock and calendar have gone around several times while parties make and argue motions, and the defendant seeks to have the action dismissed. The latest action was the plaintiff's appeal of the district court's order granting the defendant's (FNC, Inc.) motion to dismiss the case under Federal rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b)(6). (NOTE: I will not even pretend to know what that means.)"
"February 24, the Court of Appeals rendered their decision in favor of the plaintiffs. The Appeals Court reversed the decision to dismiss and remanded the case back for further proceedings."
Source: Frank Gregoire blog, "Appraiser Active"
Click here to read the full info
As a reminder, this is the complaint against FNC, Inc. and their AppraisalPort "service."
A lower court ruled against the litigants, but the 5th Circuit reversed that decision on Feb. 24, 2011. The appraisers are now allowed to continue their legal action. The defendants can appeal to the US Supreme Court, but there is no guarantee that the appeal would be heard. The Conclusion of the Court Decision contains this information:
“The plaintiffs [the appraisers] in this case have prudential standing primarily because of the zero-sum competitive relationship that exists between them and FNC in the field of real-estate-valuation services.
Lenders who use the National Collateral Database would otherwise use the plaintiffs’ appraisal services, FNC was able to create the National Collateral Database only because it stole the plaintiffs’ work product, and FNC’s taking of the plaintiffs’ work product was made possible by the false advertisements FNC ran touting the confidentiality of AppraisalPort.
But for the false advertisements FNC targeted at the plaintiffs, the National Collateral Database would not have been able to compete effectively with the plaintiffs’ appraisals.”
.
FDIC 4Q10 State Profiles
The Fourth Quarter 2010 FDIC State Profiles are now available on-line. The FDIC State Profiles are formatted as a quarterly data sheet summation of economic and banking conditions for all fifty states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands . They are available in PDF format.
http://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/stateprofile/index.html
http://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/stateprofile/index.html
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Is Scope Creep Eating Your Profits?
Excerpted from: Appraisal Buzz
Author: Steve Papin
"Second only to fee erosion, “scope creep” is the current scourge of the appraisal industry. Over recent years report content has expanded. Appraisers are ready, willing, and able to write longer and stronger reports, but compensation has not kept up with increased report writing time.
Scope creep is additional assignment conditions requested by a client not considered, or believed necessary by the appraiser when determining the scope of work sufficient to produce a credible appraisal report. Thus, these assignment conditions are not considered by the appraiser when he or she is engaged and negotiates the appraisal fee.
The expanded appraisal report can be broken down into the good, the bad, and the ugly."
The rest is here.
Steve Papin has been a residential appraiser in Cincinnati, Ohio since 1976. Steve is the 2011 Vice President of the Ohio Coalition of Appraisal Professionals and is a founding member and manager of the Appraisal Group of Cincinnati (a casual trade group.) Contact Steve@PapinAppraisal.com.
Author: Steve Papin
"Second only to fee erosion, “scope creep” is the current scourge of the appraisal industry. Over recent years report content has expanded. Appraisers are ready, willing, and able to write longer and stronger reports, but compensation has not kept up with increased report writing time.
Scope creep is additional assignment conditions requested by a client not considered, or believed necessary by the appraiser when determining the scope of work sufficient to produce a credible appraisal report. Thus, these assignment conditions are not considered by the appraiser when he or she is engaged and negotiates the appraisal fee.
The expanded appraisal report can be broken down into the good, the bad, and the ugly."
The rest is here.
Steve Papin has been a residential appraiser in Cincinnati, Ohio since 1976. Steve is the 2011 Vice President of the Ohio Coalition of Appraisal Professionals and is a founding member and manager of the Appraisal Group of Cincinnati (a casual trade group.) Contact Steve@PapinAppraisal.com.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Mortgage Market Faces New Wave of Regulation
From "The Collateral Vision:"
"Again, the Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines are effective right now. Again, as with any regulation, you need to read it for yourself and make your own decisions about how you and your organization will comply. Click here for a copy of the Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines.
As always, FNC tries to help keep everyone informed on every change in the regulatory tide, so if you missed our web conferences on these topics, you can get more information at the following links:
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines
.
"Again, the Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines are effective right now. Again, as with any regulation, you need to read it for yourself and make your own decisions about how you and your organization will comply. Click here for a copy of the Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines.
As always, FNC tries to help keep everyone informed on every change in the regulatory tide, so if you missed our web conferences on these topics, you can get more information at the following links:
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
