Matrix Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Appraisal Institute’

[Pre-Nor'easter Keynote] Long Island Housing Market: Transitioning from “Recovery” to “Recovered”

February 12, 2014 | 12:17 pm | fedny | Public |

appraisalinstitutelogo

A while back, I was invited by the Long Island Chapter of the Appraisal Institute to keynote for their winter dinner/seminar tonight in Westbury, Long Island:

LI Housing Market: Transitioning from “Recovery” to “Recovered”

It’ll be great to catch up with my friends and colleagues and I always love to talk appraisalspeak for extended periods of time.

The presentation will cover (2 CE credits):

Long Island Market Reports, Key Trends, Drivers of the Current Residential Market, Fiscal Cliff, Pent-Up Demand, Record Low Inventory, Mortgage Rates, Federal Reserve, Transitioning to a Sustainable Long Term Housing Market Recovery

In a question and answer period, discussion will include Snapshot of the Long Island Housing market, including 4Q 2013 market research results in Long Island, Hamptons and the North Fork; Affordability, What is driving Sales Activity?; The relationship between Sales and Prices – Why is inventory low?; Spike in Mortgage Rates; Federal Reserve taper miscommunication; Why are Housing Prices Rising?; Long Island and Manhattan real estate economy, Credit Issues, Lending, Market Trends, Impacts, and Challenges in Year 2014.

The latest Nor’easter is supposed to start at about 2AM so it looks like we’ll get this done just under the wire!

Tags: , , ,


[Vortex] Did We Get There? The Promise of Licensing Appraisers

May 22, 2012 | 11:32 am |

Every so often, a Matrix reader submits something they feel very strongly about it and bravely enter the Vortex where I post it.

Guest Columnist: Cecil Simon

Cecil has been a New York general state certified appraiser since 1992. He takes a look at the intersection of professional education and licensing. He’s weighed in here before. Like me, Cecil was an appraiser before the licensing law in 1989 and in fact wrote Congress about this matter as early as 1986.

Admittedly this is super appraiser wonkiness, but it’s worth the read.

-Jonathan Miller



May 12, 2012

Did we get there? the promise of Licensing Appraisers.

How technically prepared are Certified General Appraisers? A recent editorial by Henry H. Harrison in his Real Estate Valuation Magazine, suggested the answer is not very well. In fact, Mr. Harrison even challenged readers to provide evidence that Certified General Appraisers did not make at least 80% of their living writing residential work.

I believe he is correct on the preparation issue, and incorrect on what Certified General Appraisers do in the industry. Most Certified General Appraisers have now become the workhorses for fee shops run by designated appraisers, working as independent contractors at low rates and without benefits. This was by design, and the education and experience requirements set by the Appraisal Qualifications Board in the early 1990s, later amended in 2008, bears me out.

It is now generally accepted that the requirements for General Certification set in 1991 were deplorable, although Harrison and other in his group did not think so when I first wrote to him in 1993. The 2008 fix with the addition of a course in Highest and Best Use and Market Analysis, and one in Report Writing was a plus, but the remaining content was just a split of two former lower level courses into some 120-140 hours. The final product was three hundred classroom hours, more than were required for the MAI in 1990, yet these were junior courses.

FIRREA had a specific mandate. That mandate required that the education and experience required for General Certification be such, that a person with those qualifications would be able to appraise any property without regard to value in a Federal related transaction. That is a high standard, which was well known to the Chairman and members of the Board from 1991 to 2004, yet they did otherwise. The reasons often given in support of the lower standards were the use of the term minimal education required, that States could add to the basic core, and that Certification requirements were intended as a beginning. But the mandate certainly does not imply that.

Basic appraisal education requires only six courses, seven if you add the new Quantitative Analysis course, which is a plus. The seven courses are Appraisal Principles and Procedures, Highest and Best Use and Market Analysis, Land Valuation and the Cost Approach, Direct Sales Comparison Approach, Income Approach, Quantitative Analysis, and Case Study and Report Writing. These names can be applied to Residential and General [Vortex] Did we get there? the promise of Licensing Appraisers.

Certification courses with different content, and all that is currently listed by the Appraisal Institute as Level 1 and 2 and required for their MAI designation can be covered in those seven courses. Hours can be assigned based on the content to be covered.

The seven basic courses plus four years of experience, and the State Exam, is more than adequate to lay the groundwork for Certification as well as any designation. It should be noted that the six courses used prior to 1990 for the MAI, and the four used for the SREA (101, 102, 201, 202), were all taught in less than three hundred hours. These courses produced some of the best educators and practitioners currently working in the industry, including Mr. Harrison. Even Universities that grant Undergraduate and Graduate Degrees in Real Estate offer only one or two courses in Valuation.

I took the trouble to review the education requirements for all of the original members of the Foundation that deal specifically with Real Property interest. The Appraisal Institute of Canada arguably has the best program, and the Appraisal Institute is the only one with Advanced Courses. Some startling facts also come to mind. The education requirements for the MAI designation have increased from 267 hours in 1990 to 482 in 2008, an increase of 215 hours, all without any change in the theory and methodology of valuing real property. The only industry change during that period was the use of software that makes database searches and data analysis easier. In fact, one group, The American Society of Appraisers could not even remember when they last hosted a basic course.

I believe that The Appraisal Institute is the best professional association representing appraisers and the leader in the industry, but its continued creation of advanced courses in order to create the illusion that its members and candidates are better prepared than Certified Appraisers is a farce. The same seven courses could easily serve as the core education requirements for candidates as well as General Certification. Additional requirements for designations can be added. The MAI designation is a highly recognized brand, and could be granted based on work experience and peer review. Downgrading the education requirements for Certification is a dumb idea, and it is clear that The Appraisal Subcommittee fell down on its mandate to monitor and review the practices and activities of the Foundation.

There are a few good textbooks out there on Appraising Real Property, and I place The Appraisal of Real Estate, published by the Appraisal Institute at the top of that heap. Now I would hope that any State that puts its imprimatur on the qualifications of any individual to call that person a Certified General Appraiser, expects that they have covered the content of that text from cover to cover. That was the intent of FIRREA. But it appears that by separating the content into General and Advanced sections, both the Appraisal Institute and the Appraisal Qualifications Board that it has controlled since 1989 seems not to think so. This difference in education is the centerpiece of Harrison’s thesis.

The Qualifications Board should simply set the education requirement as successful completion of a course in the seven areas and forget hours, and if a rigorous State exam is made part of the process, then The Appraisal Institute will be sure to include much of what it now calls advanced content in those seven courses.

On the issue of college education, professional associations may find this a plus, and hopefully the appraiser has written enough college papers to be able to write properly, but degrees in most disciplines will not make you a better market analyst.

The answer to my original question is yes and no. We now have a mechanism to punish bad apples, although better enforcement is needed, but the standards for education, experience and testing did not.

C M. Simon.

Tags: , , , , ,


[Interview] David C. Wilkes, Esq. CRE FRICS, Huff Wilkes & Cavallaro LLP, Chairman The Appraisal Foundation

September 15, 2010 | 10:13 am | Podcasts |

Read More

Play

Tags:


[The Housing Helix Podcast] Tony Pistilli, Certified Residential Appraiser, Vice-Chair Minnesota Department of Commerce Real Estate Appraiser Advisory Board

April 29, 2010 | 3:00 am | Podcasts |

Last month I spoke to and interviewed Tony Pistilli, a certified real estate appraiser on the Minnesota Department of Commerce Real Estate Appraiser Advisory Board. He’s got a possible solution to the current appraiser – appraisal management company conflict. Its all about conforming to RESPA and preventing banks from shifting the burden to appraisers to pay for bank compliance.

Its the first logical solution I’ve heard. The banks are essentially making the appraiser pay for their RESPA compliance by taking it out of the appraiser’s fee, often 50% of the stated appraisal fee. The consumer is being mislead by the appraisal fee stated by the lender at time of mortgage application.

  • - Appraisers and borrowers are paying for services the banks receive, not the bank.
  • - Banks should pay for the services received from the AMC’s who manage the appraisal process.
  • - Appraiser’s fees should be market driven.
  • - Banks should be held accountable for the quality of the appraisal.

He’s been spreading the word through all the channels/usual suspects in the blogosphere. Here’s my original post, including his article:

[HVCC and AMCs Violate RESPA?] Here’s a possible solution

His views seemed to have been picked up by the Appraisal Institute, the largest appraisal trade organization in the US, in their letter to HUD looking for clarification on RESPA and the disclosure of fees paid by consumers. Here’s the FAQ on the new RESPA rule.

Check out the podcast

The Housing Helix Podcast Interview List

You can subscribe on iTunes or simply listen to the podcast on my other blog The Housing Helix.


Tags: , , , ,


[Interview] Tony Pistilli, Certified Residential Appraiser, Vice-Chair Minnesota Department of Commerce Real Estate Appraiser Advisory Board

April 29, 2010 | 12:01 am | Podcasts |

Read More

Play

Tags: , , ,


[Valuation Magazine] 1Q 2010 Feature Article

April 6, 2010 | 5:15 pm | Public |

[click to open article]

In the current issue of Valuation Magazine, the quarterly publication of The Appraisal Institute, the largest US appraisal trade group, featured me in their membership profile feature called “Face Value.” The article is called “Empire Building: an appraiser in NYC takes on $1 billion conversion venture“. The article covers a venture I am participating in called Condominium Recovery, LLC.

The Appraisal Institute approached me to seek understanding of how I leveraged my appraisal expertise towards a non-traditional use.

Whats great about the article is that I get to use appraisal terminology like “highest and best use” without having to elaborate. Whats great about the venture is I get to work with legendary coop/condo converter, builder and manager Gerald Guterman.

It’s going to be an interesting couple of years.


Tags:


[Vortex] The Hall Monitor: It’s the Land Value, Stupid

April 6, 2010 | 7:39 am |

Guest Columnist:
Todd Huttunen

Todd Huttunen began appraising more than 20 years ago with a few years off in between to pursue a career in cabinet making. He relegated that to hobby status and is currently an appraiser in an assessor’s office. His best friend dubbed him The Hall Monitor because of his rigidity and respect for rules. He offers Matrix readers tongue-in-groove insight on appraisal and housing issues. View his earlier handiwork on my first blog, Soapbox

Jonathan Miller


In estimating the value of a house, appraisers are concerned with answering two fundamental questions.


1 – What is the value of the land, as vacant?

2 – What contribution, if any, does the existing improvement make to the underlying value of the land?

A recent study (pdf) conducted by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy suggests that in the higher priced regions of the country, the land-to-value ratios range from 50% to 75%. In areas where “teardowns” are common, land values can actually exceed 100%, since the buyer looking to construct a new house has to add the cost of demolition to the price paid for the existing house before she can build the new one.

Although this is the reality in many parts of the New York metropolitan area, Boston, Southern California, and other regions, for a long time now banks and the appraisers who work for them have pretended otherwise. For some reason banks want to believe that the mortgages they make are on properties where the land represents between 25% and 35% of the market value and that the improvement represents the bulk of the value, 65% to 75%. Even as far back as 1985 when I started appraising and the land-to-value ratios were not as high as they are today, we were required to add a comment to our reports stating that “land values in excess of 30% of market value are common in this area,” whenever we estimated land value above that “magic number”.

Appraisers I’ve spoken to say the reason they estimate land values at say, 30 – 35% of overall value, irrespective of the fact that it may be much greater, is that they are under pressure from lenders and underwriters who won’t approve loans on properties whose land-to-value ratio is more than roughly one-third. Conventional wisdom says banks don’t want to make loans on land, so they instruct their appraisers to say the land is 30 – 35% of market value (the fact that it may really be 80 – 90% doesn’t seem to bother them, as long as the appraiser says otherwise). The reality however, based on this Land to Value Ratios study from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, is that in many of the country’s higher priced locations, it is the land which comprises 50% to 75% or more of the value of the property.

This is important for a couple of reasons, one of which is the fact that appraisal forms are geared toward the notion that most of the value is in the improvement, and not the land. The adjustment grid, wherein the appraiser compares the subject property to the comparable sales, gives short shrift to factors relating to the land value and focuses instead on the improvements such as square footage of the house, number of bedrooms and baths, condition, and on the amenities such as fireplaces, patios and pools. Most of the dollar adjustments appraisers make are for differences in the improvements and amenities. But if 75% of the value is in the land, then why are we bothering to make an adjustment for the fact that one property has a fireplace and the other does not? Shouldn’t the focus be on factors relating to the land instead? These would include site size, shape, views, elevations, topography, frontage, etc.

Appraisers have been subject to scrutiny in recent years, given their role in the mortgage lending process, and some have been implicated for their unethical participation in the sub-prime debacle. I believe most appraisers are ethical, professional, and serious about the work they do. But I do think it’s time to recognize reality when it comes to the allocation of value between land and improvements. If the land value represents 50% or 75% or 100% of the value of the property, as it does in many parts of the country, then appraisers have an obligation to their clients to say so in their reports. And if that means the appraisal form itself needs to be redesigned to reflect the market as it is now, and not as it was in 1930, so be it.

Editor’s note: I find it amazing how so few consumers realize that changes in value during a period like we just went through is in the land, not the building (improvements) – jjm.


Tags: , , ,


Appraisal Journal Study Cites Flaws In Zillow AVM

March 3, 2010 | 2:38 pm |

[click to open report]

Zillow has been one of the most visible and talked about AVMs (Automated Valuation Models) in the US and enjoyed considerable press during the housing boom. Of course they have always been at the mercy of the quality of public record data despite their technology prowess.

Perhaps they were more guilty of overhyping the reliability of their “Zestimates” in the early days by presenting value estimates precisely down to the dollar. But hey, it was cool to see how much your neighbor’s house was worth.

There was an interesting article in Valuation Review (subscription) and HousingWire.

The study concludes that:

Zestimates on Zillow.com are no more accurate than homeowner’s estimates.

When it comes to using the Zillow.com automated valuation model (AVM) to get a free listing price on a house, users may be getting what they paid for, according to a report published by the Appraisal Institute that finds the Web site overestimates the values on homes almost as often as the actual homeowners.

Zillow has become the real estate punching bag to the real estate community. And once again, they are on the defensive in the media coverage of this report.

Here’s the issue:

The key issue regarding Zillow’s Zestimates is whether they reflect transaction prices. Zillow has been described both as “a useful site” and as “categorically wrong.” There have been many instances of praise and many instances of complaints by homeowners using the Web site to estimate the value of their homes. Realtors in general have also been critical of the values produced by Zillow.

Agents had issues with over valuation because they tended to set seller’s expectations too high. Of course, appraisers have an ax to grind with a service that was perceived to trivialize their expertise in valuation.

The report, “Zillow’s Estimates of Single-Family Housing Values,” was authored by Daniel Hollas, Ronald Rutherford and Thomas Thomson, doctors in economics, real estate and business, respectively. The report was published in the quarterly technical and academic publication of the Appraisal Institute, the nation’s largest association of real estate appraisers.

View the report.

Tags: , , , ,


[AVPO] Another Valuation Pseudo Offering: “Appraiser Assisted BPOs”

February 21, 2010 | 6:18 pm |

Last week the appraisal community was up in arms about a $55 “appraisal” product that was an appraisal but no self-respecting appraiser could complete the report completely, be USPAP compliant and still make a meager living. The consensus is that it will attract shysters and promote short cuts. There is a rabid discussion forum on this topic right now on LinkedIn if you are a member of the group.

A new product by First American has now appeared which is explained in technicolor by Tyler King, our resident Phish fan and hipster over at Commercial Grade called an AVPO:

So to recap: The (licensed) appraiser looks at a set of comps, from these comps logical adjustments are made, and the appraiser formulates a value opinion. Yes…I see…that sounds nothing like an appraisal.

aside: First American owns eAppraisIT, who’s slogan on their web site, incredibly, is “Redefining Value.” For those who may have forgotten, NYS AG Andrew Cuomo filed suit against eAppraisIT back in 2007 for conspiring with Washington Mutual to inflate real estate appraisals.

First American claims “this is not an appraisal” to which the Appraisal Foundation replies:

While it is not within our purview to determine whether any particular product or service complies with USPAP, we can tell you that, as far as USPAP is concerned, the product appears to qualify as an appraisal or an appraisal review assignment. The press release states, in part:

“While this is not an appraisal, a licensed appraiser confirms the specific set of values determined by a local Realtor® by looking at comparable sales and verifying accuracy. If discrepancies are found, the appraiser provides a new set of values, complete with an explanation of how they were determined.”

If an appraiser is required to comply with USPAP (such as a licensed appraiser in a state that mandates such compliance), the above product would have to comply with STANDARDS 1 and 2, or STANDARD 3.

Best regards,

John S. Brenan
Director of Research and Technical Issues
The Appraisal Foundation
www.appraisalfoundation.org
(202) 624-3044


Tags: , , ,


[Surety Bonds] Some States Are Cracking Down On Appraisal Management Companies

February 21, 2010 | 5:30 pm | irslogo |

Since appraisal management companies are now responsible for the super majority of appraisals being ordered through lenders for mortgage purposes due to HVCC and AMCs are not a regulate institutions, the consumer is exposed more than ever to the potential for low quality appraisals, continuing to undermine the public trust in the appraisal profession. I suspect trend this has the potential to push errors and omissions insurance rates higher and provide more exposure to the mortgage lending system.

I firmly believe that 5-7 years from now we will be looking back to today’s AMC trend and will be saying: “if we only did something about it.”

Admittedly I know very little about surety bonds and this is no sales pitch or a solution to the AMC problem. I am more interested in understanding ways to protect the consumer against negligence and instill confidence in the appraisal process. To require AMCs to pay for surety bonds in order to operate in a state sounds like it provides an easier way for consumers to go after AMCs for negligence. Feedback or suggestions welcome.

According to Wikipedia, a surety bond is a contract among at least three parties:

  • The obligee – the party who is the recipient of an obligation,
  • The principal – the primary party who will be performing the contractual obligation,
  • The surety – who assures the obligee that the principal can perform the task

I was contacted by Jay Buerck of SuretyBonds.com who wrote provided the following post on surety bonds and appraisal management companies. He indicated that 6 states brought about new AMC legislation last year and it is expected to grow in the coming years. His article is simply trying to make everyone aware of this fact.

States nationwide are introducing tougher oversight and regulation of appraisal management companies. The push is part of a growing effort to bring more consumer protection and transparency to the home-purchasing process.

In all, six states: Arkansas, California, Nevada, Louisiana, Utah and New Mexico ó ushered in new AMC legislation in 2009. Industry officials expect another 15 to 20 states to consider adopting similar measures this year.

Appraisal management companies are becoming increasingly important because of sweeping changes to regulations for home valuations nationwide. The stricter regulations are geared toward boosting consumer safety and stabilizing the housing market.

“There is a significant belief out there that mortgage fraud played a significant role in the meltdown in the housing market, and any unregulated entity that is out there presents the possibility for mortgage fraud to creep back into the system,” Scott DiBiasio, manager of state and industry affairs for the Washington, D.C.-based Appraisal Institute, a global association of real estate appraisers, told Insurance Journal this winter. “I think legislators recognized that this was a gaping loophole that needed to be corrected.”

Taking consumer protection a step further, Arkansas became the first state to add a surety bond requirement to its appraisal management statutes. The new legislation requires that AMCs post a $20,000 surety bond with the stateís real estate appraiser board.

Surety bonds are essentially three-party agreements that ensure businesses or people follow all applicable laws and contracts. A surety bond also provides consumers and tax payers who are harmed by the business with an avenue of financial recourse.

Most of the new AMC legislation requires companies to make sure their appraisals are in line with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. Theyíre also responsible for ensuring they use certified and licensed appraisers only.

There are also some financial disclosure and transparency requirements in some states.

“We need to have and the public deserves to know who owns, operates and manages these appraisal management companies,” DiBiasio said. “I think the $20,000 surety bond is really there to provide some minimal protection to consumers.”


Tags: , , ,