California is now publishing a newsletter for appraisers and even calling out people that have violations. Wow!
http://www.orea.ca.gov/pdf/15-221_Sp…letter_Web.pdf
It is a good start!
California is now publishing a newsletter for appraisers and even calling out people that have violations. Wow!
http://www.orea.ca.gov/pdf/15-221_Sp…letter_Web.pdf
It is a good start!
posted in Appraiser News | Comments Off on Bureau of Real Estate Appraisers Spring 2015 Newsletter
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on June 9 signed into law Senate Bill 1007, legislation that contains many revisions and additions to the state’s current appraiser licensing and certification law, the Appraisal Institute reported. The provisions in the bill will take effect Jan. 1, 2016.posted in Appraiser News | Comments Off on Texas Governor Signs Updates to Appraiser Law
It’s a height-of-summer tradition: The U.S. housing market tends to peak in July or August. And while demand this year remains strong, a preliminary analysis of our site’s data for July shows that housing inventory—homes available for sale—is finally starting to catch up. Sort of.
“We are now entering the time of the year when both inventory and demand typically reach their peak,” said Jonathan Smoke, chief economist of realtor.com®. “The dog days of summer slow down the pace of activity, just as the school year creeps closer.
“This year we’re seeing inventory continue to grow in July, albeit at a slower pace than this spring,” he continued. “And while demand overall is strong, the trend in median days on market is suggesting that the market is finding more of a balance, which bodes well for more moderate price appreciation in the months ahead.”
The median number of days on market is a metric used to assess how quickly homes are selling. It is an indicator of housing supply, or inventory.
Based on data for the first three weeks of July, the median list price increased to $234,000, up 7% year over year and 1% over June. Median days on market increased to 69 days, down 7% year over year but up 5% month over month. Housing supply usually peaks in July or August as families rush to close before the school year begins.
Meanwhile, traffic and searches on realtor.com continued to set new highs in July, showing that there is still strong demand for homes.
As they do every month, Smoke and his team reviewed our data to identify the 20 hottest medium-size to large markets in the country—where there’s plenty of demand by buyers (as shown by listing views) and homes are moving fast (as shown by days on market).
On average, these markets receive 1.5 to three times the number of views per listing compared with that of the rest of the nation, and inventory is moving 24 to 41 days more quickly. They have also seen days on market drop by a combined average of 14% year over year.
“These hottest markets are the best in the country from both a supply and demand perspective,” Smoke said. “Sellers are seeing listings move much more quickly than the rest of the country and at an accelerating pace from just last month. Meanwhile, these markets are clearly attractive to buyers as the listings in these markets are viewed as much as three times more often than the national average.”
So here’s the list of the top cities in our analysis. Note that the markets encompass adjoining metro areas—San Francisco, for example, also includes Oakland and Hayward.
posted in Appraiser News | Comments Off on The 20 Hottest Real Estate Markets in July 2015
Likewise, The Appraisal Foundation (TAF; the Foundation) remains constantly attuned to what is going on in the valuation realm, conscientiously analyzing information and working to uphold the appraisal profession so its actions continue to earn public trust. TAF embraces the whole and serves as a single guide that encompasses all appraisers and users of appraisal services equally regardless of association affiliation, credential, or area of practice. TAF is proud that through the voices and open input of tens of thousands, and under the watchful eye of a balanced state and federal regulatory system, a foundation has been built over the last quarter century that provides stability and a solid base upon which this noble profession can flourish.
It is very concerning that lately much of the information filling the valuation space is tainted. Recent communications by the Appraisal Institute (the Institute) are calculated attempts to fracture the whole. This month marks the fifth anniversary of the Appraisal Institute’s decision to resign from The Appraisal Foundation, rather than face a suspension for violating the Foundation’s Code of Conduct for Sponsoring Organizations. Instead of coming together with their peers, working collaboratively, and respecting the opinions of others to further a common purpose, leaders of the Appraisal Institute aim to splinter the profession. This divide and conquer approach is short-sighted, damages the profession, and must stop.
We are often asked what the Foundation is doing to repair the relationship and solidify what has been collaboratively built over the last 28 years. Following is an accurate overview of the current state of affairs.
Offering Olive Branches
The Appraisal Foundation strongly believes that for the good of the profession the Appraisal Institute should return to the fold with its peers. Over the past two years there have been three face-to-face meetings between the leadership of the Appraisal Institute and The Appraisal Foundation, none of which were initiated by the Institute. At those meetings, The Appraisal Foundation offered that, in an attempt to restore trust between the organizations, we undertake collaborative efforts to: 1) attract young and minority professionals to the field of valuation; 2) analyze reasonable and customary appraisal fees; or 3) consider other topics or concepts the Appraisal Institute might consider appropriate for joint collaboration. To date, we have received no response from the leadership of the Institute.
Fortunately, while our relationship with the Institute leadership remains strained, we continue to have an excellent relationship with the individual appraiser members of the Institute and appreciate all of their work on behalf of the Foundation and the profession. As an example, over the last year three former National Presidents of the Appraisal Institute served on our various Boards.
Correcting A False Narrative
The Appraisal Institute claims that the Foundation’s Code of Conduct for Sponsoring Organizations prevented them from adequately representing their membership. The Code states:
“Sponsors shall not engage in conduct prejudicial to or which undermines the purposes, interests and work of the Foundation, nor shall Sponsors conduct themselves in a manner which brings disrepute to the Foundation.”
Rather than being restrictive as the Institute implies, this language is quite common for non-profit organizations. In fact, it is very similar to the standard of conduct that the Appraisal Institute requires of its own members in Canon #1 of their Code of Professional Ethics which states, in part:
“One Must Refrain from Conduct that is Detrimental to the Appraisal Institute…”
Of note, no other Sponsoring Organization of the Foundation has complained about the TAF Code of Conduct. In the five years since the Appraisal Institute chose to leave, the Foundation welcomed three additional Sponsoring Organizations. Sponsoring Organizations such as the American Bankers Association, the National Association of Realtors, the American Society of Appraisers and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors have been able to comply with the Code of Conduct and represent the interests of their members without any issues.
Overcoming Attempts to Undermine the Stability of a Common Set of Standards
In recent months the Appraisal Institute has made a concerted effort at both the national and state levels to promote the adoption of valuation standards other than USPAP. The justification for this is perplexing, as the Appraisal Institute itself stated in an August 2013 press release, extolling the virtues of a single standard to include:
“…creating a more transparent marketplace, greater public trust, stronger investor confidence and increased market stability.”
The need for additional standards is also puzzling since USPAP has been tested in state and federal courts for over 25 years and is considered one of the finest sets of domestic valuation standards in the world.
Fortunately, there appears to be little support within the valuation profession for multiple sets of standards. Membership organizations and coalitions of appraiser professionals along with recognized leaders in the profession have rallied to successfully thwart such efforts on multiple occasions. An informal poll of over 170 state appraiser regulators at a recent Association of Appraiser Regulatory Officials Conference indicated that not one regulator thought enforcing multiple sets of valuation standards made sense. If anything, stakeholders are looking for more uniformity and consistency in the appraiser regulatory system, not less.
Additionally troubling to these organizations is that the Appraisal Institute’s Standards of Valuation Practice are insufficient in many ways, including the lack of any recordkeeping requirement (no workfile) and the allowance of contingent fee compensation without disclosure. Performing an assignment on a contingent fee basis without having to disclose that arrangement is a recipe for disaster in the opinion of many in the valuation profession.
The Appraisal Institute staff proclaims their hope is that rather than facing government enforcement, their standards would eventually be “self-policing” by the trade association. This is entirely consistent with the stated desire of the Appraisal Institute leadership to return to the pre-FIRREA environment of the 1980’s – undoing the stability and conformity brought about over the last quarter century.
Conclusion
The rift between The Appraisal Foundation, the Congressionally-authorized source of valuation standards and qualifications, and the Appraisal Institute, one of the nation’s largest appraiser trade associations, is a detriment to the profession and needs to be resolved.
Be assured that absolutely no federal funds are involved with The Appraisal Foundation’s efforts in these matters, but they do come at a cost as attentions are diverted from more worthy endeavors. The cost is even greater for the dues-paying members of the Appraisal Institute. Many Appraisal Institute members who are aware of these actions by the Institute’s leadership are not pleased that their hard-earned dues are being spent on such wayward activities. Their dues could instead be used to lower the cost of educational offerings, develop new education, increase outreach to promote the profession, and a whole host of far more positive activities.
Until the Institute’s leadership stops these harmful activities, we will be vigilant about providing you factual information so that you can disregard that which is tainted and not credible. We will continue to work to uphold the profession to the best of our ability and ask you to join us and our nearly 100 supporting organizations to encourage the Appraisal Institute to find its way back and work together with The Appraisal Foundation for the good of the profession. Together we may overcome their lack of willingness to do so.
We fully understand that this public discord is unpleasant and we appreciate your taking the time to read this open letter. The Appraisal Foundation welcomes any suggestions you may have that could result in bringing our two organizations together.
Respectfully,
The Appraisal Foundation
September 9, 2015
posted in Appraiser News | Comments Off on An Open Letter to the Valuation Profession from the Appraisal Foundation regarding the rift with the Appraisal Institute
posted in Appraiser News | Comments Off on Collateral Underwriter Version 3.0 Release Notes in September
| The suit calls the licensing process a “sham” and makes repeated references to the Board’s “bias,” accusing it of “conspiring” and “plotting” to harm Coester. |
Facing License Denial, Coester Sues Virginia Board by Isaac Peck, Editor |
| Facing denial of its license to operate an appraisal management company (AMC) in the state of Virginia, the AMC Coester VMS has filed a lawsuit against the Virginia Real Estate Appraiser Board alleging that the Board is engaged in “a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize trade” and is operating in violation of federal antitrust laws.
The suit follows Virginia’s recently passed AMC licensing laws, which set an August 18 deadline for applicants to obtain AMC licensure or cease operations in the state. The Board has issued dozens of AMC licenses but selected Coester for closer examination. On July 15, Coester attended an informal fact-finding conference and addressed several of the Board’s concerns, including Coester’s history of consent orders and settlement agreements in five other states, for alleged violations of state laws: Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Minnesota. The allegations against Coester in these states include: unlicensed AMC activity, false advertising, failure to pay appraisers on time, failure to pay customary and reasonable fees, failure to respond to requests within the time period specified, failure to submit biannual certification, as well as USPAP violations committed by Brian Coester himself. (Click here to read the consent orders and settlement agreements in their entirety.) Coester defended its actions by saying it has taken “remedial efforts” to address the issues raised in the consent orders and that it has recently implemented a new compliance management system that is designed by “expert business consultants,” many of whom are CPAs. However, on July 28 the reviewing officer of the informal fact finding conference issued a recommendation to deny Coester’s AMC license in Virginia, citing “serious oversights in the planned compliance management system.” Background |
| Rather than arguing the Board’s power to deny it a license, the core of Coester’s suit alleges that the Board is engaged in anti-competitive behavior- by trying to restrict Coester from conducting business in the state. Coester alleges that the denial of its license constitutes an “unreasonable restraint of trade because it prevents a large AMC entity from entering the marketplace.”
Coester states that Virginia accounted for 10 percent of its national business and that it has completed 10,113 appraisal assignments in the state since 2013, making Virginia its second largest state by volume. If denied a license, Coester says it will “permanently lose its customer base in Virginia if the Board’s anticompetitive and pre-textual denial of CVMS’s license occurs on August 18, 2015.” The suit calls the licensing process a “sham” and makes repeated references to the Board’s “bias,” accusing it of “conspiring” and “plotting” to harm Coester. Coester claims that the very structure of the Board is anticompetitive because, by statute, six of the 10 Board Members are required to be fee appraisers. The statute allows for one AMC representative to sit on the Board, but Coester alleges the individual serving as the AMC representative is actually an appraiser, not an AMC, and, consequently, seven of the 10 Board Members are fee appraisers. Coester alleges that this gives fee appraisers a “super-majority” on the Board and refers to them as “direct competitors” who ensure that all decisions made by the Board are in the interests of fee appraisers. Coester further claims that several of the Board Members are also officers in the Virginia Coalition of Appraiser Professionals (VCAP), a trade association of independent fee appraisers that Coester says has “conducted an active campaign against AMCs” and whose members have repeatedly complained about the low fees paid by AMCs. The suit cites many internal emails between Board Members to support its claim that the Board is biased against Coester. While each of the Board’s ten individual members is named in the suit, it is unlikely that they can be held liable as individuals for the particular actions of the Board. AMCs Save Consumers Money- What? |
| Coester cites a 2014 Customary and Reasonable Fee report by Virginia Tech which states that the average fee for an appraisal ordered directly through a non-AMC client is $401, while the average fee for an appraisal ordered through an AMC is $328. Coester uses the Virginia Tech study to suggest that it helps keep fees low for the borrower because the appraiser is paid less when working through an AMC. Coester says if it is banned from doing business in the state, the result will be “raising the transaction costs of residential sales for purchasers and borrowers,” and will “substantially effect interstate commerce.”
Most appraisers understand the disingenuous nature of this argument because the lower fees paid to AMC appraisers, cited in the study, are not the fees actually paid by borrowers. As most appraisers know, AMCs frequently take 30-50% of the “appraisal fee,” so the amount paid to an AMC appraiser is actually much less than what the borrower often pays. Most appraisers will tell you that the fees borrowers pay have actually gone up since AMCs have been shoehorned into the process. As the Network of State Appraiser Organizations (NSAO) put it in its letter to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB): “a consumer might see an appraisal fee for $600 or more with no awareness that the appraiser they met at their home, and who completed their report, is only being paid $300 or less” by the AMC. Coester also cites the Virginia Tech report as evidence that, by excluding Coester, the Virginia Appraiser Board members are enriching themselves and other Virginia appraisers because the fees actually paid to appraisers in the state may go up because non-AMC clients appear to pay more than AMCs. Coester Extension Who is Behind the Lawsuit In a possible sign of things to come, the very first goal and agenda item NHVA listson its website is, “to leverage collective resources to affect helpful (rather than harmful) change through multiple targeted initiatives, including litigation.” Information on NHVA’s website echoes certain of Coester’s arguments, including the concern that state appraisal boards are violating antitrust laws. NHVA’s stated goal is to “vigorously represent the interests of its Members in the home valuation arena before the federal government and state agencies.” In the PowerPoint presentation from NHVA’s Initial Meeting, found on the group’s website, one slide lists “Key Issues/Opportunities” for the organization, which include: Note that four of the seven items seem to relate to fees, suggesting that the NHVA is deeply concerned about appraiser fees. It looks like appraisers will have a fight on their hands going forward. NHVA is representing itself as the advocacy organization for smaller to mid-size AMCs. REVAA charges $75,000 annually for membership and representation. NHVA dues are a more modest $995 a month. NHVA’s stated goal is 30 charter members and says that it sees the over 350 AMCs operating nationwide as potential prospects. Bigger Picture While the Dodd-Frank Act tasked state appraisal boards with passing AMC regulations, the Final Rule removes any doubt that state appraisal boards have the authority to directly enforce the law and discipline AMCs for violations of the law. Specifically, the Final Rule requires that states have a program in place “within the State appraiser certifying and licensing agency that has the authority to… conduct investigations of AMCs…and discipline, suspend, terminate, and refuse to renew the registration of an AMC that violates applicable appraisal-related laws, regulations, or orders.” While Coester’s suit may usher in a new wave of AMC-led litigation against appraiser boards, the clear language of the AMC Final Rule leaves little question that the Fed’s intention is for appraiser boards to regulate AMCs. Working RE is following this story closely and will issue a timely report on the outcome of the special meeting. |
posted in Appraiser News | Comments Off on Facing License Denial, Coester Sues Virginia Board
You might be entitled to a cash award!
https://www.tunalawsuit.com/Home.aspx
If you purchased one or more of the StarKist Products from February 19, 2009 through October 31, 2014, this website informs you of a proposed Class-Action Settlement that you may benefit from.
The Lawsuit claims that StarKist Co. (“StarKist”) under-filled certain 5 oz. canned tuna products in violation of state and federal law. StarKist denies that it underfilled its products and denies that it did anything wrong. The Court did not rule in favor of Plaintiff or StarKist. Instead, the parties agreed to a Proposed Settlement to avoid the expense and risks of continuing the lawsuit.
You are a Class Member if you are a resident of the United States of America who purchased from February 19, 2009 through October 31, 2014:
posted in Appraiser News | Comments Off on 9 out of 10 appraisers eat Tuna
Hey Fellow Appraisers! The newly updated 2015 AMC Directory is now available! After spending months editing the last update from July 2014, I have added over 30 new AMCs, removed some of the bad ones or the companies that have gone out of business and reformatted the top of the list to include the top 40 AMCs that are currently my best clients.
I also updated and added a new chapter on how to use the AMC Directory to sign up only to companies listed in your state. That should save you a bunch of time when applying to the appraisal management companies.
And finally, this list not only includes the top companies that I recommend all appraisers to sign up to due to pay, turn around time or other factors, but for more than 99% of the companies listed, I have already done the research and found the direct link to their online applications. You won’t believe how much time that is going to save you in the registration process.
This isn’t just a list of appraisal management companies with phone numbers and maybe a website listing. I spend the time to get the contact information for each of the companies, find their online applications and more. If they don’t have an online application, they don’t get on my list. If they appear to be another appraiser looking to sign up other appraisers for a fee split, I don’t add them to my list either. If they are known not to pay their appraisers or have had problems paying appraisers in the past, they definitely don’t make it on my list. I have even tried to note as much as possible which companies state they have commercial work as well. I have registered with most of the companies in my directory except for some of the latest entries and when they have good work, they get moved up to the top of the list.
With interest rates still at an all time low and talks of softening lending practices, 2015 could possibly be your best year ever working with the appraisal management companies. But you won’t get ANY work from them if you don’t sign up to them.
Buy the new 2015 AMC Directory and start signing up today. I have been completely swamped with AMC work for years now, giving me the ability to cherry pick the best work available from a variety of companies and never get paid less than my customary and reasonable fees. I average over $450 per order, the lowest fee I have accepted in the past year was $325 and the highest $2000. Get your copy today.
posted in Appraisal Management Companies | 0 Comments
Editor’s Note: In life after Collateral Underwriter (CU), appraisers are eager to understand how they can create statistical support for their adjustments and value results. In this story, author James Swartz provides a good primer for understanding regression and appraising.
Appraising with Regression
By James A Swartz, PhD.
As a real estate appraiser, you are interested in determining how a set of characteristics such as the number of baths and bedrooms, total s As a real estate appraiser, you are interested in determining how a set of characteristics such as the number of baths and bedrooms, total square feet, and others, affects the value of a property.
Property characteristics that affect value are called independent or predictor variables because they help predict what the property is worth. An estimated sales price is called the dependent variable because it depends on the predictor variables.
One statistical tool used to estimate value is called regression analysis. Regression techniques have long been central to the field of economic statistics (“econometrics”). Increasingly, they have become important tools for appraisers as well.
In an appraisal regression model, the dependent variable or sales price is “regressed” on a set of property characteristics to determine how much of the variation in the sales prices, of geographically comparable properties, are due to the variation in the set of property characteristics. The higher the percentage of variation in the sales prices of like properties that can be “explained” by the included set of property characteristics, the more accurate the prediction of the property value. A thorough regression analysis will therefore improve your ability to accurately appraise property values beyond what can be done by “guestimating” or looking at only one or a few property characteristics and comparing only a few similar properties.
The best way to begin to understand how regression modeling works in the context of property appraisal is to explain the approaches used and then walk through an example.
Regression Modeling Approaches
Let’s begin by analyzing a few different methods of regression analysis. Simple linear regression, also calledBivariate regression, assesses the relationship or association between a single dependent variable, such as a sales price, and a single independent or predictor variable, such as square footage.
Multiple linear regression assesses the relationship or association between a single dependent variable, such as sales price, and multiple independent or predictor variables, such as square footage, lot size and age of the property.
Hedonic regression is an even higher level of analysis because it can be used to estimate the contributory value of each property characteristic on an estimated property value. There are four steps in the process:
First, a group of properties in geographic proximity to the subject is selected from the MLS database. The number of properties selected for analysis should be large enough (no fewer than 200 properties) to allow for the examination of the variation in property characteristics as well as in sales prices. Greater variation in the characteristics studied is desired, rather than a narrow comp selection based on strict comparability, because greater variation improves the accuracy of the estimated effects on sales price for each characteristic across a broader range of possible values for that characteristic.
Then, a set of simple regression models is run using the selected properties. A separate simple or Bivariate regression (i.e., two-variable) is run for each property characteristic. Each simple regression is run on the full data set containing information on the 200+ properties. The purpose of this step is to screen for those property characteristics that can be reliably associated with variations in the sales prices of the properties in the data set.
In the third step of the process, those property characteristics that are found to be reliably associated (i.e., statistically significant) with the sales prices of properties, are included in a multivariable regression model (i.e., many variables). Using the full data set, the multivariable regression assesses the association between sales price, the single dependent variable, and a set of multiple predictors such as square footage, lot size, and age of the property.
This model determines how well the remaining property characteristics individually and as a set predict variation in sales prices. Importantly, the model examines the associations among the property characteristics themselves. Only those characteristics that uniquely predict sales price are retained in the model. Characteristics are dropped that overlap substantially with other characteristics already in the model. Only the best predictor set is retained.
In the fourth and final step, the appraiser selects a small subset (3) of properties comparable to the subject property. A map displaying properties by their proximity to the subject assists in this step. Using the predicted sales prices for these properties and the valuation for each property characteristic in the final multivariable model, a final value is obtained for the appraised property.
Overcoming Math Anxiety
People new to regression modeling often have questions about the technique and concerns about their ability to use and interpret the more complex but more accurate multivariable models. However, once a level of familiarity is developed and “math anxiety” is overcome, multivariable regression models become an indispensible tool for developing appraisals.
Although simple or Bivariate linear regression models are appealing because of their simplicity, they will not produce as accurate a result as a multivariable regression analysis for a number of reasons. First, the selection of which variable(s) to use might leave out potentially important factors. Second, Bivariate regression does not control for the associations among the predictor variables themselves. For instance, the number of bedrooms and square footage might both have a very strong association with sale price when considered independently in separate Bivariate models. When considered simultaneously in a multivariable model, the association of the number of bedrooms with sales price might not be as substantial relative to the association with square footage.
Multivariable models will automatically adjust for the interdependency of these two (or more) predictors while Bivariate models will not. As a consequence, if you use two Bivariate models to develop your estimate, you would overestimate the sale price because you would be giving too much weight to the number of bedrooms within the context of the property’s square footage. The degree of error introduced by adding together the results of Bivariate models increases as you consider more and more predictors. In the end, it is much easier to use a multivariable model to make the correct adjustments and estimate a value without having to do all of the tedious mental and mathematical work of combining separate estimates.
Remember, regression analysis is not a substitute for traditional appraisal practices as much as it is a complement to your experience and judgment. It will help you identify the most salient features for estimating the value for a given property, possibly including some you might not have thought were important but which turn out to be, based on sales of other properties in the same area.
About the Author
James Swartz, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor in the Jane Adams College of Social Work at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He obtained his Doctorate in clinical psychology from the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine (1990) and also has a Masters degree in research methods and statistics from Loyola University of Chicago (1982). He has authored over 50 publications in peer-reviewed journals, the majority of which use advanced statistical analytic techniques.
posted in Appraiser News | 0 Comments
“I sat in on your webinar and found it truly informative. “Thanks for all of the tips. I found this very valuable.” – Patrick Jones Working Well with AMCs Does your typical day at the office look like this– low fees, multiple call backs, endless revision requests and stipulations and unreasonable turn times? If so, we feel your pain and have an “appraiser aspirin” for you. This webinar shares techniques to improve your experience working with AMCs, showing you how to earn higher fees and minimize the time-wasting, aggravating back and forth that kills your day. If you’re still struggling to create successful and lucrative relationships with AMCs, this webinar can help. See how to negotiate from a position of strength, establish yourself as an expert to get the highest paying work, and take back control of your business! |
|||
| Part 1: Getting What You’re Worth (Working with AMCs) You can successfully negotiate fees and terms with AMCs. Bryan Knowlton, author of the 2015 AMC Guide, shows you how to quickly locate and sign up with the best AMCs, negotiate fees and terms, get higher-paying assignments and pick and choose your work for a better quality of life. There is no magic wand when working with AMCs but Knowlton’s valuable insights, gained from years of working with AMCs on his terms—in the very competitive San Diego market, will help you save time and effort and move toward working with only the best AMCs (and firing the rest). Working with the best AMCs and negotiating your own fees gives you more power and more choice. This Course Will Show You:
|
![]() Bryan Knowlton Author of the 2015 AMC Guide |
||
| Part 2: How to Work Profitably with AMCs Working with AMCs doesn’t have to make you want to pull what’s left of your hair out. There are proven techniques for saving time, minimizing call backs, getting the choicest assignments, and commanding higher fees from someone who has sat on both sides of the desk; an independent fee appraiser and an AMC executive. Seasoned appraiser, course developer and instructor James Baumberger, President of AMC Synergy Appraisal Services, shares his advice on how to work efficiently with AMCs, minimize or avoid the frustrating back and forth and enjoy a smoother, friendlier, more profitable AMC process. |
|
||
| In this webinar, Baumberger shares the keys to successful relationship management, shows you the most common mistakes to avoid, and helps you create a streamlined process for Underwriting Conditions.
Working Well with AMCs: Two-Part Series Part 2: July 16th, 10 – 11:15 a.m. PST Sign Up Now! |
|||
posted in Appraiser Marketing | 0 Comments


![]() |
|
|
|



