U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–005 PDF 2018

MODERNIZING APPRAISALS: A REGULATORY 

REVIEW AND THE FUTURE OF THE INDUSTRY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING AND INSURANCE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

NOVEMBER 16, 2016 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 114–111 

( 

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina, 

Vice Chairman 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

ROBERT HURT, Virginia 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida 

ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

ANDY BARR, Kentucky 

KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

FRANK GUINTA, New Hampshire 

SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

BRUCE POLIQUIN, Maine 

MIA LOVE, Utah 

FRENCH HILL, Arkansas 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking 

Member 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

JOHN C. CARNEY, JR., Delaware 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan 

PATRICK MURPHY, Florida 

JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland 

KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona 

JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio 

DENNY HECK, Washington 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

SHANNON MCGAHN, Staff Director 

JAMES H. CLINGER, Chief Counsel 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND INSURANCE

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri, Chairman 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia, Vice 

Chairman 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

ROBERT HURT, Virginia 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida 

ANDY BARR, Kentucky 

KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri, Ranking 

Member 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio 

DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

November 16, 2016 ........................................................................................... 1 

Appendix: 

November 16, 2016 ........................................................................................... 39 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2016 

Brady, Ed, Chairman of the Board, National Association of Home Builders ..... 11 

Bunton, David S., President, the Appraisal Foundation ...................................... 6 

Garber, Bill, Director of Government and External Relations, Appraisal Institute ........................................................................................................................ 9 

Park, James R., Executive Director, Appraisal Subcommittee ............................ 4 

Trice, Joan N., Chief Executive Officer and Founder, Clearbox .......................... 8 

Wagner, Jennifer S., Managing Attorney, Mountain State Justice, Inc. ............ 12 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Brady, Ed .......................................................................................................... 40 

Bunton, David S. .............................................................................................. 51 

Garber, Bill ....................................................................................................... 76 

Park, James R. .................................................................................................. 96 

Trice, Joan N. ................................................................................................... 116 

Wagner, Jennifer S. .......................................................................................... 128 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Luetkemeyer, Hon. Blaine: 

‘‘Regulatory Issues Facing the Real Estate Appraisal Profession’’ ............... 143 

‘‘A White Paper on the Federal Banking Agencies’ Arbitrary and Capricious Efforts to Exempt the Vast Majority of Federal Real Estate Related Financial Transactions from Title XI of FIRREA’s Appraisal Reforms’’ ............................................................................................................. 177 

Written statement of the National Association of REALTORS® ................. 192 

Royce, Hon. Ed: 

Written responses to questions for the record submitted to Ed Brady ........ 202 

Written responses to questions for the record submitted to David S. 

Bunton ........................................................................................................... 204 

Waters, Hon. Maxine: 

Written responses to questions for the record submitted to Jennifer S. 

Wagner ........................................................................................................... 212 

(1) 

MODERNIZING APPRAISALS: A REGULATORY 

REVIEW AND THE FUTURE OF THE INDUSTRY 

Wednesday, November 16, 2016 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING

AND INSURANCE, COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Blaine Luetkemeyer 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Luetkemeyer, Pearce, Posey, 

Ross, Barr, Rothfus, Williams; Cleaver, Velazquez, Clay, Green, 

and Beatty. 

Ex officio present: Representative Waters. 

Also present: Representative Sherman. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess of the subcommittee at any time. 

Today’s hearing is entitled, ‘‘Modernizing Appraisals: A Regulatory Review and the Future of the Industry.’’ 

Before we begin, I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee today. We look forward to your testimony. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes to give an opening 

statement. 

Many homeowners don’t focus on appraisals until something goes 

wrong, or until they can’t get one. It is not an area in which Congress spends much time debating or one that the media covers intently, but appraisals are one of the cornerstones of the home-buying process. Issues that impact appraisers also impact nearly every 

American buying or selling a home in rural and urban areas, in 

high- and low-income neighborhoods. 

These issues affect lenders, home builders, real estate professionals, and ultimately, the health of the American economy, and 

the manner in which appraisals are regulated merits the attention 

of this subcommittee. The appraisal profession has changed dramatically since the last major regulatory overhaul with passage of 

FIRREA in 1989. The finance mortgage system has changed, and 

alternative valuation methods are more advanced than ever. Yet 

when it comes to the regulatory regimes surrounding appraisals, it 

seems we are stuck in 1989. Let’s do a quick overview of the system in place today, as I understand it. 

The Appraisal Subcommittee, a body comprised of seven Federal 

regulators, regulates the standards and requirements of each State 

2 

appraisal board. The Appraisal Foundation, a nongovernmental entity chartered by Congress, promulgates those standards and requirements for the States, but lacks any meaningful regulatory authority. That authority lies in the States, which go through the actual process of credentialing the appraisers based on the criteria 

set by the Foundation. We have licensed appraisers, certified appraisers, and general—certified general appraisers. We have appraisal management companies that act as a third party in selecting appraisers. This is not a simple regime, and it impacts homeowners. 

Perhaps as a result of some of this regulatory bureaucracy, the 

appraisal industry is experiencing a shortage that is beginning to 

harm the housing market. We are seeing delayed closings and increased consumer costs. This shortage is hitting rural areas particularly hard, including rural Missouri, which I am very familiar 

with. 

Today’s hearing will give us an opportunity to investigate the 

past, present, and most importantly, the future of appraisal regulation. I personally would like to see a more State-centric model of 

regulation, one that cuts some of the Federal bureaucracy hovering 

above appraisers today. 

Beyond the regulation of appraisers, we should look at the current regime—what the current regime requires of lenders, builders, 

and home buyers. We need to examine alternative home valuation 

methods that employ the most modern technologies and foster 

greater consumer choice. We should look at the individuals who 

should and should not be qualified to do an appraisal and deploy 

resources accordingly. 

In rural Missouri, for example, where today there may be one appraiser for every two counties, there needs to be an alternative. We 

need to address this in the changing marketplace. Dodd-Frank attempted to address some of the shortcomings seen in the appraisal 

market, but the law’s impact has not enhanced the system for appraisers, stakeholders, or most importantly, consumers. Appraisal 

is important. They instill confidence and guard against housing 

markets that could otherwise become depressed. 

We live in the 21st century, and the market deserves 21st-century solutions. It is long past time to examine this model regulation 

and find a better way. Again, I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before the committee today. I look forward to an open conversation. 

And the Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver, for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are holding this 

hearing on the role of—that appraisals play in the housing market, 

and this will give us the opportunity to discuss changes that have 

been made to the appraisal system following the Dodd-Frank Act 

that went into effect in 2010. As we all know, the States are responsible for much of the regulations for the appraisal process, including the certification and licensing of appraisals, as well as the 

registration of appraisal management companies. 

The Federal Government also plays a role in a more general 

oversight working to create more uniform standards, and the FiVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:16 Mar 09, 2018 Jkt 026005 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\26005.TXT TERI
3 

nancial Institution Recovery Reform and Enforcement Act of 1989 

originally sought to oversee appraisal standards, but many of those 

provisions were updated with the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, 

including independent appraisal requirements and the duty to report on appraisers who violate the law, and during the housing crisis, they were many. 

It has been a hard 6 years since the start of the housing crisis, 

though this committee has spent a considerable length of time 

working to staunch the bleeding, and many of the wounds are still 

healing. The fraudulent inflation of home prices by some dishonest 

appraisers did, in fact, play a significant role in the housing crash, 

and it is imperative that we continue to impose high standards to 

ensure the safety and soundness of the housing market but also, 

to protect the honest, hardworking appraisers. 

During the debate over Dodd-Frank, I can remember those seats 

being taken by individuals who gave us horror stories about what 

appraisers—some appraisers were doing. But I do think that—I 

mean, at least I try to be careful that we don’t somehow demean 

all appraisers. But I believe it is necessary to uphold appraisal 

independence to ensure that lenders operate independently from 

appraisers without unduly putting pressure to overinflate prices. 

I also have a number of questions regarding the alternative valuation methods where computer systems are used to determine the 

value of mortgages. While Dodd-Frank bears sole reliance on these 

systems, I do, in fact, have concerns that a move toward higher use 

of computerized modeling would be detrimental to the housing 

market, so I appreciate you being here today, and I look forward 

to becoming dialogical as the committee hearing goes on. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize 

the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green for the balance of the time. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the ranking 

member as well. I do believe that we have some room for improvement in this area, and I think that some of the things that I have 

heard from people who have had actual experiences are—would 

merit some consideration. I talk to realtors, I talk to the lenders, 

and I have talked to the people who actually do some of this appraising, and there appears to be space for improvement. 

It seems that one of the overriding concerns is a lack of an appeal process, a lack of a process that allows for a dispute to be resolved when it comes to the value of property. And another area 

of concern appears to be how long will an appraisal stay with the 

property before you can have another appraisal, assuming that you 

have applied for an FHA loan. Conventional loans are a little bit 

different from the FHA loans. 

These FHA loans are desired for various and sundry reasons. 

The hard stop on a FHA loan may not be the same as conventional, 

so people want the better product. But in getting the better product, they are having some concerns that I think we should look at. 

But I also think that as we look at these concerns, we should make 

sure that we don’t just completely do away with some things that 

have been that are beneficial. This is the old baby-in-bathwater argument. I think that there are some things that are beneficial that 

we have to maintain and should maintain, but I do believe that in 

4 

a major piece of legislation, there are opportunities to make corrections that are sometimes called ′′technical corrections,′′ and I would 

support what the ranking member has said in terms of our desiring 

to be amenable to looking at some of these things, and I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The gentleman yields back. Today we 

welcome the testimony of Mr. James Park, executive director of the 

Appraisal Subcommittee; Mr. David Bunton, president of the Appraisal Foundation; Ms. Joan Trice, chief executive officer and 

founder of Clearbox; Mr. Bill Garber, director of government and 

external relations from the Appraisal Institute; Mr. Ed Brady, 

chairman of the board, National Association of Home Builders; and 

Ms. Jennifer Wagner, managing attorney, Mountain State Justice, 

Incorporated. 

You will each be recognized for 5 minutes to give an oral presentation of your testimony. And without objection, your written statement will be made a part of the record. And just to give you a little 

primer on the lights in front of you, green means go, yellow means 

you have 1 minute to wrap up with your testimony and all the 

questions that you see around us when we ask you, and red means 

time to stop. I do have the last say. 

So with that, Mr. Park, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES R. PARK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

APPRAISAL SUBCOMMITTEE 

Mr. PARK. Good morning, Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking 

Member Cleaver, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for 

the opportunity to testify before you this morning. My written testimony details the history of appraisal regulation, the Appraisal Subcommittee, our current operations, and the added responsibility 

and authority given to the ASC through the Dodd-Frank Act. 

Given my limited time before you this morning, I will focus my 

comments on the discussion topics as requested by this subcommittee. 

First, regarding alternative valuation methods. This is nothing 

new. The GSEs, lenders, and others have been using them for 

many years. While technological and innovation is needed and 

should be encouraged, care should be taken to develop valuation 

techniques that do not rely solely on technology and big data, but 

also rely on the professional expertise provided by an appraiser. 

Unlike appraisals, there are no generally accepted standards for 

development or use of AVMs, or automated valuation models, evaluations, or hybrids. Automated tools are easily manipulated, and 

overreliance could lead to misleading conclusions, fraud, and abuse. 

Automated tools also have limited use in rural and urban areas 

where data is scarce or unreliable. 

Second, regarding the appraiser shortage. It appears that economic conditions in certain parts of the country have increased demand for appraisal services. What is not clear is the cause of these 

localized supply-and-demand issues, and the veracity of news reports on the topic is questionable. Part of the problem may be that 

many appraisers refuse to accept mortgage lending assignments 

5 

due to low pay, confusing or burdensome conditions, fear of blacklisting, and a perception that lenders don’t value their opinions. 

However, I am concerned about the lack of new entrants into the 

profession compared to the numbers of appraisers leaving. This has 

been a trend for several years now and could lead to problems in 

the future. 

In 2008, Congress passed a Housing and Economic Recovery Act, 

HERA, requiring FHA to only accept appraisals performed by certified appraisers and barring the use of licensed appraisers. Since 

HERA, many lenders have followed suit, effectively removing otherwise qualified appraisers from mortgage lending. This is a particular problem in rural markets. 

Third, regarding the de minimis value threshold. The Federal financial institutions regulatory agencies set the de minimis threshold with CFPB concurrence. Questions regarding the threshold 

should be directed to those agencies. 

Fourth, regarding the streamlined Federal regulatory regime, the 

ASC recognizes the importance of a streamlined regulatory system 

and has taken several steps to promote one. Details are in our 

written testimony. 

Related to other areas that could be streamlined or improved, 

standardize the varying requirements placed on appraisers by the 

GSEs, FHA, VA, Federal regulators, and lenders. Today’s current 

cornucopia of statutes, rules, and guidelines, some of which continually change, are confusing and burdensome to all. 

Require the GSEs to share with appraisers data being collected 

from appraisal reports through the GSE’s collateral portals. Modernized use of appraisals in mortgage lending allow appraisers to 

provide a reasonable range of values. Low-risk transactions are 

sometimes denied or canceled when the appraised value is just 

slightly below the value needed to make the deal work. 

Lastly, regarding replacing the current system with a Statebased regulatory structure. Currently, we have an effective system 

that draws on the strengths of the States, private sector, and Federal Government. The system also largely relies on appraisers to 

regulate other appraisers. Replacing the Federal regulatory structure with a State-based regulatory system would greatly complicate, not streamline, the system. Cost to consumers and lenders 

would increase and unnecessarily burden the mortgage finance system as States would almost certainly implement varying laws and 

regulations. There are already examples of this in the States. 

In conclusion, throughout my career in the private sector and 

now in the Federal Government, I have dealt with a complicated 

array of Federal and State laws, regulations, and guidelines, and 

I can assure you that the industry seeks more standardization, not 

less. While the current system respects and supports States’ rights, 

I want to impress upon you the importance of a national minimum 

baseline of enforceable appraisal standards and appraiser qualifications to facilitate Congress. 

Turning appraisal regulation back to the States would likely be 

counterproductive as it would increase regulatory burden and cost 

and likely further restrict consumer access to purchasing a home 

and credit, in general. 

6 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee, and I look forward to answering any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Park can be found on page 96 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Park. 

Mr. Bunton, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID S. BUNTON, PRESIDENT, THE 

APPRAISAL FOUNDATION 

Mr. BUNTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Cleaver, and members of the subcommittee. The Appraisal Foundation greatly appreciates the opportunity to appear before you today 

and to offer our perspective on the regulation of real estate appraisers. 

By way of background, I’ve served as a senior staff member of 

the Foundation for the past 26 years and have the privilege of serving on the Congressional staff for a dozen years prior that. 

Let me just begin with a few words about who we are and what 

makes us different. One, we are a not-for-profit organization that 

was founded before the enactment of FIRREA. We are not an advocacy group or a trade association, but rather an umbrella group 

that represents about 100 organizations, and they range from the 

American Bankers Association to the Department of Veterans Affairs, from the National Association of Home Builders to the Department of Interior. 

Essentially an appraiser regulatory system, we are the private 

sector expertise. We do not have a—as the chairman pointed out, 

we don’t have any regulatory authority, but we provide the tools 

to the regulatory community. For example, we set the minimal 

qualifications that you need to get a State credential education experience. We write the exam that is used by all 50 States in five 

territories, and we also are the authors of the generally recognized 

standards of conduct, the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice that all State-licensed and certified appraisers 

must adhere to. We have also been a resource to numerous Federal 

Government agencies, and currently have cooperative agreements 

with the U.S. Department of Energy and the Department of Justice. 

To address the points that were referenced in your invitation to 

testify, I would like to offer the following: 

We do have a very unique Federal, State, and private sector 

partnership that has grown and matured over the past quarter century. It is effective and operates solely on user fees paid by appraisers. There are no government-appropriated funds involved in this, 

and we believe this could be a model for other regulatory programs. 

Regarding the effectiveness of the Appraisal Subcommittee, the 

implementation of a rating system of the State appraiser regulatory programs and the appointment of policy level representatives 

to the subcommittee have been very positive steps in recent years. 

However, we believe there are few opportunities for improvement 

in its current structure. 

Dodd-Frank and its impact on the current regulatory system, 

stakeholders, and consumers. The focus on appraiser independence, 

the regulation of appraisal management companies, and the elimiVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:16 Mar 09, 2018 Jkt 026005 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\26005.TXT TERI
7 

nation of some predatory lending practices were all positive outcomes. However, there have been several unintended consequences 

of those decisions, which we look forward to discussing with you 

today. 

The de minimis threshold in Federally related transactions. According to the National Association of Realtors, the average sale 

price of an existing home is $230,200. The current level of the de 

minimis is $250,000. You can make the argument it is already too 

high, and we are certainly in opposition to any increase to the 

$500,000 level. 

We also believe that efforts should be made to restore the definition of what constitutes a Federally related transaction, back to 

what Congress originally intended when FIRREA was enacted in 

1989. 

A shortage of appraisers. There is no question that there is currently a shortage of appraisers in certain markets. It is not a national shortage, but in certain markets, particularly in rural areas 

and areas that have seen an uptick in mortgage originations, there 

is a shortage. We have—there are several reasons for this, no one 

reason, and I look forward to sharing those reasons with you this 

morning. 

Appraising in the 21st century. As long as we have a collateralbased lending structure, there will always be a need to determine 

the underlying value of the security for a loan. While we may have 

entered the age of big data, the analysis of that data by a trained 

valuation professional has never been more important. An example 

for that would be what happened 9 days ago. The day before the 

election, we all were exposed to a great deal of very precise data, 

and we all learned 24 hours later, it was not accurate data. So that 

is an example of where—you can trust the numbers but you need 

some human intervention there. 

In conclusion, today we may hear testimony that will contain 

proposals that range from creation of a new large Federal bureaucracy to one that all but eliminates Federal oversight. The current 

Title XI real property appraiser regulatory system, while unique 

and not without its flaws, it has made a real positive difference 

over the past quarter century. It promotes consistency among the 

States due to the appropriate Federal oversight. It has instilled 

competency by ensuring that we have meaningful standards and 

qualifications, and a uniform national exam, none of which existed 

before the enactment of FIRREA, and it operates at no cost to the 

taxpayers, and there are no Federally appropriated funds. 

Appraisers have historically made a significant contribution to 

the safety and soundness of our financial system, and their important role will continue in the future. The catalyst for the creation 

of this current appraiser regulatory system was to protect the integrity of the deposit insurance fund, a need that is as strong today 

as it ever was. The Foundation stands ready to assist with any effort to make the current system more efficient. 

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to share our perspective 

with you, and we urge this subcommittee and all Members of Congress to continue to use the Foundation as a fair, impartial, and 

objective resource. Thank you very much. 

8 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bunton can be found on page 51 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Bunton, you are very, very good. 

That was exactly 5 minutes. That is amazing. Thank you very 

much for your testimony. 

Ms. Trice, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOAN N. TRICE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 

AND FOUNDER, CLEARBOX 

Ms. TRICE. Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member Cleaver, 

and members of the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance, 

thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts regarding, 

‘‘Modernizing Appraisals: A Regulatory Review and the Future of 

the Industry.’’ 

My name is Joan Trice, and I am speaking on behalf of no one 

in particular, but anyone who desires to uphold appraisal independence. Today, all stakeholders suffer from appraisal regulatory 

regime that is outmoded. The housing finance crisis shed a bright 

light on the systemic failures of the appraisal process. 

The structural flaws of the regulatory schema reveal a system 

whereby no one was held accountable. This illustration of the current regulatory system says it all. It should be no surprise that 

giventhe above diagram, that the appraisal industry is being highly 

scrutinized. It is entirely dysfunctional. It is time for big and bold, 

a plan to overhaul the system. 

The appraisal profession needs a single authority to take ownership of the policy, process, practice, procedures, and the people who 

are licensed. National licensing is needed with oversight at the 

State level. States must adopt a standardized process for investigation and adjudication of any disciplinary actions. Peer review and 

rehabilitation of the appraiser should occur at the State level. 

This new entity should not carry forward any of the legacy agencies that exist today. The times call for a fresh holistic solution to 

replace the disjointed ineffective structure that currently exists. 

Repeal FIRREA Title XI and replace it with this new independent 

agency. 

Independence is the cornerstone of the appraisal process. The 

home valuation code of conduct, and subsequently the appraisal 

independence requirement components of Dodd-Frank, left an indelible mark on the appraisal profession. For the last 9 years, practically every single stakeholder has done their best to avoid compliance with the appraisal independence requirements. Appraisal is 

truly the weak link, and our current policies and systems continue 

to diminish the important role that appraisers play in the housing 

finance ecosystem. Discussions of shortages, poor quality, cost, delayed delivery of appraisals, and the de minimis threshold are all 

code for efforts to diminish the role of the appraisal process. 

The events of the presidential election offer a cautionary tale. Big 

data failed, models failed, bias and lack of independence by the analysts failed. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would have you believe 

that they hold all the marbles. Once again, they are competing 

with each other by reducing appraisal requirements. This is a race 

to the bottom, and we have seen this movie before, and we know 

how it ends. 

9 

Do not think for a minute you can replace appraisers with pushbutton technology. Appraising is part art and part science. Create 

a system whereby well-trained ethical appraisers have access to reliable data and afford them the independence to play their important role. 

In conclusion, if Congress is truly serious about the safety and 

soundness of the housing finance system, then there is only one 

clear path for the appraisal process to thrive. Establish a single authority over real estate appraisal. The white paper entitled, 

′′Reengineering the Appraisal Process′′ I provided explores in greater detail solutions to bolster the appraisal profession. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts on this important topic. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Trice can be found on page 116 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Ms. Trice. 

Mr. Garber, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BILL GARBER, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT 

AND EXTERNAL RELATIONS, APPRAISAL INSTITUTE 

Mr. GARBER. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

on behalf of the largest professional association of real estate appraisers in the United States, thank you for holding this hearing. 

Real estate appraisal plays a critical role in the American economy 

by helping financial institutions conduct risk management and 

make safe and sound loans. 

Today, the number of appraisers in the United States is on the 

decline, and banks and real estate professionals are expressing concerns about a potential shortage of appraisers. Appraisers routinely 

are being buried by rules and regulations in nearly every facet of 

their business, from how an appraiser reports an appraisal through 

supervising trainees, uneven licensing requirements to licensing 

and registration fees passed down by clients, to mandates from 

Federal agencies, appraisers’ professional lives have become overly 

complicated, more expensive, and less productive due to a dated 

and archaic regulatory structure that needs to be revised and updated to the reflect today’s market. 

Real estate appraisers face a layering effect of rules and regulations that create a disincentive for potential entry into the profession, while also diminishing the profession’s profitability. This is 

counterproductive, given that rules and regulations continue to 

grow in number every year. These include background checks with 

no Federal mandate or efficient processing system, unappealing supervisory appraiser and trainee appraiser requirements, and constantly changing rules and standards. 

While we appreciate the role and function of the various organizations and agencies that have been part of the appraisal regulatory structure since its beginnings in 1989, the appraiser regulatory structure today is overly complicated. The primary functions 

of the Appraisal Subcommittee can and should be performed more 

efficiently, and without perpetually taxing appraiser practitioners 

and users of appraisal services. 

And the Appraisal Foundation’s role in setting standards and 

qualifications, a role that is carried out reasonably well, should be 

10 

unimpeded by unrelated activities. In short, the continuous state of 

change forced on the profession can be simplified and made more 

accountable. As such, the Appraisal Institute believes there is a 

better, less complicated approach that would improve appraisal 

quality, reduce costs, and address fundamental concerns that are 

driving away appraisers from the profession. 

We believe that our proposed model would benefit from the combined experiences of other industries and precedents established by 

Congress. Specifically, we suggest that Congress modernize the appraisal regulatory structure and align it with those in the real estate and mortgage industry using a model like the Nationwide 

Mortgage Licensing System cooperative among State agencies. 

Authorizing the appraisal profession to utilize a system like the 

NMLS for its certification and licensing system would enable State 

appraiser regulatory agencies to benefit from enhanced communication with other State agencies, including those outside of appraisal 

such as State banking regulatory agencies. Such a realignment 

would also provide a common system for appraisers to submit applications for licensure in multiple States. 

Today, appraisers who wish to earn and carry licenses in multiple states must separately apply in each State, significantly adding to administrative requirements and obligations. The most direct example of the benefits of such a system involves background 

check requirements that currently are being imposed on appraisers 

on a State-by-State basis. Several years ago, the Appraisal Foundation established a fingerprint-based background check requirement 

for States. 

Today, 47 States now have in place a requirement for formal 

background checks. Many States impose similar requirements on 

existing credentialed holders in real estate appraisal, many of 

whom have been practicing in good standing without any issues for 

many years. A few States even went so far as to impose these requirements on appraisers practicing in other States who applied for 

a license via reciprocity or a temporary practice permit. 

Even though the Appraisal Foundation had the best intentions, 

it eventually backed away from this requirement, acknowledging 

that it had erred. Now it is unlikely that States will repeal or 

change the existing requirements anytime soon. Under an NMLSlike system, such background checks could be performed and 

shared by all participating State agencies hoping to significantly 

shave its burdensome administrative expense. 

In conclusion, the Appraisal Institute is not suggesting eliminating all Federal involvement in the appraisal regulatory structure, but rather repositioning it to align with regulatory systems of 

other related industries. Should States fail in their responsibilities 

to manage appraisal oversight, a specified Federal agency like the 

FDIC, or FHFA could be authorized to set up a backstop system 

just as the statute recognizing the NMLS does today. Such a system simply would reposition the Federal role to one of a backstop 

authority of one of last resort. 

Presently, real estate appraisers pay for the operation and maintenance of the regulatory structure through license renewal fees, 

course requirements, and mandates to purchase the volume of 

rules and regulations. After almost 27 years of FIRREA, it is time 

11 

to make the appraisal regulatory structure and process more efficient and reposition—and responsive to the needs of practitioners 

and consumers. 

The Appraisal Institute applauds Congress’ review of the 

FIRREA statute with an eye towards modernizing the appraisal 

regulatory structure, and we stand ready to assist you in any way 

we can. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to testify today, 

and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Garber can be found on page 76 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Garber. 

Mr. Brady, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ED BRADY, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS 

Mr. BRADY. Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member Cleaver, 

and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before 

you today on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders 

to share our views on the regulatory structure of the appraisal industry and suggestions for ensuring efficient and effective collateral valuation. 

My name is Ed Brady, and I am a home builder and developer 

in Bloomington, Illinois, and sitting here as NAHB’s 2016 chairman of the board. 

The housing recovery has been impeded by ongoing problems in 

the U.S. residential appraisal system. While lenders, Federal banking regulators, and Federally related housing agencies implemented corrective measures in response to valuation breakdowns 

in the wake of the Great Recession, And Congress mandated additional measures in the Dodd-Frank Act, these steps did not address 

fundamental flaws and shortcomings of the residential appraisal 

framework. 

Improper appraisal practices, a shortage of experienced appraisers, and inadequate oversight of the appraisal system continue to 

restrict the flow of mortgage credit and retard the housing recovery. NAHB is not advocating that appraisals should be higher than 

the market. Rather, our goal is to establish an appraisal system 

that produces accurate values through all phases of the housing 

cycle. 

The focus of reforms, to date, have been on eliminating undue influence on appraisers to produce inflated valuations. However, 

when home prices began declining, improper appraisal practices exasperated the sliding values. Some appraisers used distress sales, 

many of which involve properties that were neglected and in poor 

physical condition as comparables in assessing the value of a brand 

new home, without accounting for major differences in condition 

and quality. Without such adjustments, the two housing types are 

just not compatible or comparable. 

As the housing market has improved, builders face new appraisal 

challenges, specifically the lack of data on new construction, a 

shortage of appraisers experienced in appraising new construction, 

and no practical way to appeal a faulty appraisal. Getting more 

new home transactions into multiple listing services’ databases 

would be a simple solution for the lack of data. NAHB is presently 

12 

engaged in that discussion, and this, we hope, to result—have results soon. 

Through dramatic increase in the use of appraisal management 

companies, or AMCs, has led to more activity by appraisers with 

less training and experience. This is problematic for new home construction transactions, which by their nature, are very complex. 

Appraisers must be able to analyze detailed plans and specifications, determine the value of options, including state-of-the-art energy efficiencies, find appropriate comparables, and factor in land 

values. One way to improve the quality of new home valuations is 

to strengthen education, training, and experience requirements for 

appraisers of new home construction. 

The biggest flaw in the current appraisal system is the lack of 

workable appeals processes. Current valuation practices do not provide a process for expedited appeals of inaccurate or faulty appraisals. Buyers and sellers, builders and real estate agents can be held 

hostage by the current inability to promptly address legitimate 

questions on evaluation. NAHB recommends the adoption of a 

standard appraisal appeal structure similar in design to the one 

utilized by the VA. 

Finally, the current residential appraisal system continues to 

face many challenges due to inconsistent and conflicting appraisal 

standards and guidance as well as the inadequate Federal oversight. NAHB believes that fundamental appraisal system reform 

must be a principal element of efforts to rebuild the Nation’s housing finance system. 

Coordination and accountability currently are lacking, and there 

are major gaps in the system. In closing, collateral valuation is critical—is a critical component of the mortgage decision. While there 

have been a number of positive changes to the appraisal system 

since the financial crisis, there remain a number of unresolved 

issues. NAHB stands ready to work with this subcommittee, along 

with appraisal, housing, and financial stakeholders to address the 

real challenges we face in restoring the public trust and how we 

build, transfer, value, and finance America’s—American consumers’ 

most valuable asset, their home. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brady can be found on page 40 

of the appendix.] 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Mr. Brady. 

Ms. Wagner, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JENNIFER S. WAGNER, MANAGING ATTORNEY, 

MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC. 

Ms. WAGNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Cleaver, and members of the subcommittee. On behalf of Mountain 

State Justice, the National Consumer Law Center, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates, thank you for inviting 

me to testify today. 

I am the managing attorney of Mountain State Justice, a nonprofit legal services providers in West Virginia. Since the early 

2000s, we have served thousands of the homeowners in danger of 

losing their homes as a direct result of appraisal fraud and other 

predatory lending practices. I am here today to thank Congress for 

13 

imposing stricter new standards for appraisals under the DoddFrank Act. 

These new standards have dramatically reduced appraisal fraud. 

In turn, saving countless of homeowners from foreclosure. It is 

common knowledge that lax regulation of the mortgage and appraisal market led directly to the devastating financial collapse of 

2008. Before the collapse, profit-driven brokers and lenders worked 

with appraisers to fraudulently inflate home values. Lenders made 

more money from larger loans, and they rewarded appraisers willing to hit target values with repeat business, and sometimes even 

kickbacks. 

Many of these loans contained features that would cause the 

homeowners’ payments to skyrocket after a short teaser period. 

Even before the market collapsed, consumers and their advocates 

began to see this house of cards topple as homeowners trapped in 

these underwater loans were unable to refinance when their payments spiked up. Thousands, and soon millions, of homeowners 

faced foreclosure. Surely, we all remember this. 

In my organization alone, for years, every single week, we saw 

dozens of homeowners facing foreclosure because of appraisal 

fraud. Appraisal fraud is why one of my clients, I will call Ms. R, 

came into my office desperate to save her home. Ms. R had tried 

to refinance for a lower fixed interest rate after her payments skyrocketed. She was denied because her loan was so underwater and 

now she faced foreclosure. 

How did this happen? A broker appraiser team preyed on her, repeatedly flipping her into loans of ever-increasing amounts. Then 

a phone salesman for another lender called promising her lower 

payments. This lender didn’t bother with an appraisal. Instead, it 

used an automated valuation model, which provided a grossly inflated valuation based on flawed data. This inaccurate computer 

model inflated the value of Ms. R’s home by nearly 300 percent. 

Ms. R was trapped. 

The conduct that pushed her to the brink of homelessness also 

led to the devastation of 2008 when millions of homeowners lost 

their homes and banks failed across the country. The regulations 

adopted by Congress in response were absolutely necessary to prevent a repeat of the same devastating events. 

The Dodd-Frank Act increased regulation of appraisals building 

on the necessary safety and soundness requirements passed after 

the savings and loan crisis. Dodd-Frank has ended the practice of 

appraisal fraud, primarily by requiring appraisals to be independent as well as accurate and conducted in person by qualified 

appraisers. 

These reforms help homeowners make—help keep homeowners 

informed about the biggest financial decisions they will ever make. 

They also protect lenders and investors and insurers by ensuring 

that they have the collateral necessary to protect their risk. There 

is no doubt that these reforms have been a success. Weakening 

these standards, including allowing lenders to rely on alternative 

valuation models, or eliminating appraisal independence controls, 

will return us to the recent era of unreliable reports that ultimately upended the market. 

14 

The existing baseline of Federal lending and appraisal standards 

is necessary to ensure that consumers and the entire financial market are uniformly protected from both fraud and from unintentional 

error. The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s, and then the economic collapse of 2008, showed the urgent need for these commonsense rules. 

Eliminating these minimum Federal protections, and instead relying solely on the States would open the door to more economic 

crises that devastate homeowners and financial institutions alike. 

In sum, Congress wisely adopted the current Federal appraisal protections to protect the American dream of homeownership and financial stability. 

Without these protections, we face the risk of a new financial crisis, even while we barely recovered from the last one. I urge you 

to keep these essential protections in place. I am happy to answer 

any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wagner can be found on page 

128 of the appendix.] 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Thank you, Ms. Wagner. 

With that, we will begin the questions, and I will recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Garber, you made a couple of comments with regards to 

some of the other—the Appraisal Subcommittee and the Appraisal 

Foundation. I guess, so my question is, do you believe both those 

entities are relevant? 

Mr. GARBER. Thank you for the question. These are two different 

entities, so I think they should be treated separately, separate discussions altogether. With regard to the Appraisal Subcommittee, 

we do see that the role that is being played by the subcommittee 

today has essentially been accomplished as far as its mission and 

goals. 

State appraisal boards have been licensing appraisers for many 

years, and they are doing a very good job of processing appraisal 

licenses and certifications, and they are doing a base level of enforcement. This has been going on for some time, and by the Appraisal Subcommittee’s own records, they are grading State appraisal regulatory agencies very well. There is no State that is at 

risk of compliance burden. 

The issue with the Appraisal Subcommittee is that it is set up 

by FIRREA, which the way it is structured, it results in an everincreasing set of regulations on top of appraisers. It is an oddity 

in the— 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. That begs the questions then, do you 

believe the regulatory system for appraisers needs a Federal regulatory body? 

Mr. GARBER. We think that the Federal role should be repositioned to that of a last resort. So right now, the Appraisal Subcommittee is odd in that it actually audits independent or sovereign State agencies. We find no comparable for this in the marketplace today in any regulatory aspect where the Federal Government is actually auditing State agencies. So we are suggesting that 

that be aligned with those that—recent precedents that have been 

enacted by Congress, like the NMLS, which puts the burden on the 

States, the States have to maintain that job, and as long as they 

15 

are performing at a high level, then they are allowed to do that, 

but there is still a Federal role, but it is one of a last resort. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Okay. Mr. Park, would you like to respond to that? 

Mr. PARK. Sure. The regulatory system that we have in place 

now recognizes States’ rights, and what the Appraisal Subcommittee does in terms of our compliance reviews of the States is 

we review the States to make sure that they are in compliance 

with Title XI, which includes the AQB minimum criteria, that they 

have implemented USPAP, and that they are in compliance with 

those minimum baselines. 

Again, it is key to have that minimum baseline for the States to 

adhere to in order to facilitate commerce. Otherwise, without that 

minimum baseline, you are going to have the States go in 55 different directions, and it is going to increase the cost and burden 

on mortgage lending significantly. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Okay. I had a very good friend of mine, 

who is an appraiser, and I had a long conversation with him just 

last week, and his comment to me was that he didn’t know how 

any person could ever get started in the appraisal business today, 

because of the difficulty of getting licensed and finding your own 

business. 

The business model is not—and I come from rural Missouri. I am 

about as rural as you get, a town of 300 people, but he lives in a 

town of about 30,000. But the problem is, as a number of you indicated here, that there is a shortage. There is a shortage in my 

area. And while I recognize 2008 pointed out some problems, has 

Dodd-Frank caused—the rules that came out of Dodd-Frank, have 

they—has the pendulum swung so far that now we are lining up 

with a shortage? That the restrictions in Dodd-Frank are such that 

it is squeezing the appraisal industry to the point where we don’t 

have people being able to get in it? And if so, that is a problem, 

and how do we fix that? Excuse me. One of you want to tackle 

that? Mr. Bunton? 

Mr. BUNTON. A couple of issues regarding the shortage. One, 

Dodd-Frank and regarding the appraisal management companies, 

I think a lot of lenders felt that they were compelled to establish 

appraisal management companies. And what has happened is because of their focus on—a lot of them. There are good AMCs, but 

a lot of them are not maybe not as good. They focused on the cost 

and the turnaround time. So there is a shortage of appraisers who 

are willing to work for that fee. We still have a lot of appraisers. 

We have more certified appraisers today than we did 10 years ago, 

but they don’t want to work for that fee. 

The other impact is, is that the licensed appraisers in the United 

States, when FHA, through an act of Congress, said that we can 

only use certified appraisers, that had a huge impact, particularly 

in rural areas where you had licensed appraisers. The number of 

licensed appraisers—excuse me, 10 years ago, there were 29,000— 

just under 30,000. Today there are 7,900, and so there has been a 

huge drop in the licensed category. 

Lenders don’t want to use licensed appraisers or trainees, and 

that creates the problem that your friend talked about entering the 

market. Banks used to be the training ground for appraisers. Now 

16 

they have outsourced it, and since banks don’t want to use trainees 

or licensed people, people don’t want to bring on trainees because 

they are not really good. Thank you. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Very good. I appreciate your comments. My time has expired. With that, we recognize the 

gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Today, we 

are examining proposals to fix our current system of regulating and 

overseeing appraisals, but is there really any reason to believe that 

it is broken? 

To the contrary, it seems that we have substantial evidence to 

demonstrate that our current system, in particular, the important 

reforms brought about under Dodd-Frank, has been largely successful in streamlining standards across the country and protecting 

us against the kind of harmful appraisal fraud that we saw leading 

up to the housing crisis. 

While there is always room for further improvement, I don’t see 

any reason for a complete overhaul of our current system as some 

have suggested we need. So I would like to get some comments of 

Ms. Wagner. Freddie Mac recently announced that it plans to dispense with traditional appraisals for some mortgages and replace 

them with automated valuation models, AVMs. Further, Mr. Park’s 

testimony supports the use of different valuation products, according to the risk characteristics of a loan. 

Can you talk about some of the risk that AVMs can impose to 

consumers and the financial system? Do you think that AVMs 

could be appropriate for some lower risk loans, as Mr. Park has 

suggested? 

Ms. WAGNER. Thank you for that question. First of all, I do agree 

that, as they say, ′′if it is not broke, don’t fix it,′′ and I don’t think 

that we are broken. In fact, I think that we are engaged in fixing 

what happened before. 

AVMs do give me significant concern, and they give the appraisers that I have talked to, as well as my homeowner clients, those 

same concerns. They just can’t be fully accurate. If you use a computer valuation model, you are not getting the input of actually 

going out to the house and seeing whether there has been any kind 

of damage to the interior of the house, and you are also not getting 

the input of if someone has made substantial improvements to the 

house. 

There is no standardized method for AVMs, and a lot of the data 

inputs are simply inaccurate coming from tax data that is outdated, and from the use of comparables not based on actually seeing whether those properties are comparable, but just sort of 

inputting from the area. And a lot of places, there is tremendous 

diversity in housing. It is not just subdivisions. 

And one example is a client of mine, who lived on a road right 

next to a subdivision, an appraiser in that case used comparables 

from the subdivision that were much closer to her house than 

houses that were actually much more like her house. An AVM 

model would do that same exact thing without any kind of oversight, so you can’t see the property appeal, you can’t see the unusual characteristics of the property, you can’t see any kind of 

17 

damage, infestation of rats, anything like that, and you can’t see 

any kind of improvements, so it does greatly concern me. 

Ms. WATERS. Well, thank you very much, and I believe exactly 

what you said. First of all, I like independent appraisals. I like 

small businesses. I don’t like the way the system may be run now 

with the management, appraisal management companies and taking a fee or cut, you know, from the appraisers. But let me ask you, 

because I think there is room for dealing with still some potential 

fraud. 

If the lending institutions are owning still some of these appraisal units in their business, I think that is a problem. I would 

like to get rid of that. But let me just, you know, agree with you 

in saying that the work that was done in Dodd-Frank really did get 

rid of a lot of the problems, a lot of the fraud. I see no reason at 

all to be talking about getting rid of Dodd-Frank. 

With all due respect to Mr. Luetkemeyer, you are absolutely 

right. There is no way that these models, these AVMs can determine what that house really is, what it really looks like, where the 

damage is, et cetera, et cetera, and again, I think as I was coming 

in, I heard some testimony from someone that talked about the recent big data problem that we are seeing in the election, and on 

and on and one. Get rid of that crap. Leave the human element in 

appraisals. 

And so with that, thank you for your testimony here today. I 

agree with you 100 percent, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The gentlelady yields backs. With that, 

we go to the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Pearce, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bunton, where does 

the Appraisal Foundation get its funding? 

Mr. BUNTON. The majority of the funding is through publication 

sales, the book of standards course work, material like that. We receive a grant from the Appraisal Subcommittee for $350,000, the 

current grant level, and our budget is about $4.2 million. 

Mr. PEARCE. Okay. Mr. Park, you heard Ms. Wagner’s testimony 

and said that basically the bubble in the housing prices were not 

created by spiking—just by a spike in consumer demand, but as a 

result of intentional fraud and lack of oversight. So that seems to 

be sort of directed at your function to me. 

I mean, I am—I have to confess, I am a little bit confused by— 

I think as Ms. Trice’s chart shows, so I am a little confused about 

what is going on, but—so is her statement a reflection of the oversight that you bring? 

Mr. PARK. Well, her statement reflects the States are the one 

that regulate appraisers— 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, but I know, but you— 

Mr. PARK. —directly 

Mr. PEARCE. —you oversee the States, and you are supposed to— 

it says in your document that you can bring actions if a State is 

in noncompliance. So surely, the Federal Government doesn’t say 

that it is okay to create fraud and the States don’t say it is okay 

to create fraud, so you would expect there would be something that 

18 

would show up if the amount of fraud is there. So I am just asking, 

is that a fair assessment of your oversight? 

Mr. PARK. The Appraisal Subcommittee’s role is to oversee the 

States in regard to— 

Mr. PEARCE. Okay. 

Mr. PARK. —requiring— 

Mr. PEARCE. Sir, with all respect— 

Mr. PARK. —to Title XI. 

Mr. PEARCE. You oversee the States, but you say on page 8 that 

you have the right to bring action in the case of noncompliance or 

order of nonrecognition. Does that mean that you don’t have oversight of the States? You don’t— 

Mr. PARK. We do have oversight of the States. 

Mr. PEARCE.And you can’t do anything about it. 

Mr. PARK. We would take action if a State is in—is not complying with Title XI. 

Mr. PEARCE. So you are saying the fraud that was—the fraud 

that was suggested by Ms. Wagner was then approved under Title 

XI. That is what I would have to draw the conclusion, if you don’t 

find any reason to bring an action. It says you have the right to 

bring the action in your own document. 

Mr. PARK. Generally speaking, if there is a fraudulent appraisal, 

there is going to be a violation of Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, USPAP, involved in that fraudulent activity. The States are the ones that handle complaints and adjudicate complaints in regard to fraud in their State or violations of 

the uniform standards. 

Mr. PEARCE. So if there is fraud going on that was alleged there, 

then you have no say-so. 

Mr. PARK. We have to work within the purview of the law. 

Mr. PEARCE. So what does—have you ever brought an action 

against the State? 

Mr. PARK. We have never taken a nonrecognition action against 

the State, which, prior to 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act was the only 

action that the subcommittee could take against a State, which 

would be a very dramatic and Draconian action. The subcommittee 

has chosen, for the past 25 years, to work through the partnership 

with the States and with the foundation to correct— 

Mr. PEARCE. But you are never taken an action? 

Mr. PARK. —a problem within—we have not taken— 

Mr. PEARCE. You have not taken an action, and yet, according to 

Ms. Wagner, fraud was the reason for the bubble in— 

Mr. PARK. And the Dodd-Frank Act gave the subcommittee additional regulatory authority to take actions in lieu of, or short of a 

nonrecognition— 

Mr. PEARCE. You have gotten that— 

Mr. PARK. —process. 

Mr. PEARCE. You have gotten that additional permission, and 

have you done anything under that? 

Mr. PARK. We have not found— 

Mr. PEARCE. Okay. That’s all I need to know. 

Mr. PARK. —the need to take any further action. 

Mr. PEARCE. Ms. Trice, would you like to address this, because 

this seems like no one is in charge of anything, that we are going 

19 

to oversee but we are really not going to take any actions. Would 

you like to make an address on this? 

Ms. TRICE. Yes, please. I think the consumer is the one who is 

the one who gets punished the most by this regulatory structure 

that I have diagramed here. So if a consumer has a problem with 

the appraisal, and the NAHB pointed this out as well, if someone 

needs to make an appeal, there is not an efficient, effective process. 

So if it is immediate, let’s just say there is an appraised value falls 

short of the contract price, the consumer can only make an appeal 

to the lender. If they make an appeal to the State— 

Mr. PEARCE. Let me ask one more question, if I can. 

Mr. Garber, in your opinion, what would happen if AFC didn’t 

exist at all? 

Mr. GARBER. Well, if States would continue to do licensing and 

enforcement—but we are not suggesting that that go away. 

Mr. PEARCE. I didn’t ask. I am asking for my perspective, and my 

time is about shot. 

Mr. GARBER. Yes. From right now, the appraisal community 

would have a less burdensome regulatory environment. In fact, it 

would be a more attractive proposition to enter the profession because we would have fewer rules and volume of layering effect that 

is currently occurring under the current regime. 

Mr. PEARCE. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. GARBER. That is important to the rural markets. 

Mr. PEARCE. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 

your indulgence. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

With that, we go to the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Velazquez. 

Mr. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. I would like to address my first 

question to each member of the panel. 

Given that automated valuation models are playing an increasing role in residential valuation and the number of appraisers is 

dwindling, the appraisal landscape is changing quickly, regardless 

of regulation. What do you see as the role of appraisers 10 years 

from now? Mr. Park? 

Mr. PARK. The appraiser profession is still and will continue to 

be a very important cog to the financial system in the United 

States. Automated valuations, automated tools can only go so far. 

You don’t realize how big this country is and how diverse the housing is in this country until you start trying to place appraisal orders all over, all over the Nation. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Uh-huh. 

Mr. PARK. There are certain areas where you have homogenous 

property types where automated tools are useful, but I would submit that those tools should not be left alone so that a computer is 

generating the valuation without—without an appraiser’s expertise 

being involved. 

So the future is, appraisers will have to adapt to uses of technology, lenders will have to adapt, and so will regulators. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. Mr. Bunton. 

20 

Mr. BUNTON. Automated valuation models are a tool that appraisers use. That is all they are. And there may be an application 

for them, as Mr. Park points out, with homogenous housing stock, 

with a very low loan-to-value, those types of things, but as far as 

10 years from now, you are still going to need a valuation professional to sift through all the data. 

They will probably perform more appraisals in a day than they 

do today because they will have access to a great deal of information just sitting at their desk, but you are going to need that 

human interface of a trained valuation professional to make determinations, particularly in areas where you don’t have a homogenous housing stock. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. TRICE. There is two basic components to an AVM. One is the 

data, the second one is the algorithm. So today, we have a very 

poor database, frankly. We have no inventory of every piece of 

property in the United States, so we have MLS data, which is essentially sales data, which is, how do I say, flowery sometimes. It 

is not necessarily factual. Then we have public record data, which 

varies from State to State and county to county, so in essence, we 

don’t have very good data. 

In theory, AVMs in the future could become more reliable, but 

today’s market, they are not. And just a reminder, human beings 

write the algorithms, so it is nothing more than an opinion cloaked 

in a mathematical formula. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. GARBER. Thank you for the question. Big data, in general, 

has the potential to enhance the valuation process if it is looked 

at closely, and there is a trained professional evaluation of the 

methods that are used. 

Right now, there are appraisers that are integrating big data 

into their own appraisal reports, and I think you would find, may 

be surprised that a lot of appraisers are actually very technologically savvy today. 

I think our biggest concern is we don’t see that our regulatory 

structure is really positioned to allow and enable appraisal professionals to provide the full range of services that the user community and consumers really are looking for. There is a full range of 

demand for valuation services. Loan purchases is a big one, but it 

is not the only one. You have refis, you have workouts, you have 

the ability or the need to do monitoring of entire portfolios. 

Right now our estimates indicate that there are four evaluations 

performed for every single appraisal in the market today. Right 

now appraisers are not involved in the majority of the valuation 

services that are being engaged by financial institutions. 

We want to position our regulatory structure so that it is more 

responsive to those needs. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. Just very quickly. Data is important, especially in 

our segment of the industry in new construction. It changes every 

day. It relies on code changes, it relies on energy and efficiency. So 

the human touch is always going to be an element. 

21 

I think the AVM is a resource. But we should not rely, especially 

in our segment of the market, on AVMs. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. Wagner. 

Ms. WAGNER. Very briefly, I do think I addressed this question 

a little bit. But I think looking ahead into the future, it just highlights the need for careful regulation in a Federal structure in 

order to ensure that there is some consistency and safety in the 

marketplace. So if we do end up using these models slightly more, 

it should be balanced with actual appraisals, and we do need some 

oversight to make sure it is done fairly and safely for everyone. 

Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

We have a great discussion going here today. I thank all of the 

panel for their concise answers. 

With that, we go to Mr. Rothfus from Pennsylvania, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Garber, while I understand that a national appraiser shortage may not yet be here, though industry trends suggest that one 

may be coming soon, we all seem to agree that localized shortages 

are a problem, especially in rural communities. My district includes 

a number of rural communities and I was hoping to get a better 

understanding of how this dynamic may impact my constituents. 

Can you describe how localized appraiser shortages may impact 

communities such as those in rural Pennsylvania? 

Mr. GARBER. Yes, thank you for the question. Appraisers, as I 

was saying, are facing a layering effect of rules and regulations 

right now, and it is never ending at this point, where there are no 

bounds around the current regulatory structure. 

So as an example, we have seen proposals and actually in effect 

now programs to codify appraisal methodology, where appraisers 

not just have to follow a certain standard, but are being obligated 

to follow methods and techniques, such as the cost approach or the 

sales comparison approach or the income approach in the appraisal 

process, and follow it along a strict guideline. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Where would that be coming from? 

Mr. GARBER. Well, it came from a proposal originally directed by 

the Appraisal Subcommittee for The Appraisal Foundation to undertake, and that has resulted in the creation of a third board 

under The Appraisal Foundation called the Appraisal Practices 

Board. 

That board has a very unclear role in today’s marketplace, but 

I will give you an example of how it is being used. State regulators 

have already identified this as a document or a set of materials 

that they are using in enforcement cases. So appraisers have to 

keep that in mind as they are developing their appraisals. 

And just last week I was talking with an official at Freddie Mac. 

Freddie Mac issued a bulletin last week on green and energy-efficient appraisal issues. Within that bulletin, those documents are 

actually referenced. 

In talking with the Freddie Mac official they indicate that those 

bulletins are actually part of the contracts that they have with loan 

22 

sellers to Freddie Mac. Those are now effectively part of the contract when a lender sells a loan to Freddie Mac. They don’t realize 

it, but that is an unauthorized board of The Appraisal Foundation 

today, but their lenders are going to be obligated to follow all of 

that information to a tee. 

And in your rural market, every market is different, so the rules 

or the guidelines that work in Washington, D.C., may not work in 

rural Pennsylvania, because every market is going to be different. 

That is why we need to have more flexibility to the methodology. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Would you think that if you are seeing some shortages appearing in some areas, rural areas, could those trends eventually get to other areas. 

Mr. GARBER. So absolutely. I provide some information on the 

projections ahead. We do see the potential for a 20 to 25 percent 

continued reduction or a further reduction over the next 5 to 10 

years. 

What is troubling to us is that there are fewer appraisers that 

are interested in entering the profession. They are facing all of 

these rules, regulations, fees. Right now, the Appraisal Subcommittee is about ready to finalize a rule to implement an appraisal management company registry fee. The process that was 

used to undertake that rulemaking failed to consider the impacts 

on small businesses. 

The reality is that rule is going to impose significant fees on 

small business appraisal service providers, because they are going 

to be passed through from the appraisal management company directly onto the heads of practitioners. 

If you are an appraiser, you are looking at this system, you are 

stepping back and you are reconsidering the proposition today. And 

that is what troubles us as a leader within the appraisal profession. We need to reposition this to make it a more attractive endeavor. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. Thank you. Move over to Mr. Park. 

Alternative valuation models or methods have been used by the 

appraisals industry for many years. In your testimony you seem to 

support the use of new methods and new technologies based on improved data, yet you caution against moving completely away from 

an appraiser-based process. Could you describe for which types of 

transactions alternative valuation methods, such as automated 

models, might be most appropriate? 

Mr. PARK. Yes, thank you for the question. 

As I stated earlier, in areas of the country where you have a 

more homogenous housing stock, where you have good quality data, 

coupled with a low risk transaction—when I say a low risk transaction, an example would be a rate and term refinance where a 

borrower is simply lowering their rate from 5 percent to 4 percent, 

something like that. They are not taking cash out. There is no additional risk in the transaction. The borrower has a good credit 

score and so forth. They pose a good credit risk with little likelihood of default. Those are transactions where an AVM could be 

useful again with human intervention in terms of making sure that 

the results of that AVM make sense. 

Mr. ROTHFUS. I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The gentleman yields back. 

23 

With that, we go to the ranking member of the committee, Mr. 

Cleaver from Missouri. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Trice, do you like hamburgers. 

Ms. TRICE. Excuse me? 

Mr. CLEAVER. Do you like hamburgers? 

Ms. TRICE. Hamburgers? I love hamburgers. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Do you prefer mustard or mayonnaise? 

Ms. TRICE. Neither. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Neither. What do you prefer? 

Ms. TRICE. I like ketchup. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Ketchup. I don’t. But I delivered a speech in actually the boot heel of Missouri, Cape Girardeau, which you may or 

may not have heard of. So I go to Chili’s and I sit at the table with 

a staffer and there is no waitress, there is no wait staff at all. They 

have a contraption on the table. It says, place your order. And it 

came with mustard, and I like mayonnaise. I think that is one of 

the great tragedies of this moment. 

And so I think that there is some general consensus that the 

AVMs or the new technological way in which some of these appraisals are done, particularly, I guess, with home equity loans, 

primarily with home equity loans, but I think you can also sense 

that there is some concern here about that. 

And so I am wondering, you know, I don’t want to be a troglodyte 

and I am afraid of technology, you know, but what happened in the 

financial crisis is that the appraisals ended up being far too generous. And so I think in some instances people thought, well, you 

know, if we can put the AVM it will stop that process. But it also 

removes the humanity from it. It also creates some other issues. 

So, you know, any time we have come up with a new technology, 

a great technology, I think, and I am looking for this, too, that 

there has to be some kind of counterbalance to maintain the humanity. And so I am wondering if most of us agree that the system 

is somewhat flawed right now. What can we do as a counterbalance? 

Ms. TRICE. One of the problem with AVMs is that they can be 

manipulated and we saw that in the mortgage crisis. So what happens is they built what they called cascades so that they would 

bundle 10 different AVMs into one ordering platform. Well, what 

would happen is a lender would continue it order an AVM until, 

bingo, he got the number that he needed. 

So one of my dear friends was an AVM developer, and he had 

sold his company, and the entity that bought his company said, 

hey, we need to juice the algorithm, because in Florida we are not 

getting enough hits, so we need you to dial in a 20 percent appreciation rate in Florida. Because they are only get paid if they get 

a hit on that AVM. So don’t for a minute think that AVMs can’t 

be manipulated and subject to fraud. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Oh, yes. 

Ms. TRICE. They just can do it on a wholesale basis rather than 

one at a time. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. I think it is an overall—I mean, reform is needed. 

The Appraisal Subcommittee as example probably doesn’t have 

24 

enough teeth. They talked about it earlier, there is no enforcement. 

I mean, you can note a problem in a State, but they need a little 

bit more authority to take action. 

From State to State is different. Some have boards, some have 

funding, some don’t. Some sweep the funding on appraisal fees into 

the general fund and don’t fund it appropriately. So there needs to 

be a better standard. 

The appeals process, we need a good appeals process, because I 

had an example just 3 weeks ago where I had a plan, new construction. I gave them a cost analysis, $249,000, it came in at $234,000. 

The reason it came in at $234,000 is the oversight of not finishing 

the basement and 9-foot ceilings. Very simple, yet I wasn’t able to 

convince that appraiser to make that change. 

So we need a very quick and adequate appeal process to at least 

not inflate the cost, but justify the cost. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Is that something we should be doing? 

Mr. BRADY. There should be a standard within the industry, like 

the VA, like the Tidewater potential, the Tidewater Initiative, that 

allows an appraiser to call if it is undervalued compared to what 

the contract might be, to call and ask questions. And we have gone 

so far away from that because of political correctness and worries 

that we are inflating the price of a product valuation that we have 

gone, as the chairman suggested, the pendulum has swung almost 

too far to really punish the supply or the provider. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The gentlemen’s time has expired. 

With that, we will go to the gentleman from Kentucky. Mr. Barr 

is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks to our witnesses for your testimony. 

I was particularly interested in Ms. Trice’s appraisal oversight 

schematic or graph that shows the complexity of the oversight system that we have in place now and interested in your suggestion 

of a big and bold plan to overhaul the system. 

I do think that that you are right, that sometimes less can be 

more in terms of actually providing for an accountable system, because when you do have this dizzying maze of agencies and responsibilities you are dividing lines of accountability and the responsibilities of the participants are not clearly set forward. 

So can you just summarize your testimony a little more and amplify it to say what would be that big and bold plan that would 

streamline the system? And do we still need the ASC, the subcommittee, or does it need to completely replaced with a new structure that you are proposing? 

Ms. TRICE. Well, I do call for a new structure, but that doesn’t 

mean that you wouldn’t take the components that do work from the 

current system and put it in this new entity. I mean, we do need 

licensing of individuals. 

Lending however is national, it is no longer local. And so if we 

set up a 50-State system, you essentially are—I will borrow from 

this President-elect Trump—we are building a wall between each 

border of each State. 

So we have to have a system that is portable across all States 

and it is uniform in its standards, so if I get a mortgage in MaryVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:16 Mar 09, 2018 Jkt 026005 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\26005.TXT TERI
25 

land and I want to move to Delaware I know exactly what to expect 

and the process is uniform. 

I do subscribe to the theory that people are honest and want to 

do the right thing, but under the current regulatory scheme, they 

don’t even know what the right thing is to do. So, you know, it certainly is difficult to follow the rules when you don’t understand the 

rules and whose rules they are. 

Mr. BARR. Has the Dodd-Frank law helped proliferate the complexity of the regulatory structure or are there some positive 

changes there? What is the impact of Dodd-Frank in exacerbating 

the complexity? 

Ms. TRICE. Dodd-Frank has many positive components. Number 

one, the appraisal independence requirements are really critical to 

the appraisal process. The problem has actually been the enforcement of it. 

So we keep adding new regulations, but we didn’t enforce any of 

them. So the result of that is we punish good people and the cost 

of compliance has just gone off the charts. But bad actors continue 

to behave badly. 

Mr. BARR. One thing I keep hearing from constituents, banks, actors in the real estate market, is that there are excessive appraisal 

requirements that add unnecessary costs to transactions, and I 

would like for any of you all to comment on that. 

In other words, the complaint that I am hearing specifically is 

that there are new requirements, I don’t know if they are DoddFrank requirements or other regulatory retirements, that require 

appraisals every time there is a refinancing or every time there is 

a transaction, even when there is not a material change in the 

valuation of the property. 

Can anybody speak to that of what is the cause of that? And do 

we need as many appraisals as we have? 

Mr. GARBER. Well, we just got through a bank crisis, so that is 

partly what is going on there, is that we have a lot of failed banks 

or banks that have been coming up for air. And so the bank examiners have been monitoring, they have been examining those cases, 

looking at those portfolios, and they have seen a need to kind of 

get an understanding of the risks that are involved there. 

So having an appraisal to update those files, to understand your 

risks from a taxpayer standpoint is an important thing, and I think 

that is a good goal from a safety and soundness standpoint. But 

from the appraiser’s standpoint, there are clearly new rules that 

are hitting appraisers on the head. We see fees that are being 

passed through to appraisers to be paid for in order to be accepted 

on an approved list. 

I mentioned the registry fees that are coming from the Appraisal 

Subcommittee. That is going to hit appraisers squarely in the face 

and be a huge disincentive from practicing in those areas. 

And financial institutions themselves, too. People don’t realize 

there are a lot of appraisers that work at banks. Bank appraisers 

have to deal with this complicated regulatory structure, too, and 

they have to obtain those licenses just as the practitioners do. So 

an efficient system would be helpful there. 

Mr. BARR. Thank you. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

26 

I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the witnesses for appearing as well. 

Mr. Brady, I was especially interested in your comments. If you 

might recall, when I gave my opening statement, I dealt with this 

area of appraisals and appeals, and you have followed up on this. 

Let’s just talk about a possible example to make this clear, or 

clearer, if we can. Let’s assume that you have an FHA loan and 

the seller believes that there is a problem with the appraisal. I 

won’t use terms like fraud, but there is a problem. And let’s assume that the buyer thinks there is a problem as well. What is the 

process at that point to allow them to have an opportunity to impact that appraisal? 

Mr. BRADY. Well, it varies, and a banker that gets an appraisal 

that doesn’t meet a contract price can ask the appraiser to talk to 

the seller and try and justify it. Many times that doesn’t occur and 

that is where the problem exists. 

But also, in a transaction where you get an appraisal a week before, let’s be generous and say a week before closing, and the appraisal’s not justifies the purchase price, that process takes much 

longer, the deal either blows up, doesn’t close, both buyers or sellers are unhappy. 

In a new construction situation, many times sellers, meaning us, 

will eat the difference, not justifiably, but in order to close a house 

because the appeal process or that process is too lengthy to get it 

done in a matter of time. So where it would take place better is 

in the Tidewater Initiative where an appraiser would conduct the 

seller prior to issuing an appraisal, so that they can either justify 

or not, not inflate the price, the purchase price, so that it doesn’t 

happen at the last minute. 

Mr. GREEN. I understand. But is that required, is it required of 

the appraiser to have that conversation? 

Mr. BRADY. No. 

Mr. GREEN. And in a good many cases that does not happen is 

what you are saying? 

Mr. BRADY. That is correct. 

Mr. GREEN. Now you indicated that you sell properties, obviously 

you do, you are a builder. But let’s just take the homeowner who 

just has a home, a typical person in the United States America. If 

this person finds problems with the difference, that person may not 

be able to eat, that was a term you used— 

Mr. BRADY. That is correct. 

Mr. GREEN. —to eat that loss. That person my find it unacceptable. At this point can that person go out and say, ′′Well, let me 

just get another appraisal′′? 

Mr. BRADY. No. I don’t believe they can go out and get another 

appraiser appraisal. 

Mr. GREEN. Believe you are right. 

Mr. BRADY. But time is of the essence and they don’t have time 

to justify the actual cost. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, it is not just the time. There are other factors 

involved, too. 

27 

Ms. Wagner, your hand has been up. I would like for you to respond quickly, if you can, please. 

Ms. WAGNER. Yes, thank you. 

One concern that we do have with the appeal process is that, 

while there might be some legitimate cases where we have seen 

that type of process manipulated in the past that has led to overvaluations, we have seen lenders contacting appraisers and pressuring them to increase values or telling appraisers that the values 

have come in too low, and then there has been some manipulation 

within the system to then come back with a higher value. 

Mr. GREEN. Let me intercede for just a second. So we are concluding that we need a balance. 

Ms. WAGNER. Right. 

Mr. GREEN. And there seems to be a pervasive belief that that 

balance has not achieved, and that is what I want to work on, to 

try to achieve that balance. I would like to work with you, Ms. 

Wagner—I also want to work with you, Mr. Brady—to see if we can 

achieve that balance, because that is what is critical. 

And the realtors are telling me that balance has not been 

achieved. I have talked to homeowners who believe that it hasn’t 

been achieved, because once they get the first appraisal, getting another one is not an easy thing to accomplish. I think there is a 

waiting period before you can get another appraisal. Is that right, 

Ms. Wagner? 

Ms. WAGNER. That is true for FHA loans. 

Mr. GREEN. FHA, yes. Is that waiting period about 6 months? 

Ms. WAGNER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. So you are stuck with a 6-month appraisal. 

You are a homeowner, you are not a builder, you don’t eat losses. 

You are trying to move up in the world. So I want to correct this. 

But let me quickly say this, I want to move to another area. 

None of you are here today to say that we should get rid of DoddFrank because of your concerns and the consternation that you 

have with one area of it. Is that a fair statement? Are you here to 

say you want to eliminate Dodd-Frank? Anyone? If so, kindly raise 

your hand. All right. 

Now, I want to go to one specific area of Dodd-Frank. We have 

a Defense Department in this country. We have a Securities and 

Exchange Commission to protect investors. The Defense Department defends the country. Why wouldn’t we have a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect consumers? Anybody here 

want to get rid of the CFPB today? If so, raise your hand. Do you 

think that it is just a horrible institution and we ought to just do 

away with it? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

No hands raised, for the record, on either question. Thank you. I 

yield back. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

We welcome Mr. Sherman to the committee today for some questioning. I see he is here and wants to participate. So we welcome 

him. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I thank the Chair for letting me participate, although I am not a member of the subcommittee. 

28 

I would like to ask The Appraisal Foundation how close you are 

to releasing new rules for entering appraisers. 

Mr. BUNTON. We are currently in the—we call it the exposure 

draft process. Much like regulators, we issue drafts. We want to 

make sure we get it right. That board that does it actually has a 

meeting this Thursday and Friday in St. Louis. My guess, it would 

probably be spring before it occurs. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I will ask this of whatever witnesses would choose 

to respond. What are one or two facets of the current appraisal system and system of appraisal regulation that you think we ought to 

preserve that are essential regardless of what other changes might 

be made? 

Mr. GARBER. I would be happy to take that, Congressman. The 

Dodd-Frank Act anti-coercion provisions and the appraisal independence provisions of Dodd-Frank are extremely important. I remember living the era of the housing boom, and I think we were 

on record to Congress with a letter of caution, a pending house of 

cards, as early as 2002. So those protections are important. 

I would point out that those are part of the Truth in Lending 

Act. They are not part of FIRREA. So when we are talking about 

making changes to our regulatory structure, we are really referring 

to the FIRREA, the original FIRREA statute, and less so relative 

to Dodd-Frank, particularly those anti-coercion provisions. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Brady. 

Mr. BRADY. I would just follow up. 

The independence is a good thing, being able to have independence from appraisers. But the problem is you put all your eggs in 

that one basket, on the independence on the AMCs, as some of the 

panel suggested, we are getting less qualified, less educated, less 

trained appraisers sometimes in those AMCs. That creates a problem that we have to resolve at least by an appeal process, in a very 

thorough and expeditious appeal process. 

Ms. TRICE. I reiterate appraisal independence is the most important component of Dodd-Frank. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Bunton. 

Mr. BUNTON. If I could just speak to that. 

Appraisal independence is a great thing. Unfortunately, it also 

has caused sometimes appraisers to be viewed as radioactive, 

where real estate agents don’t want to talk to them because they 

are afraid they are going to get in trouble, lenders doesn’t want to 

talk to them. 

As the gentleman was talking about earlier, you need that communication between the appraiser, and whether it is the lender or 

the real estate agent or the homeowner, so that he has as much 

information. Talking to an appraiser is not coercion. It is communicating. It is giving information. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

What can be done to encourage appraisers to work in rural areas 

to address supply issues? 

Mr. Garber. 

Mr. GARBER. Well, make it make their lives easier for one. More 

productive and profitable would be helpful. Stop imposing new 

rules and mandates on how they do their job relative to the methodologies in particular, because those rural areas are very complex. 

29 

An appraisal in Washington has vast amounts of data, you have a 

lot of conforming markets. Whereas in a rural area, you might have 

data access problems and there might be limitations with the data. 

But the notion of trying to codify the appraisal process, including 

the methods that they are using, how to use the sales comparison 

approach, as an example, in those markets, that is a disincentive 

to entering the profession. That is why appraisers enter the appraisal profession, is because they are paid to provide their professional expertise. They are trained, they know appraisal and valuation, and they should be allowed to do their jobs and use their 

professional judgment, not follow a set of rules like a cookbook. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I understand. 

Let’s hear from Ms. Wagner. 

Ms. WAGNER. I think that these overarching standards are actually really necessary for appraisers. And I have worked with many 

appraisers in my largely extremely rural State of West Virginia, 

and the regulations have never been and the USPAP standards 

have never been addressed to mean, by honest, hardworking appraisers, they have never said that there is a problem with the 

USPAP standards. 

There is room within those standards for rural communities, for 

areas like this, and there is a real need to have that guidance. And 

so, that is something that I have heard from appraisers who want 

to do the right thing, and any kind of flexibility with that would 

be used by the dishonest folks who want to get away with something, is my understanding from that market. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I want to sneak in one other concept. Should we 

change the rules to allow interstate work more easily? 

Yes, Ms. Trice or Mr. Park. 

Ms. TRICE. In specific to commercial work, definitely. If I am an 

expert in appraising a golf course, for example, and I am on the 

East Coast, and I get called—there aren’t that many golf courses 

in the United States—I have to apply for a license. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I hear the administration is going to see to more. 

But go on. 

Mr. PARK. There are already rules in place for appraisers to be 

able to apply for reciprocity between States. And that process has 

become much smoother and much better over the last several— 

Mr. SHERMAN. I believe my time has expired. I thank the chair. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. I thank the gentleman. 

We have a second round planned here. The gentleman from New 

Mexico has some very salient points he would like to make. He is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Trice, I don’t mean to be picking on you, but you seem to 

be kind of a straight shooter. So from this side of the aisle, from 

this side of the table, when I read the statement by Ms. Wagner, 

and I am kind of wanting you to help me evaluate that. It says, 

′′It is common knowledge,′′ page 2 of the testimony says, ′′It is common knowledge that lax regulation of the mortgage and appraisal 

market led directly to the financial collapse of 2008. Prior to the 

collapse, unscrupulous mortgage brokers and lenders joined forces 

with a handful of appraisers to fraudulently inflate home values.′′ 

30 

So from my perspective looking at a thing that runs into the 

hundreds of billions of dollars and maybe nibbles into the trilliondollar range when you look at home values, is it possible for a 

handful of appraisers to have done that? 

Ms. TRICE. No, not all by themselves. 

Mr. PEARCE. Okay. 

Ms. WAGNER. If I may actually respond to that. I mean, since you 

are using my language. 

Mr. PEARCE. Well, I appreciate it. I am just reading your statement. 

Ms. WAGNER. I know, and I would be like to be able to clarify. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Park, actually I really want to direct myself 

now to the time element that Mr. Green got into. So when you all 

are checking the States out, do you measure the time from the initiation? Do you get sort of a trend across the Nation that this State 

takes 1 day, this State takes 6 months, or whatever? Do you do 

that kind of analysis? 

Mr. PARK. In terms of handling complaints? 

Mr. PEARCE. No, no, no. The terms of the appraisal process, how 

long it takes. 

Mr. PARK. No, that is not something that the subcommittee has 

the authority to delve into in terms of the States. 

Mr. PEARCE. Okay. But you do keep a registry of people, of appraisers. 

Mr. PARK. We maintain a national registry of appraisers who are 

eligible to perform appraisals for Federally related transactions. 

Mr. PEARCE. Okay. And so Ms. Trice made a comment that bad 

actors continue to act badly. Do you ever take people off of that 

registry? And what is the process by which you take them off? 

Mr. PARK. We do. In cases where appraisers are found to be not 

compliant with the requirements we will remove those. In limited 

cases those appraisers can be removed from the registry. 

Mr. PEARCE. And you take the States’ information for who is 

compliant and who is not or you track your own compliance and 

noncompliance? 

Mr. PARK. We take the information from the States. The DoddFrank Act also gave the subcommittee additional authority to remove appraisers and AMCs from the national registry on an interim basis in lieu of States failing to act. 

Mr. PEARCE. So again, going back then to the assertion that the 

appraisers were a key piece of the collapse of 2008, how many appraisers did you pull out of your registry for bad acting? 

Mr. PARK. Again, we haven’t pulled off any appraisers on a permanent basis for bad acting, as you put it. Regulation of appraisers 

resides within the States. 

Ms. PEARCE. I understand, but you are the one that keeps the 

registry. That is what your paper says. And you said you had taken 

people off the registry. So my question is, how many have you 

taken off the registry? 

Mr. PARK. The registry is populated by the States. The Appraisal 

Subcommittee does not enter the data into the registry. 

Mr. PEARCE. It says the ASC is required to maintain the registry? 

Mr. PARK. We maintain the database and the States populate it. 

31 

Mr. PEARCE. All right. 

So one of the things in your testimony that you do say is that 

you are in the process—or one of the things that is greatly needed 

is to streamline processes, streamline and stabilize the appraisal 

standards. Now, is that something you all have attacked or is this 

something you just identified that needs to be attacked? 

Mr. PARK. It is something that we have identified as an issue 

along with all of the other requirements that are placed upon appraisers. If we could get to a point at some time in the future, a 

point of stasis where there aren’t as many changes going on, it 

would make it— 

Mr. PEARCE. All right. I get it. I get the point. I am running out 

of time. 

So, Mr. Garber, Mr. Park said that 25 years is not hardly, just 

barely a glimmer in a matter of a bureaucracy. I am kind of paraphrasing it. When I look at Uber, it didn’t exist 5 years ago, and 

now it is worth about $67 billion. So markets are really generating 

fast. This idea that we can’t get a coherent way of regulating in 25 

years, is that something you agree with or disagree with? 

Mr. GARBER. I think there is clearly a better model that Congress 

has recognized recently, and that is the nationwide mortgage licensing system to the States. 

Mr. PEARCE. All right. Thanks. I appreciate it. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The gentleman yields back. 

With that, we have the gentleman from Texas who has a second 

question. He is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Wagner, you had something that you were trying to complete. Would you want to do so now? 

Ms. WAGNER. Thank you, sir. 

I just wanted to point out that I think that there are some really 

important market forces at work, and maybe when I said a handful 

of appraisers I was discussing in West Virginia there are some 

identifiable bad actors. But I think that the market forces at work 

really created a situation where the lending industry was able to 

put substantial pressure on appraisers that compromise their independence and compromise their ability to provide adequate values. 

And so, with the requirement of appraisal independence in DoddFrank, I think that that really helps to ensure that there is some 

independence there and that those market forces don’t interact in 

order to put pressure on people to increase values or change values. 

And in addition, I think that the uniform standards of professional appraisal practice help create standards that appraisers can 

be reviewed according to and can ensure that there are adequate 

protections in place for both consumers and homeowners and the 

economy as a whole. So I think that both of those systems are very 

essential. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. I do agree with what you have said. I 

would add this. We do agree, I believe, that from time to time even 

the best of us can make mistakes. And much of what we do is 

based upon not only some standard, but also some evaluation that 

is subjective. And when those mistakes are made, we would want 

to have a process by which they can be corrected. 

32 

I was a judge for 26 years. I thank God that there was an appeals process. Over the 26 years I was not perfect. I was better 

than everybody else however. 

So the point is that we do need to have a methodology by which 

we can achieve the balance, and that is what I would like to work 

with you on. 

Ms. Wagner, I really like your input, and I like yours, too, Mr. 

Brady, because I think between the two of you we can strike that 

balance. 

Now, let me go over to Mr. Park. 

Mr. Park, just to get some understanding, first let me start with 

this basic premise. Do you agree that most people who commit 

fraudulent acts that they don’t expose themselves, that they pretty 

much decide that this is something they will keep to themselves or 

they will keep it within a certain circle of people? 

And I mention this because there seems to be the belief that you 

have the responsibility of eliminating fraud and that you are some 

sort of cop on the beat. I don’t think that is your function. Am I 

correct? 

Mr. PARK. No. I think that the Appraisal Subcommittee should 

have a role in preventing fraud whenever it can and has the authority to do so. But that authority largely resides within the 

States in terms of dealing with the individual transactions where 

fraud might occur. 

Mr. GREEN. And my point is, however, that if it comes to your 

attention, if you have the opportunity, you would act. Is that a fair 

statement? 

Mr. PARK. We would act within the confines of the law, absolutely. And we have tracked fraudulent—reports of appraisal fraud 

in the States so that we can work with the States when that becomes a real problem, again, through a partnership, not from the 

perspective of the Federal Government telling the States how they 

should handle their problems with fraud. 

Mr. GREEN. So you are not the supervisor, you work with, you 

don’t dictate to. 

Mr. PARK. It depends on the issue. But when we do have the authority— 

Mr. GREEN. Well, let’s just talk about generally speaking. 

Mr. PARK. —we do act in a supervisory role. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Park, excuse me. Let’s talk generally speaking, 

if we may. Generally speaking, do you supervise the activities of 

the States? 

Mr. PARK. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. And when you supervise the activities of the States 

are you responsible for ascertaining whether or not fraud exists? 

Mr. PARK. We are not directly responsible for that, no, sir. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. That is the point that I have been trying to 

help you make, Mr. Park. You are not the guy who acquires the 

empirical evidence to move forward. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. PARK. That is correct. 

Mr. GREEN. That is the point, Mr. Park. There are people who 

seem to be attributing this to you. 

Mr. PARK. Point well made. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Park. 

33 

I am going to yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. The gentleman yields back. 

With that, we will go to another gentleman from Missouri. You 

guys are being inundated with us today. Mr. Clay is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I wanted to ask the panel, according to an educator at the 

Appraiser Institute, the average age of an appraiser is 55 years of 

age and the main barrier for entry into the profession is the requirement of employment. The employment requirement is an appraiser trainee has to work under a certified appraiser for 2,500 

hours and a minimum of 2 years. So even if a person completes the 

educational process successfully, they still face a barrier of finding 

employment to complete the on-the-job training requirement. 

My question to the panel is, how can we create an environment 

to help appraiser trainees to complete the employment requirements to become a certified appraiser? And I guess I will just start 

with Mr. Park and go down the line. 

Mr. PARK. It is important that the appraisal regulatory system 

continues to look at new ways to bring people into the profession. 

There has been a lot of progress made in terms of the requirements 

for appraisers to enter the profession in terms of increasing those 

requirements. 

. Mr. Bunton can speak to this also since it is the Appraiser 

Qualifications Board that is setting these requirements. But they 

have established a national uniform licensing exam, they have increased education requirements. And now they are looking at reducing the experience requirements, which historically have been 

a significant barrier to entry, because it is difficult to find a supervisor to train you as a trainee to get the necessary hours for your 

credential. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. 

Mr. Bunton. 

Mr. BUNTON. Yes. The problem we have generally is also users 

of appraisal services do not want to engage trainees. So if I own 

an appraisal firm, I don’t want to have trainees because they are 

really not much value to me. 

As far as the experience requirement, 2,000 hours you mentioned, that is sort of a last vestige from an apprenticeship-type operation. We are moving to a profession. And our board is looking 

at case study courses and also an exam where you could test out 

essentially of a lot of that time and you become more valuable to 

an appraiser as a trainee much quicker than the 2,000 hours over 

12 months. 

Mr. CLAY. And, Mr. Bunton, I guess one of my concerns is that 

it brings, it adds an extra burden when you try to strive for diversity in this profession. Being a former realtor, we rely on appraisers quite a bit. So I was wondering, has that issue arisen in your 

industry and has anyone tried to address it? 

Mr. BUNTON. We have. On several occasions we actually solicit. 

We have four boards that we have to populate every year, and we 

solicit it. We solicit minority groups, we solicit all types of people 

to get as many qualified applicants as we can get in there. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. 

34 

Ms. Trice, anything to add? 

Ms. TRICE. The only thing to add, I think it is a couple of problems. We have set the bar too high. The number of hours required 

to work with a mentor, you can actually become an airline pilot 

and have less experience, but you are responsible for several hundred souls, and nobody has ever died in the appraisal process to 

the best of my knowledge. 

But the other problem is really an economic one, and we have 

had a compression of fees. And it is a very complicated topic, but 

we have a component of Dodd-Frank on customary and reasonable 

fees that has never been enforced. And so we have increased the 

requirements for appraisals, but they make about half of what they 

used to make. So nobody is going to want to enter the profession 

with that kind of economic environment. 

Mr. CLAY. I see. 

Mr. Garber has the institute done anything to try to make the 

workforce— 

Mr. GARBER. Yes, absolutely we have. It is punitive right now to 

take on a trainee, very difficult process. We have a lot of—there are 

rules, regulations have been built up around that process. We do 

need simplification of that. Those could be modified significantly. 

We have offered, and we don’t agree with The Appraisal Foundation on everything obviously, but an area that we have been talking with them very closely is on the development of an experience 

alternative or to earn experience in a classroom situation in a tested environment. So to actually enable, where you can’t find a mentor-mentee relationship, to actually earn that experience in a classroom under a tested situation. 

Mr. CLAY. Can they complete? 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Yes. 

Mr. BRADY. I would just add, training is important. I don’t know 

the number of hours and I am not in the professional business of 

appraisals, but where you go to the AMCs and you have a pool of 

appraisers, it doesn’t mean that their expertise is new construction 

or existing. And so we have to maybe look at that more in detail 

as to if I have a new construction product I get in the pool, they 

have never done a new construction. So training and continuing 

education on this process is very important. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. 

Ms. Wagner, anything to add? 

Ms. WAGNER. Just briefly. I think from talking to appraisers in 

my State, I think that having some compensation for supervisors 

would be helpful because I think it is very costly for people to bring 

on new trainees and that they are not getting adequately compensated for that. 

Mr. CLAY. I see. 

Thank you all very much for your responses. 

Mr. Chairman, my time it is up. 

Mr. PARK. Could I make one comment to that? 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Sure. Go ahead, briefly. 

Mr. PARK. One of the issues that we are grappling with right 

now is trying to educate lenders on the ability for lenders to use 

trainees in their transactions. 

35 

Historically, trainees have served as that force multiplier for appraisers. Once you get a trainee trained to a certain level where 

they can do the inspections and they can do some of the analysis 

and data gathering without that supervisor being involved every 

step of the way, it makes it much more economically viable to bring 

on trainees. Right now there are requirements that are outside of 

the Federal Government that limit the ability of trainees to be able 

to participate. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Thank you. 

With that, I have a couple of follow-ups, and then we will wrap 

up here. 

Mr. Garber, in your testimony you argue in favor of limiting the 

activities of The Appraisal Foundation to prevent potential conflicts 

of interest. Can you explain what those conflicts of interest are? 

Mr. GARBER. Sure. Thanks for the question. 

Whenever you have a statute that recognizes an entity, obviously, there is great responsibility that is given to that organization, but then there is also a great privilege that comes with it. So 

if you get special standing and recognition, they are given recognition and powers, the public looks at them in a certain respect as 

an authority in certain areas. And it is very common to address 

that for Congress to set forth limitations in particular areas. The 

limitations are important because it helps level the playing field. 

It doesn’t give one organization an advantage over another. 

That is where we have been expressing concern relative to the 

move to create a third board under The Appraisal Foundation, the 

Appraisal Practices Board. That is a board that was directed by the 

Appraisal Subcommittee for the foundation to undertake to develop 

rules around methodologies. At the same time, the foundation was 

setting up an education arm to offer education around those entities or those valuation advisories. 

We were concerned that that was essentially setting up a situation where there is too much centralized authority. If you have centralized authority in the area, the full range of valuation, including 

standards, qualifications and the methodologies, there is just a 

very strong potential for conflicts of interest to exist on education 

and on credentialing. 

And Congress has recognized that, as I said. In the SAFE Act, 

under the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System, there is a very 

strict prohibition for the Conference of State Bank Supervisors to 

not get involved in education activities. The same thing under the 

National Association of Registered Agents and Brokers. NARAB 

has a very similar provision. Because, again, it is a nonprofit organization, it is supposed to be a neutral, it is given special standing 

in the industry to be a neutral body within that universe. But it 

comes with responsibilities and privileges, and we ought not set up 

a situation where we are tilting the scales and giving an advantage 

to one group or to the other. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Park, do you want to? 

Mr. PARK. If I may correct the record. That is the second time 

Mr. Garber indicated that the subcommittee directed The Appraisal 

Foundation to establish the Appraisal Practices Board. That is not 

the case. 

36 

There was a meeting, this predated my time at the subcommittee, but there was a meeting of the subcommittee where 

there was a discussion regarding the need for appraisers to have 

additional education regarding—at that time the hot button was 

declining markets and the Federal regulatory agencies were seeing 

problems with appraisers’ ability to handle appraisals in declining 

markets. 

The subcommittee never in any way directed The Appraisal 

Foundation to establish the Appraisal Practices Board. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Mr. Bunton, I am sure you have a comment. 

Mr. BUNTON. Thank you. I would just like to address the conflict 

of interest issue. I think their testimony references a course approval program which we put in place primarily at their behest. 

They also mentioned we shouldn’t be in education. They developed 

courses for us and donated them to us. 

And as far as the Appraisal Practices Board, most appraisers do 

not belong to a professional society, and that board issues voluntary guidance, free of charge, no Federal funds. The story behind 

the story here is that in 2010 they were faced with suspension from 

the foundation for conduct. They resigned rather than face suspension. So now, while they were once an advocate, they have become 

an adversary, unlike the other 95 organizations affiliated with us. 

Mr. GARBER. If I could? 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Okay. No, we are going to move on. 

Mr. Park, we want to clarify what you have been saying with regards to the registry. Apparently one of your statements said that 

you had the ability to take people off, and now you are saying the 

States are the one that really put people on or off. What is your 

final statement here? 

Mr. PARK. Under certain conditions the Appraisal Subcommittee 

does have the ability to remove an appraiser from the national registry. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Okay, what you are saying is under 

Dodd-Frank you do have the authority to take them off? 

Mr. PARK. Dodd-Frank gave us additional authority to remove 

appraisers and appraisal management companies from the national 

registry for up to 90 days in lieu of State action. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Okay. 

Mr. PARK. So if a State was simply refusing to take action 

against an AMC or an appraiser who had demonstrable issues, 

then the subcommittee could take such an action. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. Okay. So what you are saying is normally the State takes care of all this, but you are the remover of 

last resort, so to speak? 

Mr. PARK. That is correct. 

Chairman LUETKEMEYER. All right. Very good. Thank you. 

That ends my questions. I do have some comments here. 

I appreciate everybody’s time today. You guys have been great. 

It has been a very spirited discussion. And I think it shows that 

we certainly have some issues here. 

You know, 2008 showed that there were some problems in the 

appraisal industry. Dodd-Frank was an attempt to fix it. Like any 

bill, it is well intentioned. I am sure there are some tweaks that 

37 

need to be done. Some good things that came out of it and probably 

not some good things. And so we want to work with you to find solutions to those things that don’t work, to make sure that we fix 

them. We have had everything from blow the system up to just 

tweak it a little bit. So it has made for an interesting discussion 

today. 

At the end of the day, the appraisers need to maintain their 

independence, but they need some flexibility. Ms. Wagner made a 

comment a while ago that flexibility is bad and it leads to fraud, 

which impugned the integrity of every appraiser out there, which 

I thought was remarkable. It was breathtaking, actually. 

But I think that generally the appraisers are caught in a bind 

from the standpoint that what you do is give a snapshot in time 

of what the value of that property is today. Tomorrow that property 

will have a different value, it could go up, it could go down. 

I have a daughter who lives in Denver, Colorado. All of you know 

Denver is a market where the real estate just keeps going up and 

up and up. She built a new house 3 years ago and can probably 

have close to 40 percent, if not 50 percent increase in value in that 

amount of time. Now, its value, the price of construction hasn’t 

gone up, but the value of the home has gone up. 

I live in rural Missouri. I can tell you, we have a real problem 

with appraisers. We have no appraisers in my county, period. We 

have a county of 25,000 to 30,000 people and no appraisers, zero, 

in my county. They are gone. 

I said a while ago I have a friend who is in the business and it 

is very difficult, as you have talked about, to get past the certification problem. 

So it tells me we have some difficulties and that the bottom line 

is we have to have appraisers to make sure that there is a trust 

in the value of the property and the people who buy it and finance 

it can believe in the value of that property for that day. 

And so we want to work with you and we want to continue to 

have this discussion, and we certainly appreciate all of you being 

here today and having this, I think, very spirited and very informational discussion. Thank you. 

The Chair notes that some Members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 5 legislative days for Members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to place their responses in the record. Also, without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to submit extraneous 

materials to the Chair for inclusion in the record. 

And with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(39) 

A P P E N D I X 

November 16, 2016 

40 


26005.001

,.... 

NAHB~ 

National Association 

of Home Builders 

Testimony of Ed Brady 

On Behalf of the 

National Association of Home Builders 

Before the 

United States House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Housing & Insurance of the 

Committee on Financial Services 

Hearing on 

"Modernizing Appraisals: A Regulatory Review and the 

Future of the Industry" 

November 16, 2016 
41 


26005.002

Testimony of Ed Brady 

Chairman, National Association of Home Builders 

November 16, 2016 

Page 1 

Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member Cleaver, and members of the Subcommittee, I am 

pleased to appear before you today on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders 

(NAHB) to share our views on the regulatory structure of the appraisal industry and suggestions 

for ensuring an efficient and effective appraisal industry. My name is Ed Brady, and I am a 

home builder and developer from Bloomington, Illinois and NAHB's 2016 Chairman of the 

Board. 

NAHB represents over 140,000 members who are involved in building single family and 

multifamily housing, remodeling, and other aspects of residential and light commercial 

construction. NAHB's members construct approximately 80 percent of all new housing in 

America each year, and help provide decent, safe, and affordable single family and multifamily 

housing to many of our fellow citizens. 

NAHB believes that accurate appraisals are essential to a healthy and sustainable housing 

finance system. Yet, appraisals remain a challenge for the housing industry. Members of NAHB 

continue to identify impediments that hamper appraisers' ability to provide accurate valuations 

of residential real estate. The current appraisal system is impaired due to inconsistent and 

conflicting standards and guidance; inadequate and uneven oversight and enforcement; a 

shortage of qualified and experienced appraisers; and, the absence of a robust and 

standardized data system. NAHB believes these problems must be addressed in order to 

restore confidence in the real estate market and to establish a foundation for sustainable growth 

of the US economy. This can only be accomplished through sound valuation practices, policy, 

and procedures that produce more credible valuations under all economic circumstances. 

NAHB appreciates the Subcommittee's focus on issues impacting the appraisal industry, 

including effectiveness of the current regulatory structure, provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall 

Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 that pertain to appraisals, and the role of 

appraisals in a 21" century marketplace. 

NAHB is a strong proponent of a sound and effective appraisal industry. NAHB has been a 

leading advocate for improving the valuation process and has undertaken a number of actions 

to raise awareness and address the adverse impacts from inaccurate appraisals on the housing 

sector. This testimony reviews challenges and recommended solutions that NAHB has 

identified and developed through our experience working with appraisal and financial industry 

stakeholders and feedback from NAHB members. 

NAHB Activities 

NAHB has been significantly engaged on this issue since the financial crisis. NAHB conducted 

five Appraisal Summits to provide opportunities for the agencies and organizations that 

establish appraisal standards and guidelines to join housing stakeholders in a constructive 

dialogue on major appraisal topics of concern. The goal of the Appraisal Summits was to bring 

all the interested parties together to identify recommendations and solutions that participants 

could jointly pursue to improve the appraisal process. In addition, NAHB formed an Appraisal 

Working Group, consisting of home builders and representatives from the financial and 

appraisal sectors, to analyze the appraisal process and develop recommendations for 

improvement. 
42 


26005.003

Testimony of Ed Brady 

Chairman, National Association of Home Builders 

November 16, 2016 

Page 2 

As a result of these efforts, NAHB developed a "Comprehensive Blueprint for Appraisal Reform" 

which outlines recommendations for improving the appraisal system by streamlining regulations 

and devoting adequate resources to ensure effective oversight and enforcement. 

NAHB believes that having accurate, timely and more robust data (including data on new 

construction) is essential to ensuring accurate valuations and has been working with many 

stakeholders to be sure information is available and can be shared. NAHB continues to pursue 

opportunities to ensure that new construction data is available to appraisers in order for 

accurate valuation of new homes. 

NAHB also has been encouraging banking and housing regulators to establish workable 

procedures for expedited appeals of inaccurate or faulty appraisals. 

NAHB has also been a long-standing member of The Appraisal Foundation's Advisory Council 

and has provided input to The Appraisal Foundation on valuation advisories and other 

documents that it has released for public comment. 

Overview 

The housing recovery has been impeded by ongoing problems in the U.S. residential appraisal 

system. While lenders, federal banking regulators and federally related housing agencies 

implemented corrective measures in response to valuation breakdowns that came to light in the 

wake of the Great Recession, and Congress mandated additional measures in the Dodd-Frank 

Act, these steps did not address fundamental flaws and shortcomings of the U.S. residential 

appraisal framework. Improper appraisal practices, a shortage of experienced appraisers and 

inadequate oversight ofthe appraisal system continue to restrict the flow of mortgage credit and 

retard the housing recovery. NAHB is not advocating that appraisals should be higher than the 

real market. Rather, our goal is to establish an appraisal system that produces accurate values 

through all phases of the housing cycle. 

The principal focus of reforms to date has been on eliminating undue influence on appraisers to 

produce inflated valuations that facilitate transactions. However. when home prices began 

declining, improper appraisal practices exacerbated the slide in values. Some appraisers used 

distressed sales -many of which involved properties that were neglected and in poor physical 

condition -as comparables in assessing the value of brand new homes, without accounting for 

major differences in condition and quality. Without such adjustments, the two housing types are 

not comparable. The inappropriate manner in which distressed sales were utilized distorted 

home valuations. Use of the cost and income approaches in conjunction with the comparable 

sales approach could mitigate such distortions. 

The dramatic increase in the use of Appraisal Management Companies (AMCs) is another 

factor contributing to inaccurate appraisals. Some AMCs have reduced appraiser compensation, 

which has Jed to more activity by appraisers with Jess training and experience, and shortened 

turnaround times for valuations to as little as 48 hours. These changes have had a significant 

adverse effect on appraisal quality. 

Other challenges facing the appraisal industry include shortcomings in appraiser training and 

experience in dealing with new construction and green building. There is insufficient new 

construction, energy efficiency and green building data available to appraisers. Further, current 
43 


26005.004

Testimony of Ed Brady 

Chairman, National Association of Home Builders 

November 16, 2016 

Page 3 

valuation practices do not provide a process for expedited appeals of inaccurate or faulty 

appraisals. Oversight of appraiser qualifications and appraisal practices falls to the individual 

states, and many jurisdictions have inadequate resources to adequately perform this function. In 

some states, fees collected for appraiser licensing and certification are swept into a general 

fund and are not utilized in appraisal/appraiser oversight and enforcement. 

Current Challenges and Recommendations 

Federal and State Oversight Is Complex and Flawed 

Federal Regulatory Oversight 

It has been more than 25 years since the establishment of the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) in 

August 1989, pursuant to Title XI of Financial Institutions Reform Recovery, and Enforcement 

Act (FIR REA) and the establishment of The Appraisal Foundation in 1987. The ASC is charged 

with overseeing the activities of the states and the Appraisal Foundation. The ASC reviews each 

state's compliance with Title XI of FIRREA and also monitors the requirements established by 

the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council agencies regarding appraisal standards 

for federally-related transactions. All ASC operations, including oversight of the Appraisal 

Foundation, are funded by state certified or licensed appraisers, each of whom pays a $25 

annual National Registry fee to the ASC as part of their state registration fee. 

The Appraisal Foundation was created to implement the Uniform Standards of Professional 

Appraisal Practice (USPAP). The Appraisal Foundation is charged with oversight and 

administration of the Appraiser Qualifications Board (AQB), the Appraisal Standards Board 

(ASB) and the Appraisal Practices Board (APB). The AQB establishes the qualification criteria 

for state licensing, certification and recertification of appraisers. FIRREA mandates that all state 

certified appraisers must meet the minimum education, experience and examination 

requirements promulgated by the AQB. The AQB has also developed voluntary criteria for 

personal property appraisers. The ASB sets forth the rules for developing an appraisal and 

reporting its results. In addition, it promotes the use, understanding and enforcement of 

USPAP. FIRREA requires that real estate appraisals used in conjunction with federally-related 

transactions be performed in accordance with USPAP. US PAP contains the recognized 

standards of practice for real estate, personal property, and business appraisals. The APB, 

established in 2010, provides voluntary guidance on valuation methods and techniques. 

The current residential appraisal system continues to face many challenges due to inconsistent 

and conflicting appraisal standards and guidance as well as inadequate oversight. NAHB 

believes that fundamental appraisal system reform must be a principal element of efforts to 

rebuild the nation's housing finance system. Coordination and accountability currently are 

lacking and there are major gaps in the system. 

Supporting this view is the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, Real Estate 

Appraisals -Appraisal Subcommittee Needs to Improve Monitoring Procedures 1

. The report to 

the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs of the Senate and the Committee on 

1 Appraisal Subcommittee Needs to Improve Monitoring Procedures 

GA0-12-147: Published: Jan 18,2012. 
44 


26005.005

Testimony of Ed Brady 

Chairman, National Association of Home Builders 

November 16,2016 

Page4 

Financial Services of the House of Representatives was a requirement of the Dodd-Frank Act. 

The purpose was to determine the ASC's ability to monitor and enforce state and federal 

certification requirements and standards. The failures in the process noted by GAO perpetuate 

inaccurate home valuations, negatively affect housing demand and are obstacles to the full 

recovery of the housing market. 

Major reforms in appraisal practices and oversight are needed to ensure that appraisals 

accurately reflect true market values and do not contribute to price volatility. NAHB recommends 

that federal oversight of appraisal activities be strengthened through streamlining and 

coordinating the current regulatory framework to devote adequate resources and ensure 

effective oversight and enforcement. 

State Regulatory Oversight 

Oversight of appraiser qualifications and appraisal practices falls to the individual states, and 

many jurisdictions have inadequate resources to adequately perform this function. In some 

states, fees collected for appraiser licensing and certification are swept into a general fund and 

are not utilized in appraisal/appraiser oversight and enforcement. 

In September 2013, NAHB partnered with the Association of Appraisal Regulatory Officials 

(AARO) to conduct a survey of individual state appraisal regulatory boards on a variety of topics 

intended to identify best practices for enforcing and administering real estate appraisal laws in 

member jurisdictions. Additionally NAHB reached out to a variety of key state regulators of 

different sizes and background to acquire additional insight. The following are best practices 

identified by these discussions and the survey. 

Structure 

Many State Appraisal Boards are responsible for the enforcement of a number of other 

professional services, which reduces their capacity for appraisal oversight and enforcement. 

Eighty percent of the states responding to the survey are responsible to oversee other 

professional activities. Strong state appraisal regulation requires: 

Independent and self-funded agency. 

Well-defined policy and automated processes. 

Umbrella agencies with well-defined boundaries and strict enforcement policies. 

Dedicated Resources 

A significant issue facing the State Appraisal Boards is inadequate resources. In many cases 

personnel are shared and funds are swept from appraisal activities into the state's general fund. 

Adequate appraisal resources require: 

Sufficient dedicated staff to carry out proper enforcement. 

Legal counsel dedicated to the appraisal program. 

No sweeping of appraisal-related funds into the state general fund. 

Independence from other state licensing agencies. 
45 


26005.006

Testimony of Ed Brady 

Chairman, National Association of Home Builders 

November 16, 2016 

Page 5 

Governance 

Effective governance is needed for successful disciplinary action. It is important that the board is 

fair, transparent and is representative of the real estate community. Members of the board must 

also have sufficient information and time to make an accurate decision. The governance 

framework should be: 

• Well rounded board with members from: 

o Appraiser community (majority) 

o Lending community 

o Appraisal Management Company 

o Builder and Realtor community 

o Public members from the community 

Staggered terms for board members 

Standardization 

Standardization of state oversight practices within and across the states would provide 

numerous efficiencies and improve reciprocity between the states. This would involve: 

A forum for interaction that is utilized by all states. 

Best practices education for state appraisal agencies. Access to a national repository for 

shared background checks for appraisers. 

A repository of data to be shared by each participating state. 

Unique 10 for appraisers and AMC's. 

Standardized reservation process for AMC's with a unique I D. 

A standardized complaint form. 

Communication 

The housing crisis highlighted the importance of clear and prescriptive communication between 

stakeholders. Accurate and timely communications will also provide all parties a common 

language as the housing finance and valuation communities work together to identify and 

implement housing finance reforms. An effective appraisal board communication system 

requires: 

Good communication with the federal ASC, including clear and timely interpretations of 

AQB requirements to assist states in preparation for the two-year state review process. 

Education for industry stakeholders on state appraisal regulatory processes. 

Clear information on disciplinary procedures and actions on the website. 

Regular participation in AARO events and other networking opportunities to engage with 

industry stakeholders. 

Utilization of available tools such as The Appraisal Foundation's Disciplinary matrix. 
46 


26005.007

Testimony of Ed Brady 

Chairman, National Association of Home Builders 

November 16, 2016 

Page6 

Inconsistent Standards 

In response to criticism that lax appraisals contributed to the financial crisis, more restrictive 

appraisal policies have been implemented by lenders, federal banking regulators, the Federal 

Housing Administration (FHA), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the United States 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Enterprises). 

Oftentimes, this has created a myriad of appraisal guidelines that are complex and inconsistent, 

causing confusion and frustration. 

Appraisal standards are not clear, best practices have not been well communicated, and 

enforcement is not occurring in a consistent manner. For all sectors that interact with 

appraisers - consumers, home builders, realtors, lenders, the Enterprises, mortgage insurers -

appraisal quality and appraiser competence remain tremendous challenges. 

Frequently individual agencies are implementing appraisal standards that do not allow 

appraisers the degree of discretion and judgement intended in USPAP. This has prompted 

industry participants to impose overlays that further impede the ability of appraisers to produce 

accurate valuations. 

NAHB believes efforts should be made to standardize appraisal requirements throughout the 

housing finance system so all parties are operating under the same set of rules. 

Inaccurate Appraisals for New Construction 

NAHB members are still seeing inaccurate appraisals that contain flawed data or are missing 

key pieces of information that cause an incorrect value opinion. NAHB believes the objective of 

an efficient and accurate collateral valuation process is to not have high or low appraisals but an 

appraisal that accurately reflects the value of the property enabling lenders to correctly 

understand the collateral risk and ensure solid lending decisions. 

Appraiser Experience and Training 

There are shortcomings in appraiser training and experience in dealing with new construction 

and green building. Valuing new home construction in particular is a highly complex analysis. 

Appraisers performing this analysis should have knowledge of new construction requirements, 

the ability to review building plans, etc. Appraisers must have a higher level of expertise in 

order to accurately and fairly complete their analysis. 

NAHB believes that one way to address this concern and improve the quality of valuations is to 

strengthen education, training and experience requirements for appraisers of new home 

construction, including the establishment of greater education, training and experience 

requirements for those who are assigned appraisals of new construction. This will ensure that 

lot values and building costs, including those for energy efficient, green building and other 

evolving new construction techniques and mortgage products, are fully considered in valuation 

of new home construction. NAHB also recommends that the qualifications for appraisers of new 

construction be incorporated into appraisal regulations and guidelines of the bank regulatory 

agencies, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, VA and USDA. 
47 


26005.008

Testimony of Ed Brady 

Chairman, National Association of Home Builders 

November 16, 2016 

Page 7 

Inadequate Data 

There is a need for more robust data for newly constructed homes. Currently, there is 

insufficient new construction, energy efficient and green building data available to appraisers. 

Most Multiple Listing Services (MLS) do not adequately reflect new construction and energy 

efficient features. This lack of current data is a major cause of inaccurate appraisals for these 

properties. 

NAHB recommends that the quantity and quality of data for new construction be improved 

through the establishment of an appraisal data base system for new construction; 

standardization of loan level valuation data by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, VA and USDA in 

their Uniform Appraisal Dataset (UAD); and, expansion of the UAD to include new construction, 

energy efficient and green building data standards. Discussions are underway to improve the 

representation of new homes in MLS databases. NAHB recommends these activities proceed 

expeditiously. 

Valuation of Green and High Performance Properties 

In addition to the availability of data for new construction, there remains quite a bit of confusion 

about accounting for energy efficient and other "green" features in new and existing properties. 

The Appraisal Foundation has taken steps to improve appraisers understanding of valuing 

green features. The APB has been developing Valuation Advisories to provide appraisers 

information on how to identify green features, how to determine their relevancy, how to 

effectively utilize research and analysis, and how to account for green features in the three 

approaches to value (sales comparison, cost and income). The documents are intended to be a 

key source of information for appraisers and reflect the current options for green programs. 

While NAHB supports the APB's goals, NAHB has been concerned about the process for 

developing the advisories and for taking into consideration stakeholder feedback. For example, 

NAHB submitted substantive comments on the First Exposure Draft of APB's Valuation Advisory 

#7 "Valuation of Green and High-Performance Property: One- to Four-Unit Residential" 

including correcting web links and references to documents that are no longer in use. NAHB 

was disappointed that the APB did not include any of our suggestions in the final version of the 

Valuation Advisory. 

When the APB released the First Exposure Draft of "Valuation of Green and High-Performance 

Property: Commercial, Multifamily and Institutional Properties," NAHB expressed serious 

concerns about the document. In response to NAHB and other stakeholders' comments, the 

APB is making changes to the document and will release a second exposure draft. NAHB 

appreciates the APB's willingness to improve their processes and take stakeholder concerns 

into consideration. NAHB will continue working with the APB on updating the documents and 

keeping these documents relevant for a market segment that is growing and constantly 

changing. 
48 


26005.009

Testimony of Ed Brady 

Chairman, National Association of Home Builders 

November 16,2016 

PageS 

Establish a Workable Appraisal Appeals Process 

In real estate transactions, it is not unusual to find differences of opinion over the market value 

of the subject property. Such discrepancies can stem from inconsistent determinations on 

comparable sales, questions on appraisal methodologies and different interpretations of factual 

information. Disagreements over home valuations can happen in any real estate market, but 

they are more frequent during periods of challenging and volatile markets. In declining markets, 

such as those experienced during the 2005-2012 financial downturn, the markets saw a 

confusing mix of short sales, foreclosures, and market transactions. Such developments, 

however, continue to present challenges for real estate appraisers. 

Buyers and sellers, builders and real estate agents can be held hostage by the current inability 

to promptly address legitimate questions on a valuation. The result is that all parties to the real 

estate transaction can be harmed when it is impossible to expeditiously and fairly challenge 

appraisals for errors of omission or commission. 

Presently, if a home builder or a seller, or their agent, is involved in a transaction where the 

appraisal contains flaws that affect the value opinion, the only recourse is to the lender. If the 

lender has any process to address appraisal complaints, it is typically slow. By the time a 

response is received, if a response is issued at all, the transaction has, in all likelihood, fallen 

apart. 

NAHB believes it is extremely important to establish a timely appeals process that is fair, 

balanced and appropriate to allow all parties to the transaction to appeal appraisals that do not 

meet USPAP standards or are based on inaccurate data or assumptions. 

At present, there is no industry regulation or guidance establishing a standardized dispute 

resolution process outside of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Loan Guaranty Program. 

Further, there is no single authority to expeditiously resolve an appraisal conflict nor is there any 

consistency amongst lenders should they decide to evaluate complaints of an appraisal that 

potentially contains factual errors or other flaws affecting the value opinion. 

The Dodd-Frank Act (DFA) contains language that ensures all who have an interest in a real 

estate transaction may question the appraisal. Section 1472 (c) under the Appraisal 

Independence Requirements states: 

"(c) EXCEPTIONS.-The requirements of subsection (b) shall not be construed as 

prohibiting a mortgage lender, mortgage broker, mortgage banker, real estate broker, 

appraisal management company, employee of an appraisal management company, 

consumer, or any other person with an interest in a real estate transaction from asking 

an appraiser to undertake 1 or more of the following: [emphasis added] 

(1) Consider additional, appropriate property information, including the consideration of 

additional comparable properties to make or support an appraisal. 

(2) Provide further detail, substantiation, or explanation for the appraiser's value 

conclusion. 

(3) Correct errors in the appraisal report." 
49 


26005.010

Testimony of Ed Brady 

Chairman, National Association of Home Builders 

November 16, 2016 

Page 9 

The Dodd-Frank provisions are incorporated in the banking regulators' Interagency Appraisal 

and Evaluation Guidelines at Section V. Independence of the Appraisal and Evaluation Program 

which states: 

"Consistent with its policies and procedures, an institution also may request the 

appraiser or person who performs an evaluation to: 

Consider additional information about the subject property or about comparable 

properties. 

Provide additional supporting information about the basis for a valuation. 

Correct factual errors in an appraisal."2 

Importantly, the Guidelines only state that the institution (lender) can make this request, it does 

not use the Dodd-Frank language that would allow other parties to make this request to an 

appraiser, i.e. the first part of the Exceptions provision above. 

Many lenders and AMCs refer to the process they have to enable such requests as a 

"Reconsideration of Value" or ROV. To avoid potential adverse influence on the appraisal, the 

typical policy is to require anyone with questions to submit those requests through the lender 

rather than going directly to the appraiser. 

FHA permits an underwriter to request a clarification or ROV from the appraiser when the 

appraiser may not have considered all of the information that was relevant on the effective date 

of the appraisal. The underwriter must provide the appraiser with all relevant data that is 

necessary for a reconsideration of value. 3 

NAHB builder members report that the current lender and FHA ROV process is not working. 

Despite the language in Dodd-Frank, the ROV process does not allow Jill parties to a 

transaction to provide additional information directly to the appraiser. All contact with the 

appraiser must be initiated by the lender/underwriter who may or may not process the ROV 

request. Further, the ROV process cannot be started until after the appraisal is issued. In 

extremely active markets, such as currently, the appraisal may not be completed until shortly 

before the closing date which leaves little time for an ROV. As a result, builders often will cover 

a small difference between the sales price and appraisal or, for larger differences in the sales 

price and appraised value, will lose the sale. 

Builders have reported some success with the VA's process mentioned above. The VA's 

Tidewater Initiative±, introduced in 2003 allows all parties to the transaction to provide the 

appraiser with additional information prior to the formulation of the appraiser's initial value 

opinion, which the VA refers to a the Notice of Value (NOV). The policy is known as the 

Tidewater Initiative because it was initially tested in the Tidewater region of Virginia. 

The purpose of the Tidewater Initiative is to encourage VA program participants to provide 

relevant market data to VA fee and staff appraisers during the appraisal process to assist the 

2 75 FR 237 (December 10, 2010) p. 77457. 3 FHA Single Family Housing Policy Handbook 4000.1 Section IIA3viii. 4 VA Circular 26-03-11, 'New Procedures for Improving Communications with Fee Appraisers and Streamlining 

Reconsiderations of Value' (December 22, 2003). 
50 


26005.011

Testimony of Ed Brady 

Chairman, National Association of Home Builders 

November 16, 2016 

Page 10 

appraiser in identifying relevant information they may not have had access to that ultimately 

creates a more accurate value opinion. Prior to issuing a NOV, a VA appraiser is required to 

notify a designated point of contact (POC) if the appraised value will come in below the sales 

price of the subject property. The appraiser will not be at liberty to discuss the contents of the 

appraisal with the POC at this point beyond explaining that they are calling for whatever 

additional information the POC may be able to provide. Full cooperation is expected between 

the appraiser and the specified POC or lender. Once the POC or lender has been notified, they 

will have two working days to provide additional information to the fee appraiser in a specified 

format. After receipt of any additional information, the appraiser will proceed with their due 

diligence and complete the report, which may or may not be affected by the additional 

information. 

NAHB recommends federal agency adoption of a standard appraisal appeals structure similar in 

design to that of the VA's Tidewater Initiative. This could be done through an amendment to 

Title 14 of the Dodd-Frank Act directing mortgage and banking regulators to develop and 

implement a standard appeals process. 

Conclusion 

Collateral valuation is a critical component of the mortgage decision. While there have been a 

number of positive changes to the appraisal system since the financial crisis, there remain a 

number of unresolved issues. Confidence in home values is essential to a housing market 

recovery as well as an important component to a robust primary and secondary mortgage 

market. 

NAHB stands ready to work with appraisal, housing and financial stakeholders to address the 

real challenges we face in restoring the public trust in how we build, transfer, value and finance 

the American consumer's most valuable asset We must work together to reform appraisal 

practices that support accurate and sustainable values. Solving these issues, in the short and 

long term, is a critical step toward establishing an efficient and sustainable housing finance 

market In fact, it is vital to address appraisal standards, processes and oversight as Congress 

undertakes reform of the housing finance system. 

NAHB appreciates this Subcommittee's attention to these issues. NAHB looks forward to 

working with the House Committee on Financial Services and others to identify and implement 

solutions to strengthen the process that measures the value of many Americans' most valuable 

asset- their home. 
51 


26005.012

Testimony of 

DavidS. Bunton, President 

The Appraisal Foundation 

Modernizing Appraisals: 

A Regulatory Review and the Future 

of the Industry 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Financial Services 

Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance 

November 16, 2016 

rrm THE j-\_Pl%\lSAL FOU01DAT10!\ 

The Appraisal Foundation 

1155 15th Street NW 

Suite 1111 

Washington, DC 20005 

202-347-7722 

www.appraisalfoundation.org 
52 


26005.013

INTRODUCTION 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, The Appraisal Foundation greatly 

appreciates the opportunity to appear before you today to offer our perspective on the 

regulation of real estate appraisers and the future of the profession. 

There are many misconceptions about The Appraisal Foundation and let me begin by 

stating that the Foundation is not: 

• a government agency or regulatory body; 

• created by Congress; 

• an appraisal trade association. 

Rather, the Foundation: 

• is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational organization; 

• was founded by eight national appraisal organizations 29 years ago; 

• serves as an umbrella organization comprised of approximately 100 

organizations and government agencies with an interest in valuation; 

• was created to foster professionalism in appraising. 

We provide private sector expertise in the real property appraiser regulatory system. 

The Foundation was given specific authority by Congress in 1989 (Title XI of FIRREA) 

regarding the real property appraiser regulatory system. The Foundation does not have 

any regulatory authority, but it provides tools for the regulatory community. 

Specifically: 

• individuals seeking to become a trainee appraiser, supervisory appraiser, 

state licensed appraiser or state certified appraiser must meet the 

minimum qualification requirements established by the Foundation's 

Appraiser Qualifications Board (AQB); 

• all states and territories must use licensing and certification examinations 

either issued or endorsed by the Foundation's AQB; and 

• all state licensed and certified real estate appraisers must adhere to the 

Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (standards of conduct) 

written by the Foundation's Appraisal Standards Board (ASB). 

On behalf of The Foundation, as a fair, impartial, and objective resource on valuationrelated issues, thank you for the opportunity to address the specific topics on which you 

are seeking our perspective. 

1 
53 


26005.014

SPECIFIC TOPICS OF DISCUSSION REQUESTED 

BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE 

Appraiser Regulatory Structure 

Background 

In the 1980s, the United States (U.S.) financial sector experienced a period of distress 

that was focused on the nation's savings and loan (S&L) industry. By 1984, Congress 

was already hearing complaints about faulty and fraudulent appraisals that were 

deepening the severity of the S&L crisis. To address the thrift industry's problems, 

Congress passed the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 

1989 (FIRREA), which ushered in a number of industry reforms. The main S&L 

regulator (the Federal Home Loan Bank Board) was abolished, as was the bankrupt 

Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC). In their place, Congress 

created the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and placed thrift's insurance under the 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). In addition, the Resolution Trust 

Corporation (RTC) was established to resolve the remaining troubled S&.Ls. The RTC 

closed over 700 S&Ls with assets of over $400 billion. Taxpayers were left with over 

$120 billion in losses and a shaken confidence in the U.S. financial system. 

Title XI of FIRREA (Title XI) created the unique appraiser regulatory system we have in 

place today. The purpose of Title XI is: 

"to provide that Federal financial and public policy interests in real estate related 

transactions will be protected by requiring that real estate appraisals utilized in 

cmmection with frderally related transactions are performed in writing in accordance 

with uniform standards, by individuals whose competency has been demonstrated and 

wlwse professional conduct will be subject to effective supervision." 

To serve this purpose, Title XI authorized the uniform appraisal standards and 

minimum appraiser qualification criteria established by The Appraisal Foundation 

(Foundation), and authorized states to establish appraiser regulatory programs to 

ensure effective supervision of licensed and certified appraisers who are eligible to 

perform appraisals for federally related transactions (FRTs). The Appraisal 

Subcommittee (ASC), an independent executive branch federal government agency, 

was created by Title XI within the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council 

(FFIEC) to provide oversight to the appraiser regulatory system. The Association of 

Appraiser Regulatory Officials (AARO), a non-profit organization, was formed in 1991 

to facilitate communication between regulators and others involved with the appraisal 

profession. 

2 
54 


26005.015

The emerging system brought about stability and consistency where previously there 

was none. Prior to the creation of the Foundation and subsequent adoption of Title XI, 

anyone could declare him/herself a real property appraiser, the associations for 

appraisers each had their own individual set of rules about appraiser qualifications and 

standards of appraisal practice, and only a handful of states had chosen to regulate the 

occupation. The inconsistencies and uncertainties made a negative impact on the 

market and contributed to the financial crisis. 

In the 25 years since the implementation of Title XI, the system has evolved and 

significant improvements have been made. Policy makers, lenders, consumers, and 

others relying on the services of a real property appraiser have greater assurance in the 

profession because: 

• Appraisers now meet increased education requirements in specific valuation 

topics, gain experience under careful supervision, and successfully pass a robust, 

national examination; 

• Appraisers now practice under a single set of uniform, ethical standards (i.e., the 

Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice, or USPAP), which have been 

tested in the courts and are looked upon globally as a gold standard; 

• State regulatory bodies are established as envisioned with 76 percent deemed 

"good" or "excellent" in their compliance reviews; 

• State boards embrace knowledge-based enforcement by having sent 783 state 

regulatory staff members to investigator training since 2009; 

• State boards, comprised primarily of appraisers, are effectively policing the 

profession with more than 19,000 disciplinary actions reported to the National 

Registry in the ten-year period from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2015; 

and 

• The system operates in an open and transparent manner with the entities 

working together and engaging stakeholders and the public when emerging 

issues arise. 

These strides illustrate the benefits of uniting the private sector with state and federal 

regulatory entities for a more streamlined and accessible regulatory system. 

Since the enactment of Title XI of FIRREA in 1989, Congress has addressed other crises 

by creating similar regulatory structures to ensure a national threshold of competency: 

• With the advent of the Arthur Andersen and Enron scandals in 2001, Congress 

created tl1e private sector Public Company Accounting Oversight Board 

(PCAOB) to ensure that the auditors of public companies adhere to independent 

and transparent national standards. 

• Following the 2008 housing crisis, Congress passed the SAFE Act, which 

mandates that mortgage originators are subject to background checks, a uniform 

3 
55 


26005.016

set of educational courses, and a comprehensive examination. This system is 

administered by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors' wholly owned 

subsidiary, the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System and Registry (NMLS). 

Suggestion for State-Based Alternative to Federal Regulatory Strncture 

Some have suggested that the federal arm of the appraiser regulatory system currently 

in place be replaced with a state-based structure. They point to regulation of other 

professionals involved in federally related mortgage transactions: real estate agents, 

bankers, and attorneys, among others, and pose the possibility for creating a similar 

oversight structure for appraisers. Examining this concept further, one finds: 

1. The Appraiser Membership Organization Structure is Fractured 

Unlike professionals whose support structure includes a comprehensive national 

association to which most members belong, namely: the National Association of 

REALTORS, American Bankers Association, Mortgage Bankers Association and 

the American Bar Association, appraisers do not have a primary membership 

organization to create consistency across the profession. There are numerous 

appraiser associations, most of which specialize in niche markets. Among others 

of various sizes and interests, examples include: 

• Commercial appraisal- Appraisal Institute (AI), American Society of 

Appraisers (ASA), and Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) 

• Residential appraisal- National Association of REALTORS (NAR), National 

Association of Independent Fee Appraisers (NAIF A) 

• Rural appraisals - American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers 

(ASFMRA) 

• Mass AppraisaVAssessment- International Association of Assessing Officers 

(IAAO) 

• EasemenlfGovernment Right of Way - International Right of Way 

Association (IRWA) 

Adding to this complexity, it is a widely held belief that approximately 70 

percent of state licensed and certified appraisers do not belong to a professional 

membership organization or adhere to ethical guidelines that professional 

association membership dictates. 

One strong national association, like those that exist for the other professions, 

would help to ensure consistency state by state. Without similar organization for 

appraiser professionals, a state-based appraiser regulatory structure would be 

hampered by competing interests of numerous membership bodies. 

4 
56 


26005.017

2. The Number of Appraisers is Comparatively Small 

There are approximately 80,000 licensed and certified appraisers in the United 

States. This compares to two million real estate agents, two million bank 

employees, and 400,000 American Bar Association members. The other 

professionals involved in mortgage lending transactions dwarf the number of 

appraisers and their membership organizations have significantly more political 

sway. It may be difficult for a state-based regulatory structure to ensure 

appraisal independence and consistent adoption of a common set of 

qualifications and standards given the imbalance. 

Keeping a small yet effective federal footprint in the appraiser regulatory system is 

critical to overcoming these issues. Appraisers are the only independent voice in a real 

estate transaction. Payment for their service is not connected to the purchase price or 

successful closing. There are important public policy reasons to ensure appraisal 

independence and prevent undue influence in providing an opinion of real property 

value. The authority of the federal government levels the playing field for these 

appraiser "Davids" versus their "Goliaths." A federal presence helps to ensure 

appraiser quality and independence so that appraisals performed in conjunction with 

federally related transactions can be regarded as credible and worthy of public trust. 

This small federal footprint-currently the ASC-is important to ensure consistency 

across the country for consumers and the mortgage finance system. 

Leveraging the Federal Footprint to Streamline Regulaton; Compliance 

Technology has drastically changed since the enactment of Title XI, allowing for the 

electronic transfer of critical data and information. Likewise, the geographic market 

area of many appraisers now reaches beyond individual state borders and certification 

in multiple jurisdictions is common. 

With minimum appraiser qualification requirements set by the Foundation and adopted 

by all jurisdictions, appraiser state application materials are mostly duplicative state by 

state. This creates an unnecessary administrative burden for both state regulators and 

individual appraisers. 

To ease regulatory burdens, the Foundation has started conversations with its advisory 

organizations, state regulators, and others to explore the development of a national 

portal for submission of appraiser licensing and certification application information. 

The portal would be accessible by each state jurisdiction and function similar to the 

NMLS for mortgage licensing. Congress recently expanded the authority of NMLS to 

allow it to service other professionals involved in mortgage lending. Expansion of that 

system for appraiser licensing and certification is worth exploring, and funding for the 

connection to state regulatory bodies could be provided by the ASC as part of its 

authority to offer grants to states. Leveraging the federal footprint in this manner 

5 
57 


26005.018

would streamline the regulatory process, relieve administrative burdens, and help the 

states as well as the appraiser professionals relying on state services. 

Effectiveness of the Appraisal Subcommittee 

The federal entity in the appraiser regulatory system is the ASC. It is an oversight 

body primarily designed to: 

• Monitor the states, the Foundation, and the federal banking regulators 

regarding Title XI related activities; 

• Ensure appraisers who perform appraisals for federally related transactions 

meet the qualifications set by the AQB of the Foundation, complete 

appraisals in accordance with uniform standards, and are subject to effective 

supervision; and 

• Provide grants to the Foundation and the states for Title XI activiti<:s. 

The ASC has worked to carry out its Congressional charge in these areas, but as we 

envision the future of the appraiser regulatory system, minor adjustments would 

increase its effectiveness. 

Monitoring 

Since the enactment of Title XI, the focus of ASC monitoring has been 

administrative-ensuring proper regulations are in place and processes are 

completed timely. The 2015 ASC Annual Report indicated that it monitored the 

work of the Foundation by attending meetings and reviewing documents, that it 

monitored the ASC member agencies by noting they had adopted appraisal-related 

rules and policies, and that it monitored state regulatory programs by on-site visits 

to review documents and attend regulator meetings. These primarily 

adminish·ative reviews found no issues of concern with the Foundation and ASC 

member agencies, and 42 of the 55 state jurisdiction regulatory programs are 

currently deemed as "Good" or "Excellent" following compliance reviews. 

To increase the effectiveness of the ASC, the function of monitoring should evolve 

to more substantive issues in the following areas: 

1. Consistency in Enforcement Among the States: The organizations that 

provide input and counsel to the Foundation report wide differences among 

states in the application of disciplinary measures for appraisers who violate 

USP AP. The ASC should use the information gained during compliance 

reviews to analyze states' enforcement decisions and provide an annual 

report about the outcomes. 

6 
58 


26005.019

2. Proper Application of USP AP to Violations Charged: The ASC review 

process is limited to verifying that states are resolving complaints within a 

one-year time frame set by ASC policy. To increase effectiveness, the ASC 

should review the states' complaint resolution decisions to ensure that they 

are properly and consistently determining an appraiser's adherence to 

USP AP when completing appraisals. The findings of these reviews should 

be shared with the states and other interested parties, and could become the 

basis for educational and informational programs to be developed if 

inconsistencies are revealed. 

3. Analysis of Complaints Referred to Banking and Appraiser Regulators Via 

the Appraisal Complaint National Hotline: The enacbnent of the DoddFrank Act gave the ASC the authority to create a hotline to receive and refer 

complaints of non-compliance with appraiser independence and USPAP. It 

also gave the ASC the authority to follow-up on complaint referrals to the 

states, financial institution regulators, and others to determine the status of 

the resolution. While an information and referral portal was established, the 

ASC should complete its charge by following up on referrals and publishing 

information about the resolutions. 

To increase effectiveness while keeping the federal footprint small, the ASC should 

move to reviewing reports and information, instead of the labor-intensive and 

costly site and meeting visits, for those entities found to be compliant or without 

major concern in previous years. 

A structural change would further help the ASC meet its monitoring requirements. 

The ASC is comprised of representatives of the Federal Reserve, Office of the 

Comptrollc'r of the Currency (OCC), Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Consumer Financial Protection 

Bureau (CFPB), National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), and the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The ASC staff is put in a 

difficult position by the mandate that they must monitor the agencies' appraisalrelated activities from which their board members are appointed. This became 

evident with some of the agencies' rulemaking decisions to reduce the impact of 

Title XI by creating a myriad of exemptions to the definition of "federally related 

transactions" and increasing the threshold amount under which an appraisal is not 

required. This structure also impacted decisions made by the ASC about the 

Appraisal Complaint National Hotline. A more independent reporting structure 

would enable the ASC to more effectively carry out its Congressional mandates to 

monitor the actions of these agencies. 

Ensuring Appraisers are Qualified 

To ensure that qualified appraisers are qualified to develop appraisals used in 

conjunction with federally related transactions, the ASC maintains a National 

7 
59 


26005.020

Registry of state licensed and certified appraisers. The National Registry contains 

the names and credential information of individuals that the states have deemed to 

have met qualification criteria established by the AQB and whose practice has not 

been found in violation of USPAP. We are encouraged that the ASC is working to 

improve the National Registry by creating a unique identification numbering 

system that will identify appraisers individually rather than by credentials held as 

many appraisers hold credentials in multiple jurisdictions. To make the National 

Registry more robust, the ASC should capture additional information about the 

appraiser including primary area of appraisal practice (e.g., conm1ercial, residential, 

litigation, assessment, etc.), primary location of practice territory (e.g., urban, rural), 

any professional designations held, and contact information (including email 

address). This information would help individuals select an appraisal professional 

who meets their needs and to communicate to all appraisers about items of 

importance. 

Grants in Support of Title XI Activities 

While no federal tax money is used to support the appraiser regulatory system, 

states are required to annually collect and submit to the ASC $40 per state licensed 

and certified appraiser. These funds support the work of the ASC, provide it with 

funding to issue grants to the Foundation to support Title XI-related activities 

undertaken by the Appraisal Standards and Appraiser Qualifications boards, and 

enable the ASC to provide grants to states to support Title XI activities in the areas 

of complaint resolution and data submission. In the last five years, these grants 

combined have ranged from 25 percent of the ASC's annual budget (Sl.lM of its 

$4.27M budget in 2011) to less than 15 percent of its aruma! budget ($569,000 of its 

$3.8M budget in 2015). Without consistency in funding, the Foundation must seek 

alternative revenue sources and the states must increase licensing and certification 

fees for appraisers to fund state regulatory programs. Greater stability and equity 

in funding amounts would be helpful for planning and execution of Title XI by the 

Foundation and the states. 

Establishing a funding distribution model would bring greater consistency and 

stability to support Title XI activities. As examples, the model could: 

• Set a minimum percentage of ASC funds collected to be used for grants to the 

Foundation to fund Title XI-related activities (e.g., 25 percent); 

• Set a minimum percentage of ASC funds collected to be used for grants to 

states to fund Title XI-related activities (e.g., 25 percent); and/ or 

• Set a maximum percentage of ASC funds collected that it may keep for its 

federal oversight responsibilities (e.g., 50 percent). 

8 
60 


26005.021

The Impact of the Dodd-Frank Act on the Current Regulatory System, 

Stakeholders, and Consumers 

While the Dodd-Frank Act ushered in some beneficial regulatory reform, it also created 

its share of unintended consequences. Promoting appraisal independence is an 

admirable goal, but building upon the Appraisal Management Company (AM C) model 

first made prevalent in the Home Valuation Code of Conduct (HVCC) had its drawbacks as 

well. 

The Good 

Codifying specific appraisal independence violations in federal statute was a big victory 

for appraisers. With the passage of Dodd-Frank, loan originators, processors, 

underwriters, mortgage brokers, and real estate salespeople were put on notice that 

appraisers could not be "bullied" into making deals work. Dodd-Frank provided a 

laundry list of acts that would constitute violations of appraisal independence. While 

many involved in the residential real estate marketplace needed no such compelling 

legislation, appraisers stood up and took notice that provisions to safeguard their 

independence were now part of federal legislation. Dodd-Frank also included 

provisions that permitted appropriate communication with appraisers for legitimate 

business needs. 

Dodd-Frank also included some consumer protection provisions aimed at predatory 

lending practices. Such practices significantly contributed to the real estate "bubble," 

which ultimately resulted in tl1e loss of significant wealth to a great number of 

Americans. 

The introduction of federal legislation that enabled the ASC to regulate AMCs was 

another positive aspect of Dodd-Frank. Many states implemented AMC regulation 

prior to the enactment of the federal law, but Dodd-Frank gave formal authority to tl1e 

state appraiser regulatory agencies to do so. TI1e federal regulations for AMCs 

promulgated by the ASC take effect in August 2018. 

Dodd-Frank also authorized the Foundation's AQB to establish minimum requirements 

for h·ainee, supervisory appraisers, and licensed residential appraisers. Although prior 

to Dodd-Frank many states had voluntarily inlplemented the minimum qualifications 

for these classifications that were set by the AQB, the federal law assisted in greater 

consistency. 

The prohibition against using Broker Price Opinions (BPOs) as the primary basis for 

evaluating collateral was also seen as a positive aspect of Dodd-Frank. While BPOs 

provide a valuable service in buying and selling real estate, they do not offer the 

independent, impartial, and objective analysis that an appraisal offers. Nor do they 

provide the depth and breadtl1 of the analyses found in appraisals. 

9 
61 


26005.022

The Bad 

Despite the specific exceptions noted in Dodd-Frank, many in the residential mortgage 

lending arena mistakenly equated the appraisal independence provisions with an 

appraiser being "radioactive." Such misunderstanding was relatively commonplace, 

but has been tempered more recently due in part to efforts of the Foundation, including 

the development of promotional material identifying these issues as "Common Myths" 

(Attachment 1) and elaborating on them at conferences and speaking engagements. 

Dodd-Frank also reinforced the AMC appraisal procurement and management model 

to the point that many lenders mistakenly believed Dodd-Frank required them to use an 

AM C. Nevertheless, many lenders welcomed codification of the AMC model because it 

allowed them to outsource engaging appraisers, manage their progress for the duration 

of an assignment, and rely on them to perform at least a cursory review of the appraisal 

report. In addition, some lenders found the AMC model to be a newly discovered 

source of revenue. These lenders determined they could charge borrowers the "going 

rate" for appraisals, yet they weren't required to pay the AMCs since the AMCs receive 

the bulk of their funding from the appraiser. This resulted in many appraisers feeling 

like they were servants to a new master, and to add insult to injury, lost 40 to 60 percent 

of their appraisal fees. 

Dodd-Frank benefited consumers by requiring lenders to provide a copy of the 

appraisal that was utilized in underwriting a loan. The CFPB went a step further and 

required lenders to provide borrowers with copies of all valuation products that were 

considered in conjunction with the loan application. Unfortunately, many borrowers 

were simply confused when receiving this information prior to closing. Some 

wondered why certain products reflected one opinion of value, while a different 

product showed another. And how was the appraisal fee the borrower paid actually 

applied to these various products? In an effort to aid in understanding, the Foundation 

created material that could be provided to borrowers upon receiving these valuation 

products (Attachment 2); unfortunately, the CFPB opted not to require lenders to 

provide it. 

Dodd-Frank included a provision whereby the appraisal fee paid listed on the Closing 

Disclosure statement may delineate between the fee the appraiser received and the fee 

retained by the AM C. Unfortunately, the CFPB opted not to require the Closing 

Disclosure statement to separately identify these fees. This lack of transparency is a 

disservice to all parties, leading borrowers to believe the appraiser received the full fee 

paid when in fact it is generally about half of what is paid. 

Dodd-Frank included provisions for appraisers to be paid customary and reasonable 

fees. Unfortunately, to date such provisions have not been consistently enforced. 

Further, many appraisers perceived such a provision to be incredibly ironic since the 

10 
62 


26005.023

legislation further entrenched the AMC model where appraisers now received a 

fraction of the fees they had in the past. 

The De Minimis Threshold and Federally Related Transactions 

Background 

In the summer of 1990, the federal financial regulatory agencies developed their 

appraisal regulations, which included a $50,000 de minimis threshold, with the exception 

of the Federal Reserve Board (FRB), which set its threshold at $100,000. Real estate 

transactions below this threshold would not have to be appraised by a state licensed or 

certified appraiser. 

In the spring of 1992, the FDIC, the OCC, and the OTS revised the regulations and 

changed their thresholds for requiring a state licensed or certified appraiser to $100,000. 

In June of 1994, the federal financial regulatory agencies then increased the de minimis to 

$250,000, where it remains today. As a result of outreach meetings over the past year 

associated with The Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1996 (EGRPRA), there have been several recommendations that the current threshold of 

$250,000 be doubled to $500,000. 

\Ve strongly oppose such an increase because it would significantly dilute the intent of 

Title Xf of FlRREA. Title XI was put in place to ensure the safety and soundness of our 

deposit insurance fund. The value of tl1e underlying collateral in a lending transaction 

needs to be determined by a professionally trained appraiser who adheres to 

performance standards and is credentialed by a state. Witl1 the current median existing 

horne sales price of $234,200, a $500,000 de minimis would exempt most residential 

mortgage transactions. An individual's primary residence is often their single largest 

investment and neither lenders nor borrowers would be afforded the protection of 

having a trained professional determine whether an appropriate price is being paid for 

a property. 

Federally Related Transactions 

Related to the de minimis is the issue of what constitutes a federally related transaction. 

When Congress passed FIRREA, the intent was that most residential mortgage 

transactions would be considered federally related transactions. 

In the early 1990s, the federal financial regulatory agencies adopted a series of 

regulations that resulted in 12 instances where a transaction is no longer considered a 

federally related transaction (Attachment 3). These exemptions greatly reduced the 

number of federally related transactions. It is estimated that fewer tl1an 20 percent of 

residential mortgage transactions are federally related transactions. 

11 
63 


26005.024

There continues to be a great deal of confusion in the marketplace about what 

constitutes a federally related transaction. Most individuals involved in the appraiser 

regulatory system are under the false impression that the majority of residential 

mortgage transactions are federally related. 

For example, in August 2015 the AARO wrote a letter to the ASC requesting a definition 

of what constitutes a federally related transaction. To date, AARO has not received a 

response to their letter. 

By raising the de minimis and very narrowly defining what constitutes a federally 

related transaction, the intent of Title XI of FIRREA has been significantly undercut. 

A Shortage of Appraisers 

In recent months there have been numerous reports of appraiser shortages, long waits 

to obtain an appraisal, and higher appraisal fees. The chart included with this 

testimony (Attachment 4)-developed by the ASC staff-illustrates the rise and fall of 

appraiser credentials as well as the correlation between appraiser credentials and 

mortgage originations. While this chart suggests that the shortage is not a national 

problem, there is no question that there are shortages being reported in certain markets. 

Ironically, the number of state certified real estate appraiser credentials is almost ten 

percent higher today tl1an it was ten years ago. However, tl1ere are several factors that 

may be causing localized appraiser shortages. In large part, these factors apply almost 

exclusively to the residential mortgage lending sector of the profession for the following 

reasons: 

The Demise of the State Licensed Residential Real Estate Appraiser 

As a result of the real estate crisis, Congress passed the Housing and Economic RecovenJ 

Act of2008 (HERA), which required that appraisers for Federal Housing Administration 

(FHA)-insured mortgages must be" certified" by tl1e state in which the property to be 

appraised is located or by a nationally recognized professional appraisal organization. 

Effective October 1, 2009, FHA no longer accepted new applications from state licensed 

residential appraisers per the HERA requirement. All roster appraisers must now be 

state certified and appear on the ASC's National Registry in order to conduct appraisals 

for FHA-insured mortgages. 

This has had a very significant impact on the number of state licensed real estate 

appraisers. While some obtained the state certified real estate appraiser c'fedential, 

many left the profession. A ten-year comparison of appraiser credentials (below) shows 

a decrease in the number of state licensed residential real estate appraisers by over 70 

percent. 

12 
64 


26005.025

Active Appraiser Credentials 

2006 2016 

Certified General 34,812 39,011 

Certified Residential 46,701 49,550 

Licensed Residential 29,921 7,950 

The Education of Users of Appraisal Services 

Another significant change that has occurred in recent years is the fact that many 

lenders today do not want licensed residential or trainee appraisers involved in the 

performance of residential appraisals. This decision occurred in large part because of 

the abundance of caution that lenders exercised following the economic crisis of 2008. 

The Foundation was surprised to learn that many lenders believe that Dodd-Frank 

prohibits them from using these individuals, which is simply not the case. Using state 

licensed residential appraisers and trainees would greatly reduce any backlog of 

appraisal assignments. Licensed residential appraisers are legally able to perform 

appraisals on the vast majority of residential real estate in this country (non-complex 

residential property with a loan amount below $1,000,000, and complex residential 

property with a loan amount below $250,000). In addition, trainee appraisers can 

perform appraisal assignments on any property a supervising certified appraiser is 

legally able to perform, provided the report is co-signed by that supervising certified 

appraiser. The Foundation is working with professional associations who represent 

lenders to raise awareness that the use of both licensed residential appraisers and 

trainee appraisers is permissible and should be encouraged. 

The Economic Factor 

Even with the "customary and reasonable fees" provision contained in Dodd-Frank 

(enacted in 2010), there is little debate that residential appraisal fees have stagnated in 

recent years. Whether it is due to the advent of AMCs or because some users of 

appraisal services view appraisals as a" commodity," there has been an impact on the 

number of appraisers who want to perform appraisals for residential mortgage lending. 

Many have opted out of residential appraising altogether or have diversified their 

practice to include such specialties as eminent domain, insurance, assessment appeal, 

and litigation support While the number of residential appraisers remains strong, 

there may be a shortage of appraisers willing to accept assignments below a certain fee 

threshold. 

A large number of residential appraisers believe the working conditions for many 

assignments in the residential mortgage lending sector are untenable. Many of the 

pricing and turnaround time models used by AMCs were developed for urban and 

suburban market'>. In rural areas, many appraisers refuse to take on assignments due 

to: (1) the level of compensation; and (2) a short turnaround time requirement when the 

13 
65 


26005.026

property is a considerable distance away. Some appraisers believe an AMC must 

"justify" the fee it is earning by placing greater scrutiny on appraisal reports, and create 

additional requirements for the appraiser. 

Many clients and users of appraisal services have also asked for more in residential 

mortgage appraisal assignments. Performing an enhanced scope of work and 

providing more detail in a report should create an expectation of higher- not lower fees. 

Lower fees, quick turnaround time expectations, and increased client requirements 

result in an unsavory cocktail for many appraisers; from a strictly economic point of 

view, it is simply not worth their time. 

Tfte Dispersion Factor 

While we can easily identify the number of appraisers in each state through the ASC's 

National Registry, how those appraisers are dispersed in their respective states is much 

more difficult to assess. There is little doubt that there are counties and towns around 

the United States that are underserved by appraisers; but that has historically been true 

to some degree. The Foundation believes that the significant reduction in the number of 

licensed appraisers has adversely impacted rural areas. Individuals who may have 

possessed multiple credentials in such fields as real estate sales, insurance, and real 

estate appraising may have let their licensed residential appraiser credentials lapse 

when the demand for their services dropped off significantly as a result of the FHA 

policy and refusal of lenders to engage them. 

A Look Ahead 

While the Mortgage Bankers of America projects a reduction of mortgage originations 

over the next two years, the Foundation has some concerns about tl1e number of real 

estate appraisers 3-5 years from now and wants to ensure tl1ere are no unnecessary 

barriers to entry for qualified individuals seeking to enter the appraisal profession. It is 

for this reason the AQB is looking into alternative ways that individuals may meet 

certain qualification criteria requirements. 

The Role of Appraisals in a 2W Century Marketplace 

Appraisals performed by ethical and competent appraisers are a cornerstone of safety 

and soundness policies for financial instih1tions insured with federal funds. Without an 

independent, impartial, and objective opinion of value for collateral, lenders could 

make risky loans without the safeguard of knowing their investments are protected. 

We have all witnessed financial crises that took their toll on financial and real estate 

markets and burdened U.S. taxpayers with a heavy debt. As discussed, the Savings & 

Loan Crisis of the 1980s brought about regulatory reform that included, for the first 

14 
66 


26005.027

time, national requirements for the licensing and certification of real estate appraisers 

performing appraisals in federally related financial transactions. 

Moving forward, what role will appraisals play? Although there are obviously 

fluctuations (e.g., "bubbles") from time to time, the long-term trend for real estate in 

this country is clearly one of appreciation. And the higher the property values, the 

larger the loans that homebuyers and homeowners will seek. Larger loans equate to 

potentially greater risk for financial institutions and the secondary market, thereby 

possibly creating increased exposure for the taxpayer. Therefore, it could be argued 

that in the years ahead, professional valuations will be even more important than they 

are today. However, appraisers will need to embrace new paradigms with respect to 

the roles they play. 

With the advent of "big data" and evolving technology, there are those who believe a 

computer can provide a more "accurate" opinion of value than appraisers. As these 

teclmologies become more refined, it's likely that, in certain cases, that may be true. In 

areas with extremely homogenous housing and ample sources of market data, a wellwritten automated valuation model may be a perfectly appropriate way to analyze the 

collateral on a relatively low-risk loan. 

Conversely, there are many markets consisting of properties with varying ages, 

qualities of construction, condition, levels of renovation, lot sizes, view amenities, etc.-

not to mention special financing arrangement<> or seller concessions. It is in these 

markets where a professional appraiser is needed to apply the type of judgment that a 

computer cannot replicate. While a computer can do a great job of" crunching" 

numbers, its output is only as good as its input. If the information required to properly 

analyze market activity is not entered by a trained professional with a solid 

understanding of the marketplace, the ensuing results may be suspect. 

Having said that, appraisers are poised to be part of the solution; not an obstacle or 

impediment to sound financial policies. While tlw type and extent of analyses 

appraisers will perform is likely to be different than what has been done in the past, 

seasoned appraisers are some of tl1e best candidates to accurately analyze and interpret 

market data. While some appraisers fear the emerging technology as a threat to their 

livelihoods, others embrace it and position themselves to increase their relevancy in the 

future. 

As evidenced by alternative valuation products that have surfaced in today' s 

marketplace, appraisals cannot be "one size fits all." Rather, the extent of analyses and 

the commtmication of opinions and conclusions must be flexible. For transactions 

involving low risk and smaller financial commitments, abbreviated reports !:hat can be 

performed quickly and at a low cost are needed. Alternatively, lenders considering 

higher risk investments involving significant capital will continue to rely on more 

15 
67 


26005.028

detailed analyses that can be greatly augmented by incorporating new tools and 

technologies that continue to evolve. 

\Vhile the marketplace may demand more streamlined products such as Broker Price 

Opinions, Automated Valuation Models, Desktop Valuations, Comparative Market 

Analyses, Reconciliation Reviews, etc., who better to perform such transactions than a 

competent, ethical, valuation professional? 

Indeed, financial transactions in the 21st century will be different. And professional 

appraisers are up to the challenge of meeting the needs of the marketplace. 

Conclusion 

The Title XI real property appraiser regulatory system, while unique and not without its 

flaws, has made a positive very real difference over the past quarter century. It is the 

glue that holds the 55 jurisdictions together and every effort should be made to further 

refine and improve a system that has demonstrated effectiveness without the use of 

appropriated funds. The Foundation stands ready to assist with this effort in any manner 

you believe is appropriate. 

Appraisers have historically made a significant contribution to the safety and 

soundness of our financial system and their important role will continue in the future. 

The catalyst for the creation of the current appraiser regulatory system was to protect 

the integrity of our deposit insurance system, a need that is as strong today as it ever 

was. 

Again, The Appraisal Foundation appreciates the opportunity to share its perspective 

with you today and we urge this Subcommittee and all members of Congress to 

continue to use the Foundation as a fair, impartial and objective resource on valuationrelated issues. 

16 
68 


26005.029
69 


26005.030
70 


26005.031
71 


26005.032
72 


26005.033

Attachment 2 

THE APPRAISAL FOUNDATION 

Authorized by Congress as the Source af Appraisal Standards & Appraiser Qualifications 

Effective January 2014, rules adopted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) 

allow borrowers to receive copies of all valuation products ordered with their loan (even if the 

lmder did not rely on them) three days prior to closing. Various valuation products 

(appraisals, A VMs, BPOs) may produce different values and cause confusion for borrowers. 

Understanding Valuation Products 

A Quick Guide for Borrowers 

As a borrower, it is important to understand the differences between the valuation products 

you may receive before closing on your loan and the relative reliability and applicability of each 

product. When reviewing valuation products, keep in mind that: 

An Appraisal is an opinion of value perfonned by a professional state-licensed or -certified 

appraiser. It complies with the Unifonn Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), 

which requires appraisers to be independent, objective, and impartial. An appraiser tnust 

remain unbiased and produce an opinion of value that is credible, or worthy of belief. An 

appraisal by a competent professional appraiser is the most reliable of all valuation 

products. 

An Automated Valuation Model (AVM) is a computer-generated estimate of a property's 

value that a lender might use in some circumstances to assist in evaluating the collateral for 

a mortgage. 11>e output of an A VM is heavily dependent on the quantity and quality of the 

data input. With proper use, an A VM can help support the findings of an appraisal, but 

when used alone its output may not be credible. 

A Broker Price Opinion (BPO) is typically prepared by a real estate broker and is another 

tool a lender might use to evaluate the collateral for a loan. A BPO, as originally intended, 

does not comply with USPAP, and real estate brokers are not obligated to comply with 

USPAP and its corresponding appraiser independence requiren1ents. BPOs were designed 

for brokers to assist home buyers and sellers in arriving at a list or purchase price. 

A Comparative Market Analysis (CMA) is similar to a BPO and is commonly prepared by a 

real estate agent to help decide on an asking or offering price. Like a BPO, a CMA does not 

comply with USPAP and real estate agents are not required to comply with USPAP. 

The Appraisal Foundation, the nation's foremost authority on the valuation profession, has 

additional resources for consumers. For more information, including A Guide to 

Understanding a Residential Appraisal, please visit www.appraisalfoundation.org. 

1155 151

h Street, NW1 Suite 1111, Washington, D.C. 20005 

Phone: 202~347w7722; FAX: 202~347w7727; Web: www.appraisalfoundation.org 
73 


26005.034

Attachment 3 

FEDERALLY RELATED TRANSACTION EXEMPTIONS 

§225.63 Appraisals required; transactions requiring a State certified or licensed appraiser. 

(a) Appraisals required. An appraisal performed by a State certified or licensed appraiser is required 

for all real estate-related financial transactions except those in which: 

(1) The transaction value is $250,000 or less; 

(2) A lien on real estate has been taken as collateral in an abundance of caution; 

(3) The transaction is not secured by real estate; 

(4) A lien on real estate has been taken for purposes other than the real estate's value; 

(5) The transaction is a business loan that: 

(i) Has a transaction value of $1 million or less; and 

(ii) Is not dependent on the sale of, or rental income derived from, real estate as the primary source 

of repayment; 

(6} A lease of real estate is entered into, unless the lease is the economic equivalent of a purchase 

or sale of the leased real estate; 

(7) The transaction involves an existing extension of credit at the lending institution, provided that: 

(i) There has been no obvious and material change in market conditions or physical aspects of the 

property that threatens the adequacy of the institution's real estate collateral protection after the 

transaction, even with the advancement of new monies; or 

(ii) There is no advancement of new monies, other than funds necessary to cover reasonable 

closing costs; 

(8) The transaction involves the purchase, sale, investment in, exchange of, or extension of credit 

secured by, a loan or interest in a loan, pooled loans, or interests in real property, including mortgagedbacked securities, and each loan or interest in a loan, pooled loan, or real property interest met Board 

regulatory requirements for appraisals at the time of origination; 

(9) The transaction is wholly or partially insured or guaranteed by a United States government 

agency or United States government sponsored agency; 

(10) The transaction either: 

(i) Qualifies for sale to a United States government agency or United States government sponsored 

agency; or 

(ii) Involves a residential real estate transaction in which the appraisal conforms to the Federal 

National Mortgage Association or Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation appraisal standards 

applicable to that category of real estate; 
74 


26005.035

(11) The regulated institution is acting in a fiduciary capacity and is not required to obtain an 

appraisal under other law; 

(12) The transaction involves underwriting or dealing in mortgage-backed securities; or 

(13) The Board determines that the services of an appraiser are not necessary in order to protect 

Federal financial and public policy interests in real estate-related financial transactions or to protect the 

safety and soundness of the institution, 

(b) Evaluations required, For a transaction that does not require the services of a State certified or 

licensed appraiser under paragraph (a)(1), (a)(S) or (a)(7) of this section, the institution shall obtain an 

appropriate evaluation of real property collateral that is consistent with safe and sound banking practices, 

(c) Appraisals to address safety and soundness concerns, The Board reserves the right to require 

an appraisal under this subpart whenever the agency believes it is necessary to address safety and 

soundness concerns, 

(d) Transactions requiring a State certified appraiser-(1) All transactions of $1,000,000 or more, All 

federally related transactions having a transaction value of $1,000,000 or more shall require an appraisal 

prepared by a State certified appraiser, 

(2) Nonresidential transactions of $250,000 or more, All federally related transactions having a 

transaction value of $250,000 or more, other than those involving appraisals of 1-to-4 family residential 

properties, shall require an appraisal prepared by a State certified appraiser, 

(3) Complex residential transactions of $250,000 or more, All complex 1-to-4 family residential 

property appraisals rendered in connection with federally related transactions shall require a State 

certified appraiser if the transaction value is $250,000 or more, A regulated institution may presume that 

appraisals of 1-to-4 family residential properties are not complex, unless the institution has readily 

available information that a given appraisal will be complex, The regulated institution shall be responsible 

for making the final determination of whether the appraisal is complex, If during the course of the 

appraisal a licensed appraiser identifies factors that would result in the property, form of ownership, or 

market conditions being considered atypical, then either: 

(i) The regulated institution may ask the licensed appraiser to complete the appraisal and have a 

certified appraiser approve and co-sign the appraisal; or 

(ii) The institution may engage a certified appraiser to complete the appraisaL 

(e) Transactions requiring either a State certified or licensed appraiser, All appraisals for federally 

related transactions not requiring the services of a State certified appraiser shall be prepared by either a 

State certified appraiser or a State licensed appraiser, 

[Reg, Y, 55 FR 27771, July 5, 1990, as amended at 58 FR 15077, MaL 19, 1993; 59 FR 29500, June 7, 1994:63 FR 

65532, Nov, 27, 1998] 

26005.036

Mortgage Origination Values and Appraiser Credential Trends 

140,000 

120,000 100,000 

80,000 

60,000 

40,000 

20,000 

0 

121,407 

98,351 96,745 

65,716 

""" .... _ 

---

*Chart provided by the Appraisal Subcommittee 

Gene

-certified 

Residential 

licensed 

-rota! Appraise

Credentials 

.... Mortgage 

Origination 

Estimates 

(In 100 Millio

*2016-2018 Projected 
76 


26005.037

Testimony of William E. Garber, Jr. 

Director of Government and External Affairs 

Appraisal Institute 

Professionals Providing 

Real Estate Solutions 

Industry 

Before the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance 

House Committee on Financial Services 
77 


26005.038

November 16, 2016 

Chairman Luetkemeyer, Ranking Member Cleaver and members of the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance, 

thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns and solutions regarding "Modernizing Appraisals: A 

Regulatory Review and the Future of the Industry" on behalf of the nearly 20,000 members of the Appraisal 

Institute, the largest professional association of real estate appraisers in the United States. 

Real estate appraisal plays a critical role in helping financial institutions conduct risk management and make safe 

and sound loans. Today, the number of real property appraisers in the United States is in decline, and concerns 

are being expressed by banks and real estate professionals alike about a potential shortage of appraisers. 

What is clear is that all appraisers are being choked by rules and regulations in nearly every facet of their 

business. From how an appraiser reports an appraisal, to supervising trainees, to uneven licensing requirements, 

to licensing and registration fees passed down by clients, to mandates from federal agencies- appraisers' 

professional lives have become extremely complicated, more expensive and less productive due to a dated and 

archaic regulatory structure. As a result, consumers suffer from increased turnaround time, delays in loans, and 

potential higher costs. 

The Appraisal Institute believes that there is a better, less-complicated approach that would improve appraisal 

quality, reduce costs, and address fundamental concerns that are driving away today's appraisers from the 

profession. This model would benefit from the experiences of other industries and precedents established by 

Congress, resulting in a closer alignment of the appraisal regulatory structure with those found within the real 

estate and finance industries. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The federal regulatory structure for real estate appraisal essentially has been untouched since the 

enactment of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 ("FIRREA"). 

Dodd-Frank Act amendments added further complexity to the structure, and the resulting rules are 

overwhelming practicing appraisers. 

The complicated federal system is proving to be counter-productive for the profession and for users of 

appraisal services. The Appraisal Subcommittee has veered from its Congressional mandate to audit 

state appraisal boards for compliance and maintain a National Registry of appraisers in the past to assert 

authority over the appraisal profession by attempting to add new layers of rules and regulations for 

appraisers, which ultimately has adversely impacted users of appraisal services, as well. 

Real estate appraisers face a "layering effect" of rules and regulations that create a disincentive for 

potential entry into the profession, while also diminishing the profession's profitability. This is 

counterproductive, given that rules continue to grow in number. These include: 

o Background checks with no federal mandate or efficient processing system; 

o Unappealing Supervisory-appraiser and Trainee-appraiser requirements; and 

o Standards that aren't standard at all. 

We suggest Congress modernize the appraisal regulatory structure and realign it with those of other 

industries in the real estate and mortgage industries, using as a model the National Mortgage Licensing 

System (NMLS) cooperative among state agencies. 

Part 1, The Appraisal Regulatory Structure 

Appraiser Population Trends 

The Appraisal Institute has analyzed the Appraisal Subcommittee National Registry data since 2006 using 

consistent methodology.' The long-term trend is one of decline in the number of licensed and certified real estate 

1 See U.S. Appraiser Population Estimates, attached. 

2 
78 


26005.039

appraisers in the U.S., with decreases of nearly 3.0 percent annually. (As of June 2016, the total number of active 

appraisers decreased 22.7 percent compared to the 2007 peak year-end.) A broader analysis, considering these 

facts and other AI research, suggests the current trend could continue, with the number of appraisers decreasing 

at a comparable or higher annual rate over the next 5 to 10 years primarily because: 

Age demographics resulting in a high rate of retirements. 

Fewer people entering the real estate valuation profession as evidenced by a dramatic decrease in the 

number of first-time license and certification test takers. 

Appraisers may leave the profession due to challenging or uncertain business conditions and more 

government regulation. 

Wider use of alternative valuation technologies may displace some appraisers. 

A potential oversupply of residential appraisers (more than two-thirds of all appraisers focus primarily on 

the residential sector). 

In addition, average fees for residential appraisers have been in decline for many years, while the costs of doing 

business (I.e., licensing fees, data services, continuing education, reference texts, supplies, vendor fees, etc.) 

have increased dramatically. When one adds in fee-splitting with appraisal management companies, many 

residential appraisers actually are making much tess than they were when FIR REA was enacted. With all of this 

together, we anticipate a continued decline in the number of practicing appraisers, between 20-25 percent, over 

the next 5-10 years. 

Our data does not indicate a national shortage of appraisers at this time; however, there are indications of 

shortages in some markets across the country. We anticipate that such shortages would increase should the 

projected decline fully materialize. 

Direct Federal Role 

The federal regulatory structure for real estate appraisal essentially has been untouched since enactment of the 

Financial institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 ('FIRREA"). It's safe to say that the 

marketplace has changed significantly since that time and continues to change rapidly today, which is why the 

Appraisal Institute applauds Congress for reviewing the current relationship between federal and state 

responsibilities and how this structure serves consumers, appraisers and other market participants. 

Our primary concerns center around the complicated federal system that has proven to be counter-productive for 

the industry and for users of appraisal services. During prior hearings before this Committee, we have stated our 

belief that the Appraisal Subcommittee has veered from its original Congressional mandate to audit state 

appraisal boards for compliance and maintain a National Registry of appraisers to assert authority over the 

appraisal profession by attempting to add new layers of rules and regulations for appraisers and users of 

appraisal services'. 

Further, several attempts have been made by The Appraisal Foundation- originally at the direction of the 

Appraisal Subcommittee -to codify appraisal methodology through a newly-created TAF board, the 'Appraisal 

Practices Board." The Appraisal Foundation attempted to codify methodology through this board in at least 

three different ways, including a legislative recommendation presented to this Committee during the Dodd-Frank 

Act deliberations, a proposal to cite works of the Appraisal Practices Board within the Uniform Standards of 

Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP3) over which it presides, and by allowing state and federal agencies to 

2 The Appraisal institute testified in 2011 and 2012 before the House Committee on Financial Services on 

concerns about the Appraisal Subcommittee's involvement in the creation of the Appraisal Practices Board 

("APB"). The APB was created at the direction of the Appraisal Subcommittee- beyond Title XI authorizations. 

The APB remains a Congressionally-unauthorized board of the Appraisal Foundation, but still has encouraged 

states to adopt the resulting APB documents for mandatory compliance purposes. 3 USPAP includes the ethics, development and reporting obligations for appraisers, and it is codified in law in all 

jurisdictions and referenced in federal bank regulations. Appraisal methodology is found within the body of 
79 


26005.040

adopt the APB's work products in policies and procedures documents. Codification of appraisal methodology 

threatens practitioners with untold compliance obligations and would stifte innovation within the profession. 

Real estate appraisal remains one of the most highly regulated professions in the United States, impacting not 

only residential real estate appraisers, but also commercial real estate appraisers, and those preparing appraisals 

in non-mortgage work such as development consulting, litigation support, and tax and financial reporting services, 

to name a few. Appraisers are regulated by the states, but also are faced with significant federal oversight by the 

Appraisal Subcommittee. No comparable system of federal regulation or oversight can be found within other real 

estate or finance industries. 

The Appraisal Subcommittee historically has served two primary functions- maintaining a National Registry of 

real estate appraisers and auditing state appraisal boards for compliance with Title XI requirements. FIRREA puts 

sovereign state agencies In an awkward position of being audited by a federal agency. Thus, we believe that real 

estate appraisal is the only industry that contends with such an arrangement or system. 

The theory behind a federal agency auditing state appraisal boards has been to ensure that states follow through 

with development of a certification and licensing system. However, such certification and licensing programs now 

have been in place for more than 25 years. All states and territories process certifications and licenses and, by 

the Appraisal Subcommittee's own criteria, no state or territory is at risk of losing status under Title XI 

requirements. 

We have some concerns with the way in which some states conduct enforcement For example, we find that 

many disciplinary actions are taken for non-substantive violations, as well as being inconsistently applied from 

state-to-state. Further, many state agencies lack the financial resources and competency to enforce USPAP for 

non-federally related transactions. Here, serious consideration should be given at the state level to limiting the 

scope of state appraisal boards to their original function mortgage appraisals and federally related transactions. 

On the plus-side, overall, states' appraiser licensing agencies are performing their base function of processing 

applications and renewals, and conducting a level of oversight and enforcement- just as other state licensing 

agencies do in other professional oversight capacities. 

However, new rules expected to be issued and finalized next year by the Appraisal Subcommittee quite literally 

will expand the agency's budget on the backs of appraisers. This new "tax'' on appraisers comes in the form of 

new fees assessed by the Appraisal Subcommittee for inclusion on a registry of appraisal management 

companies, pursuant to an amendment from the Dodd-Frank Act In developing the proposed rule, the Appraisal 

Subcommittee did not consider the impact on small business under the Regulatory Flexibility Act The likely result 

will be a pass-through of these registry fees - intended for appraisal management companies - to appraisers. We 

expect that this will force many small business owners out of the appraisal profession altogether, further 

exacerbating the shrinking number of residential real estate appraisers. 

When Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Act, it clearly intended that this money be used for grants to state 

appraiser regulatory agencies. However, the Appraisal Subcommittee has made no attempt to establish such a 

grant system for states. Instead, the Appraisal Subcommittee has utilized The Appraisal Foundation as a conduit 

for developing state investigator training programs. Thus, according to the proposed rule, the Appraisal 

Subcommittee intends to utilize this increased revenue to support its underlying Title XI functions- not for a grant 

program to state agencies. 

Lack of Accountability 

At a very basic level, the appraiser regulatory structure is overty-complicated and lacks fundamental 

accountability measures. In its most recent report to Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

identified significant violations of internal control standards by entities that claimed such standards were designed 

to promote effectiveness and efficiency, and to promote accountability. 

knowledge of real estate appraisaL At its most simplistic level, this includes approaches to valuation, including the 

sales comparison approach, cost approach, and income capitalization approach and their derivatives. 

4 
80 


26005.041

In January 2012, the GAO released a report citing the need for the Appraisal Subcommittee to establish policies 

and procedures related to The Appraisal Foundation's funding eligibility. Specifically, the GAO report cited the 

Appraisal Subcommittee for not having specific policies for determining whether Appraisal Subcommittee grantfunded activities of The Appraisal Foundation are FIRREA-related. The Appraisal Subcommittee's failure to have 

in place appropriate policies and procedures is inconsistent with federal internal control standards designed to 

promote effectiveness and efficiency. Further, a lack of such policies and procedures limits the accountability and 

transparency of the ASC's activities. 

The GAO report cites a concern that the Appraisal Institute has shared for many years- that the relationship 

between the Appraisal Subcommittee and The Appraisal Foundation lacks sufficient accountability measures. 

Outside of preparing an annual report to Congress, oversight of the ASC and TAF is virtually non-existent. We 

also note that the Appraisal Subcommittee does not have an inspector general who can conduct independent 

assessments of either the Appraisal Subcommittee's, or The Appraisal Foundation's, programs and operations. 

Background Checks with No Federal Mandate Nor an Efficient Processing System 

Appraisers, and those considering entering the profession, must navigate constantly-changing appraisal 

standards and minimum qualifications. USPAP is modified by the Appraisal Foundation every two years and the 

Real Property Appraiser Qualification Criteria has been under a constant state of change for the last six years" 

Often the Congressionally-authorized boards of The Appraisal Foundation are indecisive and impose onerous 

requirements on appraisers only to subsequently modify them or eliminate them entirely, sometimes in the next 

two-year cycle. 

An especially egregious example of this occurred with the addition of the requirement for all new appraisens 

entering the profession to undergo a fingerprint-based criminal background check. This requirement was imposed 

by the Appraiser Qualifications Board (AQB) in December 2011 after a series of five Exposure Drafts with an 

effective date of January 1, 2015. 4 There was no federal mandate for the AQB to take this action. 

As a result of this new requirement, and to be sure that they were in full compliance by January 1, 2015, many 

state appraiser regulatory agencies rushed to their state legislatures to obtain the legal authority necessary to 

collect fingerprints and conduct the required criminal background checks. Between 2012 and 2014, 

approximately 36 states enacted new laws and regulations to impose the formal background check requirements 

on real estate appraisers. Approximately 10 states had existing requirements in place prior to the adoption of the 

requirement by the AQB in 2011.5 

In addition to imposing these onerous, new requirements on all new applicants- as was the minimum required by 

the AQB - many states also imposed similar requirements on existing credentialed real estate appraisers, many 

of whom had been practicing in good standing without any issues for many years. A few states even went so far 

as to impose these requirements on appraisers practicing in other states who applied for a license via reciprocity 

or for a temporary practice permit. 

However, by early 2014 the AQB realized that it had erred and that implementation of this new requirement by the 

states, and acceptance by appraisers, was proving to be more difficult than originally planned. After five 

additional Exposure Drafts, the AQB finalized significant changes to the background check requirement in March 

2015. These changes eliminated the need for appraisers to submit fingerprints and undergo formal background 

checks. Instead, how a state appraiser regulatory agency determines whether a person applying for an appraiser 

credential has a background that "would call into question public trust" is rightfully left to the discretion of each 

state and territory. The mandatory compliance date for state appraiser regulatory agencies also was extended to 

January 1, 20176 

4 "Fifth Exposure Draft of Proposed Revisions to the Real Property Appraiser Qualification Criteria" October 27, 

2011 

5 http://VfflW.appraisalinstitute.org/ano/ai-report-analyzes-state-nules-on-appraiser-background-checksl 

6 "Fifth Exposure Draft of a Proposed Revision to the 2015 Rea/ Property Appraiser Qualification Criteria" January 

27, 2015 

5 
81 


26005.042

While the 2015 changes to the background check requirement made by the AOB were favorable, they are not 

likely to have any effect in reducing regulatory burdens on appraisers and state appraiser regulatory agencies. 

Approximately 47 states now have requirements in place for formal, fingerprint-based background checks, and it 

is unlikely that any state will repeal or change its existing requirements. The AQB's indecision between 2011 and 

2015 left a system in which appraisers are required to comply with onerous state requirements for fingerprintbased criminal background checks, even though they no longer are required as part of the minimum criteria and 

were never required as part of any federal law or regulation. 

Unappealing Supervisory-appraiser and Trainee-appraiser Requirements 

Even the procedures for entering the real estate appraisal profession are driven by complicated rules and 

mandates. Under the Dodd-Frank Act, The Appraisal Foundation was given purview over supervisory-appraiser 

minimum qualification requirements. The concern resulting from the financial crisis was of "appraiser mills" where 

a supervisory-appraiser might have an inordinate number of trainees working underneath him/her and producing 

appraisals at an unsafe rate. The reaction to this concern was the creation and establishment of more rules for 

supervisors and trainees- for each to take courses and essentially to lock in the mentor-apprentice relationship 

that has been found in the appraisal industry for many years. 

The benefit of such courses is unclear to us at this point, as the course outline from The Appraisal Foundation is 

one that essentially is a primer on the appraisal regulatory structure. It has limited practical benefit for either 

supervisors or trainees, but serves as one additional condition for entering the profession or taking on a new 

trainee as a supervisor. These processes become even more complicated if an appraiser carries multiple licenses 

and has trainees in multiple states. While The Appraisal Foundation recently has recognized this as an issue and 

is attempting to resolve the multi-state supervisor concern, this has discouraged many supervisory-appraisers 

from taking on new entrants to the profession. It also serves to illustrate how micro-managed appraisal is as a 

business today. 

The Burden of Continuously Changing Standards 

Real estate appraisers also face a constantly-changing standards regime that often ties their hands in resolving 

client needs, while perpetually adding to their regulatory compliance burden. Real estate appraisers must adhere 

to US PAP when performing federally-related transaction appraisals under FIRREA. Meanwhile, The Appraisal 

Foundation's Appraiser Qualifications Board mandates that all appraisers take a USPAP course to obtain a 

certification or license and then complete an "update" course to maintain those certifications and licenses. 

Further, The Appraisal Foundation requires appraisers to purchase a copy of USPAP ($75) when taking USPAP 

courses. Thus, not only is USPAP's development funded by a grant from the Appraisal Subcommittee (which, in 

itself, is funded by fees paid by appraisers $40 per appraiser to the Appraisal Subcommittee), but The Appraisal 

Foundation also gets residual revenue from USPAP publication sales compelled by the requirements that TAF 

alone establishes. 

This arrangement is made worse by USPAP's constant maintenance cycles, which ensure a steady "tax" on 

appraisers, in terms of both publications' sales and mandated courses that must be taken by appraisers to obtain 

and retain certifications and licenses. 

This is in stark contrast with other "standards" processes, which typically update standards only when necessary 

or under a longer-term perspective. In our view, if standards are well-written, they would not need constant 

updating, especially on a two-year cycle. Typically, as has been seen in recent years, immediately following the 

release of a new version of USPAP, proposed changes to the following years' cycle are released for public 

comment. As it is, The Appraisal Foundation follows a more opportune schedule for updating USPAP, which 

places a significant compliance obligation- and cost- on appraisers. 

In addition, over time USPAP has become "rules-based," versus a document that is principles-focused. This, in 

part, is in response to state regulatory concerns about attempting to enforce a standard. {The Appraisal 

Foundation has responded to this by weaving in certain rules for appraisers to follow to assist in enforcement 

activities). As we discuss below, this inhibits technological development to a degree. 

6 
82 


26005.043

Part 2. Appraisal Independence and Procurement 

The Appraisal Institute often hears from real estate agents, home builders and others that real estate appraisals 

used in conjunction with consumer mortgage financing are "killing deals" and/or holding back the economic 

recovery of the housing market. These accusations are unfounded and misguided, as appraisers do not "make 

the market," but rather "analyze and report the market." To this point, real estate appraisals are an important risk 

management activity to be conducted by banks in making safe and sound lending decisions. Independent 

appraisals are not meant to simply support purchase contracts- they are obtained to help lenders assess their 

overall risk. 

The Dodd-Frank Act did include an important provision, Section 1472, protecting the independence of real estate 

appraisers from coercion and intimidation. This should be maintained in any legislative review by Congress. 

However, we remain concerned with the overall approach taken by federal regulatory agencies and financial 

institutions in supporting independent real estate appraisal functions within financial institutions, as well as 

procedures utilized by lenders, to procure real estate appraisals. Several significant problems are apparent, as 

follows: 

1. The predominant factors in the appraiser selection decision often are the "price" and "turnaround time" of 

the appraisal, not the quality of service, or geographic or market competency of the appraiser. 

2. Federal regulatory agencies remain deeply under-resourced to deal with examination issues involving 

real estate appraisals. At one point in the 1990s, each federal regulatory agency had competent 

appraisers on staff helping to support examination teams. Today, there is a grand total of two professional 

designated real estate appraisers supporting examination functions in all three of the major examination 

agencies. We believe that there is ample room for enhancement, as examiners face a wide variety of 

collateral valuation challenges today. 

3. Federal bank examiners have identified widespread problems with the way in which many banks have 

handled real estate appraisal administrative duties. A recent review by the Appraisal Institute of Material 

loss Reports indicates that 75 percent of now-failed banks previously had been cited for various 

appraisal violations. These violations included often failing to obtain real estate appraisals where 

required or having insufficient resources within the bank to manage and oversee the appraisal !unction. 

4. Generally, most banks have opted not to take responsibility or ownership of residential appraisal 

functions, instead electing to outsource appraisal operations to third parties that offer a perceived layer of 

insulation from coercive pressure, but apply new business pressures that put constraints on appraisal 

quality. Many appraisal assignments involving appraisal management companies result in reduced fees 

to appraisers, as these companies take a portion of the fee for "managing" the process. Further, use of 

appraisal management companies can add to the time it takes for a bank to finalize appraisal review 

within a loan application. 

Many financial institutions have been under the mistaken impression that federal rules require the use of appraisal 

management companies to comply with basic appraisal independence requirements. This is not the case, as 

financial institutions may manage appraisal ordering and review internally. Many financial institutions, upon 

learning that federal rules allow banks to take back the appraisal function, have reestablished appraisal 

departments with independent reporting structures as an alternative to utilizing appraisal management 

companies. Depending on the size of the bank, this may be accomplished with a functioning appraisal 

department, or hiring an appraiser on staff, or utilizing several available software programs in the market that 

enable risk management staff to oversee appraisal orders and reviews. 

This is not to say that a/1 appraisal management companies are performing poorly, because some place the 

quality of service at the forefront of their business model; it is just that the business model employed by many 

appraisal management companies has failed significantly. Our biggest concern is the banks' propensity to make 

appraiser hiring decisions based on speed {or turnaround times) or price, rather than quality or competency (both 

market and geographic). Here, many institutions appear to ignore federal guidelines that clearly state that price 

and turnaround time should not be the predominant factors in an appraiser hiring decision. Yet, as cited above, 

7 
83 


26005.044

bank regulatory agencies appear understaffed to enforce this provision, helping to enable substandard appraisal 

procurement by banks. 

Technological Advancement in Appraisal 

We understand and want to support technological advancement within the appraisal process. Many appraisers 

are technologically savvy, as data and analysis systems are some of the primary tools used by appraisers. 

Residential appraisal, in particular, is impacted, perhaps even inhibited, because appraisal report forms and 

appraisal requirements historically have been confined to the government-sponsored enterprises. Fannie Mae 

and Freddie Mac maintain and require the use of a suite of appraisal report forms geared to property types, with 

the Uniform Residential Appraisal Report (URAR) being the mostly widely used. These are accompanied by 

lender and appraiser guidelines found in the Seller/Servicers guidelines that establish parameters around 

appraisals accepted for loan purchases. The actual appraisal reporting processes -items like quality and 

condition ratings- for loans sold to the agencies is dictated by the Uniform Appraisal Dataset. Appraisers must 

follow these rules and now are being evaluated by the GSEs based on how these rules are reported by peers and 

how they have been previously reported for consistency by appraisers. 

The GSE appraisal guidelines and requirements have been and continue to be developed in isolation from the 

industry. We long have had a level of discomfort with the lack of formal stakeholder input in these processes. 

Today, the GSE appraisal forms are viewed by many as being out-of-date and in need of a major overhaul or 

update. The GSE guidelines have had the unexpected effect of actually reducing appraisal quality in some cases, 

especially for unusual homes or homes in less active markets. Further, the appraisal forms may not be tailored 

appropriately for the needs of the client community, as the URAR is developed typically with a purchase mortgage 

transaction in mind. Transactions involving refinance, loan workouts, disposition and portfolio-monitoring likely 

require a different set of information than what is required by the URAR 

Further, there are changes to appraisal standards that should be explored to allow appraisers to respond to client 

needs better than they are today. For example, Restricted Appraisal Reports generally are not sufficient for 

lenders even as "evaluations" because they do not meet the requirements outlined in the Interagency Appraisal 

and Evaluation Guidelines for either an appraisal or an evaluation. Further, recordkeeping obligations of 

appraisers actually are greater for Restricted Appraisal Reports. For an Appraisal Report, the supporting data and 

analysis must be in the report itself, while they must be in the work file with a Restricted Appraisal Report. We 

believe a more accountable and responsive standards maintenance process would help alleviate some of these 

problems. 

Interim Final Rule & Customary and Reasonable Fees 

The Dodd-Frank Act requires creditors and their agents to pay "customary and reasonable" fees to appraisers to 

refiect what an appraiser typically would earn for a residential appraisal assignment absent the involvement of an 

appraisal management company. Under the Act, evidence for such fees may be established by objective thirdparty infonnation, such as government agency fee schedules, academic studies and independent private sector 

surveys. 

In sum, the rules that have been promulgated by the Federal Reserve (Interim Final Rule) and the Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau (Final Rule) are not consistent with the plain language and intent of the Dodd-Frank 

Act. Two presumptions of compliance are provided by the Federal Reserve and accepted by the CFPB that are 

internally inconsistent. One presumption requires independent studies or fee schedules that align with retail 

appraisal fees direct from the appraiser, while the other accepts internally generated results that include what 

amounts to wholesale fees involving third parties. 

The CFPB adopted a final rule earlier this year, leaving these presumptions unchanged. We continue to have 

concerns with the internal inconsistencies found in the two presumptions for compliance, and we urge fresh 

oversight on this issue and the related issue of consumer disclosure of appraisal and AMC fees, which is outlined 

below. 

Consumer Disclosure 

The problem of customary and reasonable fees paid to appraisers is masked by consumer disclosure rules that 

allow the co-mingling of appraisal and appraisal management company fees on the Appraisal line of the 
84 


26005.045

Consumer Disclosure form issued by the CFPR This co-mingling confuses consumers into believing that they are 

paying appraisers more for services today, when, in fact, compensation levels may have significantly declined 

because appraisal management companies are taking a sizable portion of the total cost paid by the consumer. 

The Dodd-Frank Act authorized the CFPB to require the disclosure of AMC fees separate from fees paid to 

appraisers. In developing the final "TRID" rule, the CFPB conducted consumer testing of sample Closing 

Disclosure forms. This testing concluded that consumers were indifferent to the disclosure of AMC fees separate 

from appraisal fees, indicating that consumers were not confused by a disclosed appraisal management company 

fee. Despite this, the CFPB simply opted to allow disclosure on a voluntary basis, but not mandate it. Today, while 

some lenders break out the fees paid to AMCs separate from appraisal fees, most do not do so. 

Appraisal Threshold Levels 

Per the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act, the federal bank regulatory agencies have 

been reviewing whether to raise appraisal threshold levels, which currently stand at $250,000 for real estate loans 

and $1 million for business or owner-occupied loans. Testimony on September 28, 2016, by Federal Reserve 

Chair Janet Yellen to the House Financial Services Committee signaled the agencies' intent to propose a 

reduction in appraisal requirements, perhaps before the end of 2016. This would reduce fundamental risk 

management requirements at a time when the housing market only has recently recovered from the largest real 

estate-related financial crisis in decades, and in the face of numerous alarm bells that have been and still are 

being sounded by regulators regarding the commercial real estate market. 

FIRREA, enacted in 1989 in response to the savings and loan crisis, authorized federal bank regulators to require 

appraisals for real estate loans made by federally regulated financial institutions. Since that time, the following 

have occurred: 

In 1994, bank regulators exempted wide swaths of loans from appraisal requirements, including real 

estate loans below $250,000 and owner-occupied business loans below $1 million. More than 20 years 

later, a majority of residential real estate loans still do not require an appraisal under the existing 

exemption. 

The recent financial crisis witnessed widespread problems with bank management of appraisal 

requirements, including adherence to the 1994 regulations. A vast majority of failed banks from the 

financial crisis were shown to have been cited by federal bank regulatory agencies for lax appraisal 

oversight and management. 

In addition to establishing the two appraisal threshold levels in 1994, the agencies exempted loans sold to 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This allowance was granted based on a determination by bank regulatory 

agencies that tl1e government-sponsored entities would maintain equivalent appraisal requirements. In 

effect, the federal government turned the regulation of residential appraisals over to Fannie Mae and 

Freddie Mac, who have, in turn, issued guidelines (or rules) with very little input from professional 

appraisal organizations or stakeholders in general. This has placed a huge responsibility on Fannie Mae 

and Freddie Mac to "get it right," and they have not in many ways. 

Ultimately, nearly one-third of all loans received an "appraisal waiver." Coupled with poor underwriting 

and review requirements, the policies of the government-sponsored enterprises drove them into 

conservatorship by the federal government. 

Since the crisis, the GSEs have required appraisals more often. A 2011 GAO Report found that 85% of 

mortgages purchased by the GSEs in 2010 were accompanied by appraisals. Today, nearly all firstpurchase mortgages require a full interior inspection appraisal completed by a certified appraiser. 

Raising the $250,000 threshold level would not affect residential loans as much, as long as Fannie Mae, Freddie 

Mac and the Federal Housing Administration retain their current appraisal requirements. However, such a move 

would impact smaller commercial property loans. While each individually might not be that risky, a lender with a 

concentration of these loans could be faced with considerable risk. 

We believe that the appraisal threshold should be maintained at its current level, as a protection against risky real 

estate lending. This is supported by a survey of our members who work for banks and financial institutions. which 
85 


26005.046

resoundingly support maintaining the current threshold levels in support of risk management activities. This 

swvey found: 

A strong majority (76.6 percent) of chief appraisers/appraisal managers strongly or somewhat disagrees 

with raising the $250,000 threshold level. 

An overwhelming majority (87.5 percent) of chief appraisers/appraisal managers strongly or somewhat 

disagrees with raising the $1,000,000 owner-occupied commercial real estate threshold level. 

An overwhelming majority (89.1 percent) of chief appraisers/appraisal managers strongly or somewhat 

agrees that raising threshold levels could increase risk to lenders. 

• A strong majority (80.5 percent) of chief appraisers/appraisal managers strongly or somewhat agrees that 

raising threshold levels could increase risk to borrowers 7 

Part 3. Legislative Reform Options 

As Congress reviews appraisal issues, we would like to suggest several reforms to help improve appraiser 

oversight and enforcement, as well as the overall quality of appraisals. 

With regard to the appraisal regulatory structure, we offer the following suggestions: 

1. Realign the appraisal regulatory structure similar to those of other professions in the real estate 

and mortgage industry. One model that merits consideration is the National Mortgage Licensing 

System (NMLS), which is a cooperative among state agencies overseen as a last resort by the 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). 

2. Sunset the Appraisal Subcommittee, while maintaining the authorities of state appraisal boards, 

and align the federal functions with a nationwide portal like the NMLS. This would provide 

services in one place for appraisal practitioners, appraisers working for financial institutions, and 

appraisal management companies to apply and renew appraisal licenses and registrations. 

3. Authorize a federal backstop authority consistent with other regulatory systems authorized by 

Congress in recent years should states fail to adhere to basic program requirements. 

Comment This would simplify the appraisal regulatory structure and make it consistent with others in the 

real estate and mortgage sectors. Authorizing the appraisal profession to utilize the NMLS for its 

certification and licensing system would enable state appraiser regulatory agencies to benefit from 

enhanced communication with other state agencies, including those outside of appraisal, such as state 

banking regulatory agencies. This enhanced communication among state licensing agencies has been 

sought for many years by Congress and other observers. Such a system would help state licensing 

agencies track individuals and firms that may be moving in and out of states after a disciplinary action. 

For example, state appraiser regulatory agencies in Illinois would be alerted immediately if an appraiser 

was applying for licensure after a disciplinary action was taken in Connecticut. Likewise, state appraiser 

regulatory agencies would be alerted if a mortgage broker lost his or her license and subsequently was 

applying for licensure as an appraiser. 

Realigning the appraisal regulatory structure with the NMLS also would provide a common system in 

which appraisers and appraisal management companies could submit applications for licensure in 

multiple states. Today, appraisers and AMCs that wish to earn and carry licenses in multiple states must 

apply in each state separately, significantly adding to administrative requirements and obligations. For 

instance, appraisers with multiple state licenses must adhere to each state's unique timing requirements 

and often tske the 7-hour USPAP class three or four times a year in order to comply with all the states' 

requirements. Unlike the appraisal regulatory structure, the NMLS has a common application protocol that 

is accessed by all of the applicable state licensing authorities. 

7 Available at http:l/w\Nw.aopraisalinstitute.oralassets/1/7/Aporaisal Threshold Levels Survev.pdf 

10 
86 


26005.047

Interestingly, other industries besides mortgage loan originators are utilizing the NMLS for the very 

purpose described here. We understand that the NMLS is now accepting other state regulatory agencies 

into the NMLS. This is because the need for state regulatory information-sharing is not unique to 

appraisal, but is a widespread issue with many industries. The NMLS has addressed this by offering a 

solution that may be used by multiple industry regulators. 

Should the NMLS fail in its responsibilities to manage appraisal oversight, a specified federal agency 

(FDIC. FHFA, etc.) should be authorized to step in and administer the appraisal oversight functions, just 

as it is authorized to do for mortgage loan originators today. This provision established a strong incentive 

for the NMLS to maintain meaningful programs and operations 

This is not a proposal to turn the appraisal regulatory structure aver to a self-regulatory organization 

(SRO). SROs typically involve a regulatory system that is administered by industry. Here, the NMLS is 

owned and operated by regulators. In addition, the entire NMLS is overseen by a federal agency (the 

CFPB). 

4. Limit the domain of The Appraisal Foundation to previously-specified areas (standards and 

qualifications) to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest. 

Comment: It is common for Congress to establish limitations around the activities of entities recognized 

in statute. For example, tne legislation recognizing the NMLS and the National Association of Registered 

Agents and Brokers include limitations in the areas of education. These limitations are included to avoid 

potential conflicts of interest created by the special standing granted in the industry. We believe that 

similar measures are long overdue relative to The Appraisal Foundation. As an example, The Appraisal 

Foundation maintains a Course Approval Program that has special standing in the industry that approves 

appraisal education for its own courses, as well as its competitors. 

Further, we believe that US PAP and the minimum appraiser qualification criteria should be updated on an 

as-needed basis, not every other year. Practitioners and state enforcement agencies deserve a more 

stable and consistent standards and qualifications regimen This would improve enforcement and help 

improve entry to the profession. 

5. Congress also should prepare for the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with regard to 

appraisal policy, Any ongoing federal support or role for either agency, or a future related 

organization, should maintain consistent appraisal rules like sister agencies such as FHA and VA. 

Further, we support the establishment of a rulemaking process that would clarify how appraisal 

services may be used in "subsequent transactions'' such as refinancing and loan modifications. 

Comment Today, loan servicers often utilize alternative valuation services, such as broker price opinions, 

out of confusion or a lack of understanding regarding the flexibility of appraisal standards. At the same 

time, agencies appear unable or unwilling to establish procedures for lenders or loan servicers to engage 

qualified real estate appraisers to perform more streamlined, or "limited scope" appraisal assignments. 

Many believe that there is only one type of "appraisal," when, in fact, there are an unlimited number of the 

types of appraisals, given the ability to tailor the scope of work to a particular client need. If lenders only 

require a quick update of an original appraisal, appraisers can do this. If obtaining both the market value 

and the liquidation value of the property would assist with loan review, and determining whether to 

foreclose or work out the loan, that too could be completed by an appraiser in a cost-Bffective manner. 

The agencies should have the abtlity to establish parameters for obtaining such services from appraisers. 

G. To improve appraisal quality, authorize financial institutions to recognize professional 

designation programs that exceed minimum licensing requirements. 

Comment This would promote professional development within the profession and expose appraisers to 

advanced education, ethics and enforcement programs. 

11 
87 


26005.048

7. Protect and maintain Dodd-Frank Act, Section 1472, appraisal independence requirements that 

prohibit coercion and intimidation of appraisers with the full weight of the Truth in Lending Act 

enforcement provisions. 

8. Repeal or amend cumbersome sections of the Dodd-Frank Act appraisal amendments. 

Specifically: 

The authority for the Appraisal Subcommittee to establish National Registry fees for appraisal 

management companies. This function would transfer naturally to a NMLS-Iike system. Such fees 

should be established at reasonable levels that do not burden small businesses. 

Mandate separate disclosure of appraisal and appraisal management company lees. Payment of 

customary and reasonable fees to appraisers for residential appraisal assignments is important to 

maintaining a system of high quality appraisals. However, the Final Rule's two presumptions of 

compliance are internally inconsistent. A more straightforward approach would require, and allow, full 

disclosure of appraisal and appraisal management company fees to consumers. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on these important matters. I would be happy to answers any questions. 

12 
88 


26005.049

26005.050

economics worldwide . 

. and nondiscrimination 

and conducts its activities in accordance with 

state and local laws. Individuals of the Institute benefit from an array of 

programs, and may hold the MAl, 

2 

26005.051

The source of the data for this is the Subcommittee 

of Real Estate The data is available for download 

ASC National archives information on state licensed and certified 

it does not archive unlicensed trainee information. The database contains records of 

both active and inactive (former) real estate 

the active 

or . also 

who hold licenses or certifications in 

accuracy of the estimates is 99 

3 

26005.052

• 

data since 2006 

in the number of 

3.0 

. with the 

annual rate over the nex

as evidenced a dramatic 

certification test takers. 

or uncertain business conditions and 

focus 

4 

26005.053

As of June 30, 2016, the total number of real estate appraiser licenses/certifications decreased by 0.2 percent from 

year-end 2015. Comparatively, the actual number of active decreased 0.9 percent for the same period. 

As of June 30, 2016, the actual number of appraisers 22.7 percent from the peak year-end 2007 level. 5 

26005.054

As of June 30, 2016, the proportion of Licensed real estate appraisers 

the proportions of Certified Residential and Certified General increased 

The shrinking proportion of Licensed appraisers reflects the overall decrease 

the normal progression from licensed to certified status. 6 

26005.055

u or 

18.1% 

As of June 30, 2016, 18.1 percent of real estate appraisers held a license or certification in one or more 

states/U.S. territories outside their home states/territories. 7 
95 


26005.056
96 


26005.057

Embargoed Until Delivery 

10:00 a.m. EDT 

November 16, 2016 

STATEMENT OF 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JAMES R. PARK 

APPRAISAL SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE 

FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EXAMINATION COUNCIL 

BEFORE THE 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL 

SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

HOUSING AND INSURANCE 

HEARING ON 

MODERNIZING APPRAISALS: A REGULATORY REVlEW AND THE FUTURE OF 

THE INDUSTRY 

NOVEMBER 16,2016 
97 


26005.058

I. Introduction 

As Executive Director of the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC), I appreciate the opportunity to 

address the Subcommittee on the Federal appraisal regulatory structure and respond to the 

specific discussion topics as requested. This statement will first provide history of the appraisal 

regulatory structure and the creation of the ASC in response to the savings-and-loan crisis of the 

1980s. Next, the statement will describe the ASC' s core functions and operations pursuant to 

Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, as 

amended (Title XI). The statement will then discuss the impact of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 

Refonn and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) on the appraisal regulatory system. The 

Dodd-Frank Act amendments to Title XI authored by former Members of Congress Judy Biggert 

and Paul Kanjorski changed numerous provisions related to the ASC's operations, role and 

responsibilities. Finally, the statement will respond to the specific discussion topics as requested. 

II. History of the Appraisal Regulatory Structure 

Title XI created the ASC as an entity within the Federal Financial Institutions Examination 

Council (FFIEC), although the ASC for the most part operates independently of the FFIEC. In 

general, the ASC oversees the real estate appraisal regulatory framework as it relates to federally 

related transactions. The Federal and State appraisal regulatory framework governing federally 

related transactions includes any real estate-related financial transaction that a Federal financial 

institutions regulatory agency 1 or an institution regulated by such an agency engages in or 

contracts for, and requires the services of an appraiser. 2 

Following the savings-and-loan crisis of the 1980s, Congress passed Title XI to address 

identified weaknesses in the appraisal profession and the credibility of real property appraisals 

1 'I11e Fedeml financJal mst!tutwns regulatory agencies consist of the Board of Govemors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit 

Insurance Corporation, the Nat10nal Crcd1t Umon Administration, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 2 T1t!e XI§ 1121 (4), 12 U S.C. 3350, as amended 

Page 2 of20 
98 


26005.059

supporting the lending activity of federally regulated institutions. Title XI recognized the need 

for uniform appraisal standards and minimum qualification criteria for appraisers. Prior to Title 

XI, appraisers were, for the most part, unregulated at either the Federal or State level. There was 

no generally accepted set of uniform appraisal standards. Congress found that the appraisal 

profession was fragmented with only one third of appraisers having a membership with a 

professional appraiser organization. Congress also found that those professional appraiser 

organizations disciplined their members on an infrequent basis. 3 Today, still only roughly one 

third of appraisers are members of professional appraiser organizations. The federal financial 

institutions regulatory agencies had broad safety and soundness guidelines requiring regulated 

financial institutions to consider the nature and value of a loan's collateral. Title XI sought to 

address this situation with an emphasis on the importance of appraisals to support safe and sound 

real estate lending activity of federally regulated institutions and to protect Federal financial and 

public policy interests in real estate transactions. 

Title XI created a unique regulatory framework for real estate appraisals and appraisers that 

involves Federal, State and private entities: 

• At the Federal level, the ASC provides Federal monitoring, support and oversight to both 

the private and State entities, while the Federal financial institutions regulatory agencies 

arc responsible for prescribing appropriate standards for the perfonnance and use of real 

estate appraisals in connection with federally related transactions under their jurisdiction. 

• At the State level, State regulatory agencies are responsible for the certification, licensing 

and supervision of appraisers. 

• On the private side, the Appraisal Foundation (Foundation), a private non-profit 

corporation, is responsible for promulgating uniform appraisal standards and minimum 

' T1tk XI 48th CongressiOnal Report by the Commtttce on Government Operations (Sept 25, 1986) 

Page 3 of20 
99 


26005.060

real property appraiser qualification criteria. The Foundation serves as the parent 

organization for two boards established to accomplish this mission: the Appraisal 

Standards Board (ASB) and the Appraiser Qualifications Board (AQB). These hoards 

respectively promulgate and maintain the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal 

Practice (USPAP) and the Real Property Appraiser Qualification Criteria (AQB 

Criteria).4 In tum, the ASC is authorized to provide grant funding to defray costs 

associated with these two boards. 

III. ASC Core Functions and Operations 

Pursuant to Title Xl as amended, the ASC monitors the requirements established by States 

for the certification and licensing of appraisers qualified to perform appraisals in connection with 

federally related transactions. Specifically, States must adopt and/or implement all relevant 

AQB Criteria for the certification and licensing of appraisers. 

Title XI requires the ASC to monitor both the requirements established by the Federal 

financial institutions regulatory agencies (agencies) with respect to appraisal standards for 

federally related transactions under their jurisdiction, and the agencies' determinations as to 

which federally related transactions under their jurisdiction require the services of a State 

certified or licensed appraiser. Pursuant to ASC policy, ASC staff meets annually with member 

agency representatives for a briefing on the public actions taken by the agency. The results of 

those briefings are reported in the ASC's annual report to Congress. 

The ASC is further required to monitor and review the practices, procedures, activities and 

organizational structure of the Foundation. In monitoring the Foundation, ASC staff attends all 

public and private meetings of the Foundation boards, including their Board of Trustees. ASC 

4 The AQB Criteria establish the mm1mum requirements for credcntialing of appraisers qualified to perform appraisals for JCdcrally related 

transactions. including education (for initial qualification and continuing). cxpcncnce and cxaminatmn 

Page 4 of20 
100 


26005.061

staff also reviews and comments on proposed and final published documents regarding the AQB 

Criteria and USPAP when appropriate. ASC staff also attends meetings of the Appraisal 

Practices Board (APB) as part of the responsibility to monitor activities of the Foundation. No 

grant funds arc awarded to the APB as Title XI only authorizes grants to the Foundation for the 

work of the ASB and AQB. 

The ASC is required to maintain a National Registry (Registry) of State certified and 

licensed appraisers who are eligible to perform appraisals for federally related transactions. 

Through the Registry, State and Federal regulators, lenders and consumers can detennine 

whether an appraiser holds an active credential in good standing with the State, the type of 

credential and the State disciplinary history for that appraiser. The Registry became operational 

in 1992 and is available on the ASC website (www.asc.gov). Over the years, system 

enhancements have been made to the Registry to improve public access. The Registry allows 

authorized and properly trained personnel from each State to update, in real time, a State's 

Registry submission and disciplinary actions taken against its licensed or certified appraisers. 

The Registry contains approximately 96,500 appraiser credentials which represent approximately 

79,000 individual appraisers. The ASC is in the process of developing a unique identification 

number for each appraiser on the Registry. Once fully implemented in all 55 States (i.e., 50 

States, District of Columbia and four Territories), the identification number will link appraiser 

credentials on the Registry so that an appraiser's credential in one State will be linked with that 

same appraiser's credential in any other State. It will also allow the ASC to discontinue use of 

personally identifiable infonnation and improve the consistency and reliability of the Registry. 

The ASC is solely funded by the Registry fees. In order to be on the Registry, appraisers pay 

an annual $40 Registry fee. That fee is paid to the State and passed through to the ASC. 

Page 5 of20 
101 


26005.062

Pursuant to Title XI, amounts appropriated for or collected by the ASC shall be used, among 

other things, "to make grants in such amounts as it deems appropriate to the Foundation, to help 

defray those costs of the Foundation relating to the activities of the Appraisal Standards and 

Appraiser Qualifications Boards." 5 Since making its first grant in 1992, the ASC has made over 

$20 million in grant funds available to the Foundation. The grant defrays the expenses of granteligible activities such as the development and maintenance ofUSPAP, the AQB Criteria and the 

National Uniform Licensing and Certification Examinations. The Foundation submits an annual 

grant request to the ASC for grant-eligible activities of the ASB and AQB and is reimbursed for 

grant-eligible activities on a monthly basis. Further, the ASC engages an independent public 

accounting firm to review the Foundation's grant-eligible activities and the monthly 

reimbursement requests. 

The ASC also provides grants to the States as required by the Dodd-Frank Act. At this time, 

the State grant is for the development, presentation and hosting of State Investigator Training 

Courses. The courses, which are developed jointly by the Foundation, the States, and the ASC 

staff and administered by the Foundation, provide training to assist States in investigating 

complaints against appraisers. The courses cover topics such as USPAP and proper investigative 

techniques, include three course levels, and provide resources to aid the States in their processing 

of complaints against appraisers. Since the introduction of the courses in 2009, they have been 

well attended and highly rated by the students. They appear to have a positive impact on the 

States' compliance with Title XI, particularly in improving the timely resolution of complaints. 

Investigator training is an excellent example of the successful partnership that has developed and 

strengthened over the past 25 years between the States, the private sector and the ASC. 

5 T1tle XJ § 1109 (b) (4), 12 US C. 3338, as amended 

Page 6 of20 
102 


26005.063

A key responsibility of the ASC is to monitor and assess State appraiser regulatory programs 

for compliance with Title XI. State appraiser regulatory programs are reviewed every two years, 

at a minimum, through an on-site Compliance Review process. Compliance Reviews are 

scheduled to coincide with a meeting of a State appraiser regulatory program's decision-making 

body whenever possible, and are conducted over a two- to four-day period. ASC staff assesses 

the State appraiser regulatory programs for compliance with Title XI. ASC Policy Statements6 

and AQB Criteria. The ASC's Compliance Review ofthc State appraiser regulatory programs 

focuses on three key components of Title XI: (I) implementation and enforcement ofUSPAP 

and the AQB Criteria; (2) adequacy of the State's statutory or regulatory authority, funding and 

staffing to successfully carry out Title Xi-related functions; and (3) consistency with Title XI in 

the decisions of the State appraiser regulatory programs. 

The ASC issues a final Compliance Review Report and letter to the State with a 

determination regarding the State's compliance with Title Xl. In 2013, the ASC changed the 

rating system for assessing State compliance with Title XI from a somewhat ambiguous rating 

system whereby State appraiser regulatory programs were found to be either: (1) in substantial 

compliance; (2) not in substantial compliance; or (3) not in compliance 7 to a clearer rating scale 

of: Excellent, Good, Needs Improvement, Not Satisfactory or Poor. Based on the most recent 

Compliance Review results, States are currently rated as follows: 18 Excellent, 24 Good. 13 

Needs Improvement, and no States are rated Not Satisfactory or Poor. The improved rating 

system has resulted in States being encouraged to be diligent in their efforts to comply with Title 

XI and rewards them when they are successful. 

6 The ASC penodically issues Policy Statements to a'>sist the States in understanding the ASC's expectations for State appraiser regulatory 

n1c Pohcy Statements reOect the general framework that the ASC uses m the Compliance Review process 

Compliance- Applies \Vhen no issues of non~comphance or violations of Title XI, ASC Polley Statement~;. or AQB Criteria are 

tdent1ficd Not in Suhstantml Compliance- Applies when there are one or more 1ssues of non-compliance or violations of Ttt!e XI, ASC Policy 

Statements and/or AQB Critena but the concerns do not nse to the level of ·'not in compliance.·' Not m Compliance- Applies when the number, 

seriousness or repetitiveness of the T1tle XI, ASC Polley Statements and/or AQB Criteria violation '-""arrant this findmg 

Page 7 of20 
103 


26005.064

The general areas of non-compliance with Title XI and the number of States experiencing 

those problems are presented in the 2015 Annual Report available on the ASC website 

(www.ase.gov). A summary of those findings over the past two years is also included in 

Appendix B of the 2015 Annual Report. 

Title XI authorizes the ASC to take action against a State in the case of non-compliance with 

an order of non-recognition. Such an order would effectively mean that federally regulated 

financial institutions would be unable to conduct real estate lending in a non-compliant State as 

institutions would be unable to employ the State's licensed or certified appraisers. Not only 

would federally related transactions be impacted, but the secondary mmigagc market, which 

generally requires the services of a State licensed or certified appraiser for transactions they 

purchase and securitize, would also be severely and negatively impacted. For those reasons. 

States have had a significant incentive to comply with Title XL 

The ASC is made up of seven members as designated by the heads of the Federal financial 

institutions regulatory agencies, the Department of !-lousing and Urban Development, the Federal 

Housing Finance Agency and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. These are, for the 

most part, the largest and most influential federal regulators that impact mortgage and 

commercial real estate lending. The ASC is headquartered in Washington. DC and currently 

employs a staff of !2. For the 2017 fiscal year, the ASC recently approved a budget of$3.9 

million which includes $659,000 in grants to the States and Foundation. 

IV. Dodd-Frank Act Impact on the Appraisal Regulatory System 

The Dodd-Frank Act included an emphasis on consumer and residential mortgage lending, 

recognizing that appraisals provide important information on a property, including its market 

value, that assists consumers in making informed borrowing decisions, as well as providing 

Page 8 of20 
104 


26005.065

important information for the lender to understand the risk in a real estate loan. A credible 

appraisal perfonned by an independent appraiser provides consumers with an additional 

safeguard against predatory lending. 

With the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Act, the amendments to Title XI expanded the ASC's 

authority and provided additional tools for the ASC in carrying out its responsibilities8 

Significant changes include: 

The requirement to transmit an annual report to Congress not later than June 15 of each 

year that describes its activities during the preceding year. The 2015 Annual Report has 

been submitted to Congress and is available on the ASC website (www.ase.gov). 

• Added ASC authority to take interim action against a State in the case of non-compliance 

with Title XI (as an alternative to, or in advance of non-recognition). 

• The Dodd-Frank Act directed the ASC to establish an advisory committee of industry 

participants, including appraisers, lenders, consumer advocates, real estate agents, and 

government agencies, and hold meetings as necessary to support the development of such 

regulations. In February 2014, the ASC constituted such an Advisory Committee. The 

Advisory Committee met four times over the next year and delivered their 

recommendations to the ASC in May 2015. The ASC is considering the Advisory 

Committee's recommendations for future rulemaking. 

• The Dodd-Frank Act required the ASC to oversee State registration and supervision of 

Appraisal Management Companies (AMCs) and develop and maintain a National 

Registry of AMCs. On June 9, 2015, the Federal Reserve Board, Comptroller of the 

Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, National Credit Union Administration 

8 T1tlc Xl ~ 1 !03 

Page 9 of20 
105 


26005.066

and Federal Housing Pinance Agency (the Agencies) issued the final rule, Minimum 

Requirements for Appraisal Management Companies, to be applied by States that 

voluntarily elect to register and supervise AMCs. On May 20, 2016 the ASC issued a 

proposed Rule to implement collection and transmission of annual AMC registry fees. 

The comment period was 60 days and we received 103 comments. The ASC is now 

working on the Pinal Rule. After the AMC registry fee is established, the ASC will 

launch the National Registry of AMCs. 

The Dodd Frank Act required the ASC to establish a Hotline to refer complainants to 

appropriate State and/or Federal agencies that handle alleged violations of the Uniform 

Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) and/or appraisal independence 

requirements. The Hotline was established in March 2013. Since then, the Hotline has 

been used well over 18,000 times and produced over 600 referrals to Federal agcncics 

and over 2,000 referrals to State agencies. Prior to the launch of the Hotline, consumer 

and other stakeholders had little way of knowing where to find the right agency or 

agencies to assist them with an appraisal-related complaint. 

• The ASC was required to hold ASC meetings in open session after notice in the Federal 

Register. The ASC now holds open meetings which arc frequently attended by industry 

observers. 

The CFPH and FHFA were added to the ASC. Given the importance of these agencies to 

the mortgage lending industry, adding them to the ASC has given the ASC a more wellrounded perspective on the particular appraisal issues facing consumers and mortgage 

lenders. 

Page 10 of20 
106 


26005.067

Regarding the future of appraisal oversight, it is critical that the partnership between the 

States, private sector and ASC remains intact. Although the system has been in place for 25 

years, it is still a relatively new and unique regulatory structure. In fact, it is a structure that 

should be viewed as model for other occupations. In the initial period following the enactment 

of Title XI, there was significant disagreement, and to some degree, dissension among the States, 

Foundation and ASC. Since that time, a great deal of effort has been made to strent,rthen these 

relationships and it has been effective. Today, all three stakeholders meet regularly and work 

together on various projects and issues. Examples include collaboration between the States, the 

Foundation and the ASC on State investigator training as discussed above, and in 2013, the 

collaboration to develop a "Voluntary Disciplinary Action Matrix'' in an effort to promote more 

consistent disciplinary guidance for appraiser regulatory programs. It was very well received by 

the States, and although not required, it is frequently used by States as a gauge to determine if 

their discipline is similar to other States. 

V. Discussion Topics 

• Explore alternative home valuation methods that could simplify the home buying 

process: 

o Alternative valuation methods have been used in mortgage lending for many 

years. For example, for select transactions, the GSEs use alternative valuation 

products (e.g. proprietary automated valuation models) and have used these 

products for close to 20 years. The use of differing appraisal/valuation products 

Page 11 of20 
107 


26005.068

in the mortgage lending process should be tied to the risk characteristics of a loan. 

As more and more appraisal/property data is collected and becomes available to 

appraisers and others, opportunities for new and improved streamlined valuation 

products are likely to be developed. Nonetheless any statistical model will. lack 

expert judgement, and by the nature of modeling itself: be incorrect a certain 

percentage of the time. When statistical models are applied to a population of 

loans the errors of over- or under- valuation will otiset one another. Any error. of 

course, will not be offset if applied to a single transaction. 

o Care should be taken not to over emphasize the simplicity of the home buying 

process. A home is the largest purchase in many consumers' lifetime and many 

consumers rely on industry professionals for assistance. Virtually all of these 

professionals profit from the transaction based solely on its outcome. The 

appraiser, on the other hand, is the only independent professional in the 

transaction who is not compensated based on the value or the outcome of the 

transaction. Adequate protection of the consumer and the safety and soundness of 

the U.S. financial system should be the primary concern. 

Address the appraiser shortage and the impact of licensed versus certified appraiser 

requiren1ents: 

o I am not aware of any definitive studies or data that indicate there is a systemic 

shortage of appraisers on a national basis. Certain parts of the country (e.g. 

Oregon, Washington, and Colorado) and some rural markets have reported a 

significant surge in demand due to local economic factors. However, there has 

yet to be a study completed that reveals the reasons for these localized supply and 

Page 12 of20 
108 


26005.069

demand issues_ ASC staff has continually worked closely with all the States over 

the past 25 years. During that time span, ASC staff has become aware of 

localized appraiser supply and demand issues in various parts of the country at 

different times. For example, significant decreases in interest rates frequently 

lead to surges in demand and extended appraisal completion times. Those 

problems have been largely temporary, and once the market cools. supply and 

demand retums to normal. In fact, nationally, an oversupply of appraisers has 

been a more common complaint than a shortage. Even today, there may be an 

oversupply of appraisers in certain areas. During the Compliance Review 

process, States for the most part have indicated they believe any current shortages 

of appraisers is temporary and due to historically low interest rates or other local 

economic factors. 

o 1 am, however, concemcd about the lack of entrants into the appraisal profession 

versus the numbers of appraisers retiring or leaving the profession for other 

reasons. This has been a trend for several years now and could lead to shortages 

in the future. Trainee appraisers are required to tind mentors with whom they 

must apprentice and experienced appraisers may be reluctant to train new 

appraisers. The AQB is currently proposing various approaches to ease the 

minimum qualification criteria required to obtain a license or certification. 

o Many appraisers often refuse mortgage lending assignments due to what they feel 

is inadequate compensation and other work related conditions or issues. 

o In 2008, Congress passed the Housing and Economic Recovery Act (HERA). 

This Act barred FHA from accepting appraisals pcrfom1ed by licensed appraisers. 

Page 13 of20 
109 


26005.070

It is not uncommon for licensed appraisers to he located in and perform rural 

appraisal assignments. Those appraisers may also engage in other professional 

activities, such as real estate sales, due to the lower number of transactions in 

those markets as compared to suburban and urban markets. Since appraisal is not 

their primary or only source of income, many of these licensed appraisers never 

saw the need to move up to become a certified appraiser. Since HERA, many 

lenders have followed suit and will not allow licensed appraisers (or trainee 

appraisers) to perform appraisals for their institutions. As a result. approximately 

8% of the appraiser population has effectively been eliminated from the mortgage 

lending process. 

Apply and set the de minimis value threshold reguired for Federally Related 

Transactions: 

o The Federal financial institutions regulatory agencies set the de minimis threshold 

with CFPB concurrence based on statutory authority. Questions regarding the de 

minimis threshold should be directed to those agencies. 

• Streamline the current federal regulatory re2:ime 

o The current structure for appraisal regulation has become more streamlined and 

effective. Over the past 25 years, the partnership between the Foundation, States 

and ASC has grown and developed into an excellent example of how the private 

sector, States and federal government can work together toward a common goal. 

In the case of appraisal regulation. that goal as stated in Title XI, is to protect 

public policy interests in federally related transactions. The ASC recognizes the 

Page 14 of20 
110 


26005.071

importance of a streamlined regulatory regime. To that end, over the past several 

years the A SC has: 

Revised and issued new Policy Statements providing clear and concise 

guidance to State appraiser regulatory programs for compliance with 

Title XI. 

Implemented a new and improved rating system with clearer metrics that 

provides an incentive for States to improve their programs and strive for 

excellence. 

Implemented a revised Compliance Review Report format with clear and 

direct feedback to State regulators. 

Reduced Compliance Review turnaround times from over 200 days on 

average to less than 60 while maintaining a quality process. 

Improved the functionality of the National Registry of Appraisers. The 

National Registry was upgraded several years ago to allow users of 

appraisal services to download the Registry data electronically. This has 

significantly improved the usefulness of the Registry and the speed of 

downloading data into user's own applications. Since the upgrade, hits on 

the Registry have increased over 100% to roughly 1.2 million hits per 

month. 

Related areas that could be streamlined or improved: 

Page IS of20 
111 


26005.072

Standardize the varying requirements placed on appraisers by the GSEs, 

Fl fA, VA, and the Federal financial institutions regulatory agencies. New 

appraisal report forms should be developed that only require the appraiser 

to provide relevant and less superfluous information. New report fonns 

could be developed that would provide more meaningful data analysis for 

lenders and the secondary market. 

Stabilize appraisal standards and the minimum qualification criteria for 

credentialing of appraisers with less frequent change. Regulators (State 

and Federal), lenders and appraisers should partner to develop new 

appraisal/valuation products that utilize the data that is now being 

collected by the GSEs and others. Currently that data is largely used as a 

tool for quality control of appraisals. 

Lenders and regulators should reconsider how appraisals are used in the 

21 31 century mortgage lending market place. Requiring an appraisal to 

provide one specific value creates a barrier to lending that need not exist. 

Appraisers should be able to provide a reasonable range of value that 

would allow the lender to appropriately assess risk. Currently, the value in 

the appraisal may be slightly less than the value needed to "make the deal 

work." This may result in a low risk transaction being denied, or the 

borrower may have to put more money down. or in the case of a purchase 

transaction. the seller could be asked to reduce the negotiated contract 

price. 

Page 16 of20 
112 


26005.073

• Finallv, please discuss whether the current federal regulatory system- including the 

Appraisal Subcommittee- should be replaced with a State-based regulatory structure and 

what impact such a change would have on consumers and the mortgage finance system. 

o Over the past 25 years. the current appraisal regulatory structure has developed 

into a cohesive system that draws on the strengths of the States. private sector and 

Federal government. The system also relies on appraisers to regulate other 

appraisers. For example: 

Most States have appraisers on their Board and/or their staff. 

The Foundation relies on appraisers to populate their Boards. 

The ASC, as a result ofthe Dodd-Frank Act, is now required to have at 

least one appraiser on its Board. 

The ASC. is fully funded by appraiser paid National Registry fees to 

support the work of the ASC, as well as providing the resources for 

significant grants to the States and foundation. 

o Removing the Federal regulatory structure and replacing it with a State-based 

regulatory system would e:reatlv complicate, not streamline the system. It would 

likely increase costs to consumers and lenders and unnccessari ly burden the 

mortgage finance system for the following reasons: 

The current structure includes uniform standards and minimum 

qualilication criteria established hy the ASB and AQB respectively, and 

enforced by the ASC. States must implement or adopt these uniform 

Page 17 of20 
113 


26005.074

standards and minimum qualification criteria. As a result, States share a 

common baseline and are, in large part, prevented from establishing 

greatly varied statutes and regulations that apply to appraisers. and by 

extension, to mortgage lenders. 

Without the federal underpinning. over time. States would likely 

implement significantly dissimilar approaches to appraisal regulation 

which could increase regulatory burden and costs on companies involved 

in mortgage lending on a multi-State basis. This could also lead to 

increased safety and soundness concerns for financial institutions as they 

would be forced to manage inconsistent and varied appraisal-related 

statutes and regulations across the country. This might unravel the longheld objective of making mortgage loans fungible in order to be able to 

sell loans to investors, which in turn, provides a stream of needed funding 

tor new loans across the lJ.S. 

A State based regime may complicate the GSE and securitization market. 

which favor standardi.r.ation. As a result, investors may perceive more risk 

which could negatively impact the pricing of securities. 

Efforts of organizations such as the Mortgage Industry Standards 

Maintenance Organization (MISMO) to standardize the data elements 

used in residential and commercial property transactions could be 

significantly set back. 

Page 18 of20 
114 


26005.075

There are numerous examples of States creating differing statutes and 

regulations in areas outside of Title XI. for example, lenders and AMCs 

frequently complain that appraisal reviews are not covered by Federal law 

and the States regulate appraisal reviews in various ways. Some States 

require that an appraisal review be perfonned by someone credentialed in 

the State where the subject property is located. Other Stales only require a 

credential when the appraisal review includes an opinion of value (an 

appraisal). And. some States have no statutes or rules regarding appraisal 

reviews. Another example is evaluations. Although allowed by the 

Federal banking agencies in certain cases, evaluations are not covered by 

Federal law. Therefore. States have varying requirements for evaluations, 

including barring their use or essentially requiring that an evaluation be 

perfonned as an appraisal by an appraiser. The varying laws and 

regulations by States add to the level of confusion. Confusion creates 

uncertainty which leads to added regulatory burden and expense. 

Another good example is in the area of licensed appraisers. Prior to the 

Dodd-Frank Act. Stales did not have to comply with minimum 

requirements established by the AQB. This led to inconsistent 

requirements in the States for licensed appraisers and confusion among the 

stakeholders. Licensed appraisers were perceived to be less competent 

and more likely to be involved in fraud or misrepresentation. Ultimately 

several States removed the licensed category and Congress, in 2008, 

Page 19 of20 
115 


26005.076

VI. Conclusion 

barred FHA from accepting appraisals from licensed appraisers. This is a 

perfect example of the chaos that could ensue without a Federal baseline. 

Without the uniform standards and minimum qualification criteria promulgated by the 

Foundation and enforced by the ASC, States would very likely institute significantly disparate 

requirements leading to an increase in regulatory burden, expense and uncertainty for lenders, 

appraisers and others that have a multi-State business model. While I fully appreciate and 

support States' rights to govern themselves and regulate occupations that practice within their 

States, I also recognize the importance of having a national minimum baseline for appraisal 

standards and appraiser qualifications to facilitate commerce. Dismantling the system could lead 

to unintended consequences such as increased mortgage lending costs for lenders and consumers 

as well as an increased potential for added risk and fraud in real estate lending transactions. In 

conclusion, the appraisal regulatory system envisioned by Congress in 1 989 and implemented in 

1991 has developed into an excellent example of cooperation between the States, private sector 

and Federal government all working toward a common goal; broadly speaking, public trust in the 

appraisal profession. 

Page 20 of20 
116 


26005.077

Modernizing Appraisals: A Regulatory Review and the Future of the Industry 

Testimony of JoanN. Trice, SRA 

Before the Subcommittee on !lousing and Insurance 

November 16,2016 

Chairman Luetkemeyer, ranking member Capuano and members of the Subcommittee on 

Housing and Insurance, thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts regarding 

''Modernizing Appraisals: A Regulatory Review and the Future of the Industry". 

APPRAISAL OVERSIGHT 

~" I NcuA k ~~ ~ ~xC§J<-- '" \ ..... ~, \ "\ ·~ ·ry ..... 1

1 \'x:~_~\-f~L~.../ ?Oversight? ->... ~ '\ ~~ ----.k.::)---><~-- ....1--

~-'\-~ FRr ""'~~[~~-?=r~~fi·--~Ls 1 MBA k ~--~AIR ~\:',..< ~-·,... .:..:::..._ X\lj, Fanme Appraisal Data 1 .,....~~- 1 1 

~ STDS f:l="-(_&R ' ~. · 3rd Party ;lj \ Freddie ~ 

~ 1\V Overs1ght ,jl rcu;;-1 " UCDP ~ Mandatory!Reportmg ' 1 It'\. ,:J, ~ ----, u 1 ~ ;;/'' /_, mque 0::-:-----:-:---::=-~~i;::-,_,~·// [§]--/'J, GUldelmes 

Arse" ,,.--,~-- '-.. ~(~jusoA(/~~ ASB AQB USPAP 

1-----::::.Stat~ ·. \ Agencies 

~ 

~'':::::::'.::--";;:/APPRAISAL '- ::Jp ~ INSTITUTE 

~------\/~ 

~ ~~~=--/ ASA . /-(~ v\ _:-;~( NAIFA 

Appraiser\~ ) ';<,. Registrations NAR ·APPRAISAL SECTION 

,.----L-!c...,enslng \'-, Enforcement/ AMC Oversight? ~~RA 

E~:-:;--;_-,--~~-~-.r·· 

Today, all stakeholders suffer from an appraisal regulatory regime that is outmoded. The housing 

finance crisis shed a bright light on the systemic failures of the appraisal process. The structural 

flaws of the regulatory schema reveal a system whereby no one was held accountable. This 

illustration of the current regulatory structure says it all. 

It should be no surprise that given the above diagram, that the appraisal industry is being highly 

scrutinized. It is entirely dysfunctional. It is time for a "big and bold" plan to overhaul the 

system. 

The appraisal profession needs a single authority to take ownership of the policy, process, 

practice, and procedures and the people. National licensing is needed with oversight at the state 

level. States must adopt a standardized process tor investigation and adjudication of any 

disciplinary actions. Peer review and rehabilitation of the appraiser should occur at the state 

level. 

1 
117 


26005.078

This new entity should not carry forward any of the legacy agencies that exist today. The times 

calls for a fresh, holistic solution to replace the disjointed, ineffective structure that currently 

exists. Repeal FIRREA and replace it with this new independent agency. 

Independence is the cornerstone of the appraisal process. HVCC and subsequently the AIR 

(appmisal independence requirements) components of Dodd Frank left an indelible mark on the 

appraisal profession. For the past 9 years practically every stakeholder has done their best to 

avoid compliance with AIR. 

Appraisal is truly the weak link and our current policies and systems continue to diminish the 

important role that appraisers play in the housing finance ecosystem. Discussions of shortages, 

poor quality, cost, delayed delivery of appraisals, and the de minimus threshold are all code for 

efforts to further diminish the role of the appraisal process. 

The events of the presidential election offer a cautionary tale. Big data failed. Models failed. Bias 

and lack of independence by the analysts failed. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would have you 

believe they hold all of the marbles. Once again they are competing with each other by reducing 

appraisal requirements. This is a race to the bottom. We've seen this movie before and we know 

how it ends. Do not think for a minute that you can replace appraisers with push button 

technology. Appraising is part art and part science. Create a system, whereby well trained, 

ethical appraisers have access to reliable data and afford them the independence to play their 

important role. 

If Congress is truly serious about the safety and soundness of the housing finance system, then 

there is only one clear path for the appraisal process to thrive-establish a single authority over 

real estate appraisal. 

The white paper entitled ''Reengineering the Appraisal Process, Revisited" explores in greater 

detail solutions to bolster the appraisal profession. Thank you for the opportunity to share with 

you my thoughts on this important topic. 

2 
118 


26005.079

Reengineering the Appra:isal 

Process 

July4,2016 

Joan N. Trice 
119 


26005.080

Collateral Risk Foundation 

Introduction 

One of the leading causes of the largest housing finance crisis in history was the 

failure of the appraisal process to produce credible appraisal reports and to 

identify risks. We are fast approaching the ninth year anniversary of Fannie Mae 

and Freddie Mac being placed into conservatorship. The Government Sponsored 

Enterprises (GSEs), for the most part, were the custodians of the appraisal 

process. 

An indelible moment in the history of the appraisal profession was the imposition 

of the Home Valuation Code of Conduct (HVCC) upon the Government 

Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) and their then regulator, Office of Federal 

Housing Oversight (OFHEO) by the New York Attorney General's (NYAG) office. 

The signing of this agreement in 2008 was essentially an admission that 

appraisal independence had been violated. The GSEs reliance upon "reps and 

warrants" for appraisals from their servicer sellers was revealed to be a major 

vulnerability. There was "trust" without the all-important second phase of "verify". 

It was generally not known that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac did not receive 

appraisal files with the loan origination files. The GSEs securitized trillions of 

dollars of loans, collateralized loans based upon, in part the valuation, without 

any verification of a single data point from the appraisal. This is how Uniform 

Collateral Data Portal (UCDP) was borne. The NYAG and Fannie Mae and 

Freddie Mac's regulator agreed to launch an appraisal repository to begin the 

process of monitoring appraisal quality to satisfy the demands for adherence to 

appraisal independence. 

Appraisals are an integral part of the housing finance system. Some of the 

challenges in the appraisal process have been improved with components of 

Dodd Frank and new guidance from the Federal Financial Institutions 

Examination Council (FFIEC) agencies. The regulatory schema is complicated 

and the oversight is lacking or uneven at best Order out of chaos could be 

established with the transition to a single valuation regulator with a clear set of 

rules and standards. 

The appraisal process needs to be structurally reorganized within a single 

authority. This new regulator, The Collateral Risk Foundation would establish a 

Collateral Valuation Advisory Committee comprised of multiple housing 

stakeholders and a Valuation Board comprised of regional chief appraisers to 

better serve dynamic markets. 

JoanN. Trice 

513.659.1656 

9927 Steplwn Decatut' Uighway, SuitP G16" Ocean City, j\1D 2'!842 2 
120 


26005.081

The problems that are many and complex. It is 

time to modernize policies and procedures for 

appraisals. Many of the failures current the emanate from a 

regulatory schema that is complicated and Data and technology 

infrastructure is We also failed to provide oversight of the 

people-part of the process to remove bad actors from the system. 

Given that residential real estate is the asset class in the world, it is 

astounding that so little information is on the very "sticks and bricks" 

that are the collateral for a loan. There is no inventory of 

U.S. real estate; no national database. of that lack of 

data and transparency there remains little confidence demonstrated private 

secondary market participants to invest in mortgage backed securities. 

Even today, loan applications collect loads of information on the borrower but 

nothing beyond a postal address on the property. are sent appraisal 

requests for a single family loan !hat may, for be multiple homes on a 

single deeded 10 acre lot, one well and septic with a commercial auto 

No one on the front end qualified the This makes TILAntA,nr<ltArl Disclosure difficult to and places blame on the 

"nr""'""'r for delays and/or the a report that will never be pristine. It 

property, not the appraiser, at fault this scenario. 

In Spain for example, the borrower submits characteristics 

square footage, any recent additions, permits, improvements and receipts the 

property and recent photographs. The information is transmitted to several 

appraisers who bid on the The client !he fee and 

delivery and the worthy to note in the educational 

requirement appraisers is that of an engineer, a six year degree. And they are 

compensated at an equivalent of approximately $800 per assignment. 

The Appraisal Subcommittee was established according to Financial 

Institutions Reform and R"''""""'"1 Act Title XI in 1989. The ASC 

provides for the federal 
121 


26005.082

Collateral Risk Foundation 

Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act) that includes amendments to 

Title XI. Dodd Frank added new responsibilities to state agencies that included 

the registration and oversight of Appraisal Management Companies (AMCs). 

Appraisal Management Companies (AMCs) proliferated post HVCC when it was 

assumed that the use of an AMC created a firewall between loan production and 

the appraiser. Unfortunately it would appear that some banks as well as nonbank lenders established their own AMCs to control the appraisal process and 

thwart appraisal independence. The oversight of AMCs is now a responsibility of 

the state appraisal agencies that are ill equipped to handle such a tremendous 

responsibility. We have merely offloaded the risk now to third party entities under 

the watch of agencies who have little funding or skills to do so. The numbers of 

illegitimate businesses that have been established to pervert the system is an 

unquantifiable risk event in the making. Appraisal independence problems have 

not been eliminated, they have just been redirected. 

From the vendor side of the equation legitimate AMCs are systematically 

punished by a system where they will be required to register in each state 

through a different system and process, each with a new set of fees, renewal 

dates and unique state laws. This is an untenable system where the bad actors 

can flourish and honest, competent private enterprises get punished. The 

unintended consequences of this system have yet to be fully played out. As of 

this date 38 states have AMC registrations in place. 

The Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) is an independent agency that is a 

subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC). 

This has created an inverted pyramid. The ASC reports to the FFIEC whereas 

ideally an appraisal agency should be independent of the bank regulators and 

should be promulgating a set of standards and rules by which banks and nonbank lenders should comply. 

Modern housing finance is a national activity, not a local one, yet we have a 

regulatory schema that appears to be neither effective nor scalable. Licenses 

should be issued at a national level, with local oversight. This oversight needs to 

be evenly applied. Many lessons can be learned by a review of other systems 

that do work. In Germany, for example, what is equivalent to state boards 

monitor the work product of each licensee and offer guidance and mentorship 

programs to elevate the quality of appraisals. If a licensee fails to improve 

through these mentorship programs and education they are removed from the 

system. 

Fannie Mae and, to a lesser degree, Freddie Mac bear some responsibility for 

the breakdown of the appraisal process. The appraisal process is essentially 

owned by the GSEs. In a void with no central authority Fannie Mae became the 

de facto standard bearer for the valuation profession. Regardless of the ultimate 

JoanN. Trice 

513.()59.1656 I jtrice((ra.Hterrag'roup.com 

9927 Stephen Decatur Highway. Suite G16, Ocean City, MD 21842 4 
122 


26005.083

future of the GSEs, the appraisal process should be established in an 

independent entity. 

There are two fundamental reasons for the breakdown in the appraisal 

First, the definition of "market value" is highly flawed. A lot of blame has 

placed upon appraisers for to report credible values during the crisis. 

Appraisers have simply been to produce an estimate of "market value" as 

defined. The second issue is the format itself. The current 

report forms, dictated by Mae and Freddie Mac, are 

archaic in every sense of the word. 

Definition of Market 

The debate over the the definition of market value has 

been increasing but only in subtext. definition was in 1989 

in FIR REA. The definition prior to the & Loan Crisis 

that used "highest probable rather !han " most probable" 

Market value is the most probable price a property should bring in a 

competitive and open market under a!/ conditions to a fair sale, the 

buyer and seller; each acting prudently, and assuming the price is 

affected by undue stimulus. in this definition is the consummation of a 

sale as of a specified date the seller to buyer under 

conditions whereby: 

buyer seller are typically motivated; 

both are well or well and each acting he 

considers his/her own best interest, 

a reasonable time allowed for open 

payment is made in terms of cash in US. dollars or 

arrangements comparable and 

.. the represents the normal consideration the property sold 

by creative sales concessions granted 

by anyone associated with sale. 

Other countries have successfully implemented the concept of a sustainable 

lending value as opposed to market value. Values can be subject to wild 

fluctuations creating havoc in the lending environment as we have just 

experienced, The precept of a value" decreases the impact on 

short-term volatility by focusing on sustainable values for the life of the mortgage 

loan. 
123 


26005.084

Collateral Risk Foundation 

The use of the term "price" within the definition "value" is an underlying problem. 

These two terms are not interchangeable. Mortgage lending should be based on 

value, not price. The perfect example is during the years preceding the mortgage 

meltdown, house prices in Las Vegas were inflating at a rapid rate. The role of 

the appraiser was to report three recent sales on a grid. That was easy. No fraud 

was involved for an appraiser to include three recent settled sales. Nowhere 

within the reporting format controlled by the GSEs, was the appraiser asked to 

identify any risks associated with such outrageous trends. It was fairly obvious 

that these trends were not sustainable. 

Had a definition of a "mortgage lending value" been the promulgated definition, 

perhaps the bubble would have at least been moderated. Another safeguard 

would have been the application of the three approaches to value. Fannie Mae 

dropped the requirement for the appraiser to develop the cost approach in 2005. 

A redesign of the reporting format to include access to and analysis of broader 

market metrics would be a first step towards a more credible appraisal report. 

Solutions 

There is not a singular challenge nor is there a monolithic solution to a 

reengineering of the appraisal process. The modern appraisal theory and 

practice was born out of the 1930s. Major catastrophic events seern to be the 

only influencer to the appraisal system. It has taken decades to grow and emerge 

as a fundamental and necessary component of the housing finance system yet it 

has taken less than a decade for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to systematically 

diminish and unravel the fundamentals of the appraisal process. 

The current regulatory structure is complicated, and unresponsive. If the role of 

the appraisal community is to act as the "brakemen" to an overheated market the 

multiple regulatory entities today have not and cannot function in this manner. 

The Collateral Risk Foundation's primary activities would be to: 

1) create appraisal reporting formats 

2) institute policy around the appraisal process 

3) establish a data repository to warehouse all valuation reports 

4) explore the science of collateral risk 

Structure 

The Collateral Risk Foundation would establish a Board of Directors, from the 

various stakeholder groups, to govern the operations of the entity and provide 

oversight and control. The Collateral Risk Foundation could be an arm of a 

cabinet level agency of Real Estate Department (RED). RED could be the 

JoanN. Trice 

513.659.1656 I jtrke!C:al!terragroup.com 

9927 Stephen Decatur Highway, Suite G16, Ocean City. MD 21842 6 
124 


26005.085

the 

that establishes the data standards and nrt,tnrnl<:c for a national 

real estate with a unique geocoded This would establish 

foundation for the "real estate super that must be built 

The Collateral Risk Foundation could emulate the Federal Reserve with a board 

of chief appraisers, the Valuation Board. This would accommodate 

at a regional and local level for real estate market risk indicators. 

Having measurable information in real time would allow lenders to offer products 

and services to consumers that are risk based. 

The Collateral Risk Foundation could also support a Collateral Valuation 

"'"'""'""m Board of the many stakeholders within finance to 

National of Home Builders, National of 

Realtors, Bankers Association, American Bankers Association, the 

Appraisal Institute, US Mortgage Insurers, and capital markets participants and 

so on. 

a database of all appraisals would be to monitor risk and 

housing finance ecosystem that ensures safety and 

"'"t"hili<::hinn data standards, the data collection and 

by appraisers, available level information, all 

statKenolders including consumers, would benefit 

In addition to creating a repository for all appraisals, a credentials of 

appraisers should also be included. All actors in the transaction should 

registered to monitor behaviors between appraisers, lenders, AMCs and so on. 

Access to these of behavior helps to fraud and vulnerabilities to 

appraisal Implicit in this credentials would be mt'""'""tlnn 

of an AMC All credentials would be at of 

transaction. a system does exist at Clearbox. Clearbox is a """'rlc.nti"l" 

database of all licensed and all known AMCs, Each has been 

assigned a unique uiPnhit•"'r 

A chain of title for all would be If a loan is sold, access would 

be granted based upon permissions by the seller. Much of the fraud 

and misadventures committed in the past had been based 

transparency. Appraisal independence was grossly abused wnArF>nv 

would order until could obtain one at a 

number to requirements. Backed 

were essentially dark pools. Millions of dollars loans within a portfolio were 

sold with little access to any data from the appraisaL This still transpires today 

•mc111nmn securities sold by the GSEs. 
125 


26005.086

Collateral Risk Foundation 

The Repository would prevent these unsafe lending practices in the future. All 

stakeholders would have access to better information on the front end of a 

transaction. They would also be able to monitor markets in real time. The 

Repository would help restore confidence in the underlying valuations on loan 

portfolios and individual loans, and in the process help restore the public 

confidence in the financial services marketplace. 

An examination of the European system reveals some interesting facts. Germany 

has experienced the lowest default rate of any country. In Europe there are a 

number of triggers for a new appraisal. While the Europeans have very different 

real estate markets, there are lessons to be learned. Any event triggers a new 

valuation. An event is considered: 

• A non-performing loan 

• Establishment of a REIT 

• Purchase 

• Refinance 

• Portfolio transactions 

• Syndications 

• Taxation 

• Securitization 

New Appraisal Forms 

In order to have access to better data to be able to make better collateral risk 

decisions it would be necessary to deconstruct and rebuild the appraisal forms 

currently owned and controlled by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The VA and 

FHA also adhere to the use of the GSE standard forms with a few addendums of 

their own. 

The current forms do not address many of the data elements necessary for 

lenders, investors, insurers and rating agencies to perform adequate analysis of 

the underlying valuation and risk. There are also superfluous data points that 

need to be jettisoned. For example, it is doubtful that the identification of window 

type, such as double hung, is a meaningful data element for anyone. There are 

property characteristics however that are not collected that impact property risk. 

For example, the age of the roof, the age of the furnace, replacement windows, 

and other energy efficient items are not adequately addressed. In today's lending 

environment we place the highest risk borrowers in the highest risk properties. If 

we addressed this systemic problem we can create meaningful solutions. One 

might be to calculate a "reserves for replacement" adjustment to offset a 

potentially catastrophic repair. 

JoanN. Trice 

513.659.1656/ &ice1Wallterragroup.con1 

9927 Stephen Decatur Highway, Suite Cl6, Ocean City, MD 21842 8 
126 


26005.087

A lot of the with the appraisal process 

that drives process. One of the of the 

with the form. It is the form 

'nlll"t'""l Risk Foundation would 

be to establish the business of the new reporting format The 

technical solutions would be by software to 

design field data collection applications, a smart regression tools, tools 

and modular reporting formats. 

Collateral Risk is a term hardly mentioned in a post mortem of the 

demise of the housing finance system. That could be explained by 

a lack of and access to data. After heavily on 

side of the equation. 

Once the 

and !he cte·ve1.omne11t 

is established the possibilities for research 

rnll"t'>r:>l risk tools are endless. There would be the 

opportunities to harvest new construction costs, land costs, rental information, 

inventories, property characteristics and so on. From this information would come 

the to analyze trends and develop leading indicators, risk flags and 

rnll"t''r"l risk scores. 

Rational policies and practices could be established based upon what is 

from data. If it can be proven from the data that certain property 

lower of default, new products could be developed and policy 

better assist the underserved markets. 

The science of Behavioral Economics tells us that consumers don't 

rationally. We want to build a system thai results in 

and lenders rational loan decisions. If a hnm"''""m"'•r 

a price a home, of the value, that should be their 

we should not allow a to promote the inflation of 

appra1iSE!d values at the expense of the of the overall economy. Inflating 

values while simultaneously increasing Loan-to-Value ratios is a recipe for 

disaster. It produces a negative compounding effect of misaligned incentives. 

If the housing finance system is to move forward ,....,,,..,.,.,,,""''" 

solutions to the valuation component need to be 

nrr''"'"'"' the debate on the future of the GSEs it hP.~{)nnP<: 

regulator and authority over all 

mistakes committed during 

economies was a fire 
127 


26005.088

Collateral Risk Foundation 

sparked by the housing market meltdown. The housing crisis was caused, in part 

but certainly not wholly, by a collateral valuation process that was corrupted by: 

• a lack of transparency 

• lack of independence 

• the systematic marginalization and dismantling of the appraisal process 

• and weak oversight 

In conclusion the Collateral Risk Foundation should be established to be that 

entity to be the independent, custodian of the appraisal process. A holistic 

solution serving all stakeholders would set us on the right path for returning 

confidence in the markets for consumers as well as investors. 

JoanN. Trice 

513.659.1656 I jtricer~callte1.@.g!Qlu,"!:.£(Ull 

9927 Stephen Decatur llighway, Suite G16, Ocean City, tvlD 21842 10 
128 


26005.089

Testimony before the United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Financial Services 

Housing and Insurance Subcommittee 

Hearing on 

"Modernizing Appraisals: A Regulatory Review and the Future of the Industry" 

November 16,2016 

Jennifer S. Wagner 

Managing Attorney 

Mountain State Justice, Inc. 

215 South Third Street, Suite 901 

Clarksburg, W.V. 26301 

(304)326-01 88 

Also on behalf of: 

National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low-income clients) 

National Association of Consumer Advocates 
129 


26005.090

Chairman and Members of the Committee, on behalf of Mountain State Justice, the 

National Consumer Law Center, and the National Association of Consumer Advocates, thank you 

for inviting me to testify today regarding the appraisal industry, the Dodd-Frank Act's impact 

regarding appraisals, and the future ofappraisals. 1 I am the Managing Attorney of Mountain State 

Justice, a non-profit legal services provider in West Virginia that exclusively represents lowincome people at no cost to them. Since the early 2000s, we have served thousands of homeowners 

in danger of losing their homes as the direct result of appraisal fraud and other predatory lending 

practices. 

I am here today to thank Congress for imposing stricter standards for appraisals under the 

Dodd Frank Act. As I will explain, these new standards have dramatically reduced fraudulent 

appraisals, in turn saving tens of thousands of homeowners from foreclosure. 

It is common knowledge that lax regulation of the mortgage and appraisal market led 

directly to the financial collapse of 2008.2 Prior to that collapse, unscrupulous mortgage brokers 

and lenders joined forces with a handful of appraisers to fraudulently inflate home values to enable 

property flipping schemes and other home-secured lending of increasingly large amounts. Many 

of these loans contained adjustable rate or interest only features that would cause payments to 

skyrocket after a teaser period. Even before the market collapse in 2008, consumers and their 

advocates began to see this house of cards topple, as homeowners trapped in these underwater 

loans were unable to refinance when their adjustable rates spiked. 3 Thousands-and soon 

millions--of homeowners faced foreclosure.4 

1 More information about ]\fountain State Justice can be found at www.mountainstatejustice.org. 

The National Consumer Law Center is a nonprofit organization specializing in consumer issues on behalf of lowincome people. Since 1969, the nonprofit National Consumer Law Center® (NCLC®) has used its expertise in 

consumer law and energy policy to work for consumer justice and economic security for low-income and other 

disadvantaged people, including older adults, in the United States. NCLC's expertise includes policy analysis and 

advocacy; consumer law and energy publications; litigation; expert witness services, and training and advice for 

advocates. NCLC works with nonprofit and legal services organizations, private attorneys, policyrnakers, and federal 

and state government and courts across the nation to stop exploitive practices, help financially stressed families build 

and retain wealth, and advance economic fairness. 

The National Association of Consumer Advocates is a non-profit organization whose members are private and 

public sector attorneys, legal services attorneys, law professors, and law students whose primary focus involves the 

protection and representation of consumers. NACA 's mission is to promote justice for all consumers by maintaining 

a forum for infonnation sharing among consumer advocates across the country and serving as a voice for its members 

a-: weiJ as consumers in the ongoing effort to curb unfair and abusive business practices. 

' See, e.g.. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report: final Report of the National Commission on the Causes of the 

Financial and Economic Crisis in the United States, available at h!!psj/w~~PQ&QYJfdsvslpk!z/GPO~fClC/contcntQ.~t;~iLlltm!. 

'Mountain State Justice's Executive Director testified before this Subcommittee in 2005 about these very practices. 

S'ee Daniel F. Hedges. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Development, Committee on 

Financial Services, U.S. House of Representatives (Sept. 29, 2005). available at 

h!!:n1farchives.financialservices.house.e:ov/media!nc!_[092905d!:!.J2Qf. 

'The Financial Crisis Inquiry Report: Final Report of the National Commission on the Causes of the Financial and 

Lconomic Crisis in the United States 402, available at htt.J2.~:11l""Y&J29_,gmci@mL!lk£iCll.'Q_:E!::K:;.;;mtentdet<l)l.html. 

2 
130 


26005.091

This bubble in housing prices was not just created by a spike in consumer demand. Rather, 

in many cases throughout country, it was created as the direct result of intentional fraud and lack 

of oversight. West Virginia-which saw little increased demand-is a prime example of this. At 

my organization alone, every week we saw dozens of homeowners facing foreclosure resulting in 

large part from these fraudulent appraisals. 

The Dodd-Frank Act required essential increased regulation of appraisals, building on 

necessary safety and soundness requirements passed after the savings and loan crisis. These recent 

changes have been instrumental in ending the practice of fraudulent appraisals, primarily by 

requiring appraisal independence. Appraisal independence ensures that lenders and brokers cannot 

intentionally choose appraisers who will deliver implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) requested 

inflated appraisals. Reforms requiring true, in-person appraisals by qualified appraisers similarly 

have ensured not only a healthy appraisal industry, but also that lenders and investors can be certain 

that they have sufticient collateral to protect their risk. These reforms have been an unqualified 

success. They have worked. 

Because the reforms did exactly what they were intended-they stopped appraisal fraudwe urge you to leave these requirements in place. Appraisal oversight does not just help consumers, 

it also supports honest appraisers and lending institutions, and protects investors and the economy 

as a whole. 

Background 

Home appraisals are required to safeguard homeowners, home mortgage investors, and 

government insurance programs alike. Appraisals protect homeowners who are making the largest 

investment-and taking on the largest debt--of their lives, by enabling them to make wise and 

well-informed financial decisions. Appraisals arc necessary to ensure that loans do not exceed the 

values of homes that serve as their collateral. This collateral protects investors and insurers, such 

as the Federal Housing Authority, against the risk of long-term home lending. Provision of 

sufficient collateral thus enables and supports lending, which in turn creates a healthy housing 

market. 

Home appraisals are supposed to be conducted by highly trained and skilled professionals 

with knowledge of the local area. Appraisals, under current standards, require the appraiser to 

personally view both the interior and exterior of the home, the surrounding area, and comparable 

homes that have recently sold on the open market, in order to ensure an accurate opinion of value. 

Appraisers are educated in a classroom and serve as an apprentice under the supervision of an 

experienced appraiser before they obtain their final certification. All of these requirements ensure 

that appraisers are qualified and competent to complete their essential work. 

3 
131 


26005.092

Widespread Appraisal Fraud5 

Without independent and qualified appraisals, home secured lending poses significant risks 

to consumers, investors, as well as the entire economy. Two main types of appraisal fraud in 

particular led to the market collapse in the 2000s: property flipping scams and refinance fraud. 

Property Hipping 

Property flipping scams involve speculators who buy dilapidated residential properties or 

develop shoddy new construction at low prices and resell them to unsophisticated first time home 

buyers at huge markups.6 Homeowners end up saddled debt load that exceeds the market value of 

the property. These homeowners are unable to resell the home in an arms-length transaction 

because the mortgage indebtedness exceeds the fair market value of the property. Ultimately, the 

homeowners may lose their homes due to foreclosure sales 7 because the home's condition is much 

worse than represented, promised repairs are not performed, and the consumer's mortgage 

payments may be higher than the consumer can afford.8 Then the scams can begin again against 

different homeowners if the wrongdoers or their confederates purchase the homes at the 

foreclosure sales. 

An inflated appraisal, which is necessary to both reassure the homeowner and to secure an 

inflated loan, is the linchpin of these transactions.9 While many property flipping schemes rely on 

steering borrowers to high-cost lenders, 10 other schemes depend on the availability of government 

insurance. 11 Because Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insurance, unlike regular mortgage 

insurance, covers I 00% of lender's losses, lenders quickly profit from inflated loans they know 

will forecloseY The loan officer gets a commission; the Department of Housing and Urban 

'Significant portions of the following text, especially background on appraisal fraud, the mortgage market, and 

regulatory overviews are drawn from the National Consumer Law Center's book on mortgage lending, National 

Consumer Law Center, Mortgage Lending (2d cd. 2014). 6 See. e.g.. Synovus Bank v. Karp, 887 F. Supp. 2d 677 (W.D.N.C. 2012); Kaing v. Pulte Homes, Inc., 2010 WL 

625365 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2010), qf[d, 464 Fed. Appx. 630 (9th Cir. 2011). See also Upton Sinclair, The Jungle 77-

78 (1920) (describing a scheme in which a developer repeatedly sold poorly constructed homes, foreclosed on them, 

and then resold them as '"new''). 7 See. e.g., United States v. Geig, 176 Fed. Appx. 638, 639 (6th Cir. 2006) (upholding restitution award and prison 

term for participant in property flipping scheme that "left buyers with overvalued properties with a high risk of 

foreclosure"); David Cho, Housing Boom Tied to Sham _M.ortgages, Lax Lending Aided Real Estate Fraud, Wash. 

Post., Apr. l 0. 2007, at A l (more than 300 homes go into disrepair and foreclosure in wake of property flipping 

scheme, surrounding homeowners lose as much as half of the value of their homes). 8 See Edmonds v. Hough, 344 S.W.3d 219 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). 

'See United States v. Owens, 301 F.3d 521 (6th Cir. 2002) (describing appraiser's key role in a property flipping 

scheme); Vaughn v. Consumer Home Mortg. Inc., 2003 WL 21241669 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2003). 10 See. e.g., United States v. Sheneman, 2012 WL 1831660 (N.D. Ind. May 18, 20 12); Edmonds v. Hough, 344 S.W.3d 

219 (Mo. Ct. App. 2011). 

"See, e.g., Vaughn v. Consumer Home Mortg., Inc., 293 F. Supp. 2d 206 (E.D.N.Y. 2003); Consumer Prot. Div. v. 

Morgan, 874 A.2d 919 (Md. 2005). 12 SeeM & T Mortg. Corp. v. White, 2006 WL 47467 (E.D.XY. Jan. 9. 2006) (finding predatory lending scheme was 

caused in part by HUD's issuance of insurance without due diligence); Vaughn v. Consumer Home Mortg., Inc., 293 

F. Supp. 2d 206 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (denying HUD's motion to dismiss declaratory judgment that FHA insurance was 

issued without due diligence). See also LaBoy v. Better Homes Depot, Inc., 2004 WL 6393656, at *8 (E.D.N.Y. July 

14, 2004) (recognizing role of FilA insurance in property flipping scheme involving inflated appraisals). 

4 
132 


26005.093

Development (I-IUD) is left with the costs associated with the bad loanY Some of these scams 

landed their perpetrators in prison after the market collapse. Others just led to disastrous 

consequences for homeowners. 

Many of Mountain State Justice's clients suffered from these dynamics. For example, the 

S family is extremely low-income and had never before owned a home, but were desperate to find 

a safe place for themselves and their five children. In 2007, Mr. and Mrs. S family visited a loan 

officer at a national lender that had a storefront office in their community, and were preapproved 

for a loan. Mr. S then located a home and contacted the lender. The loan officer promptly contacted 

an appraiser from a different region of the state who reliably inflated appraisals, and provided her 

with the requested target figure. The S family purchased the home for $35,000, based on the 

resulting appraisal. Little did they know that the home had evident defects that any appraiser should 

have recognized, including exposed wiring, significant leaks, termites, mold, dryrot, and sewage 

leaking in the basement. I met the S family when they faced foreclosure because they could not 

afford to keep up with the loan payments-which had an interest rate over 9% and exceeded their 

prior rental payment--or make necessary repairs on the home to keep their family safe. They also 

could not sell the home because the loan far exceeded its value. They never would have purchased 

the home or entered the loan if the appraisal had noted these facially evident safety hazards. 

Bogus Refinances 

In addition to being the linchpins of property flipping schemes, 14 inflated appraisals are 

also the key to predatory mortgage refinances that directly led to the 2008 market collapse. 15 For 

instance, loan churning, which involves repeated refinancing with additional fees and costs rolled 

into the new principal balance, often depends on inflated appraisals to justify higher loan 

amounts. 16 Without the inflated appraisal, these loans would be denied for insufficient equity. 17 

JJ Eg.. Saucier v. Countrywide Horne Loans, 64 A.3d 428 (D.C. 2013); Hoffman v. Stamper, 867 A.2d 276 (Md. 

2005). 

14 See United States v. Curtis, 635 F.3d 704, 709 (5th Cir. Mar. II, 2011) ("Obtaining inflated appraisal reports was a 

critical leg of the conspiracy."); United States v. Owens, 301 F.3d 521, 528 (6th Cir. 2002) (describing appraiser's 

key role in a property flipping scheme); Vaughn v_ Consumer Home Mortg., Inc., 2003 WL 2!241669 (E.D_N.Y. Mar. 

23, 2003). 

"Cf Wallace v. Midwest Fin. & Mortg. Services, Inc .. 714 F.3d 414, 422 (6th Cir. 2013) (reversing summary 

judgment for broker and lender on civil racketeering claims based on an inflated appraisal of borrower's home; noting, 

"Though the decision to obtain a mortgage is no doubt complicated. the appraisal of the horne used to secure it is a 

fundamental part of the calculus."). 1

"See. e.g.. Hill v. Meritech Mortg. Services, Inc. (In re Hill), 2002 WL 34560882 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2002)_ 17 See. e.g., Wallace v. Midwest Fin. & Mortg. Services, Inc .. 7!4 F.3d 414,417 (6th Cir. 2013) (inflated appraisal 

"factored significantly into'' the underwriting of the loan; discussing importance of inflated appraisal to conspiracy to 

sell borrower a high-interest rate loan with high fees); United States v. Rivera, 2004 WL 3153171 (D. Conn. Aug. 5, 

2004); Chavarria v. Fleetwood Retail Corp. ofN.M., 115 P.3d 799 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005) (affirming judgment against 

manufactured home seller based on fraudulent conduct of two employees in inflating trade-in value of borrower's 

previous manufactured horne and including fictitious home improvements in the loan amount; reducing duplicative 

damages and reversing award of punitive damages), affd in part, rev'd in part, 143 P.3d 717 (N.M. 2006) (affirming 

judgment against seller but reversing compensatory and punitive damages award); Office of the New York State Att'y 

Gen., Press Release, N.Y. Attorney General Sues First American and Its Subsidiary for Conspiring with Washington 

Mutual to Inflate Real Estate Appraisals (Nov. I, 2007). available at www.ag.ny_gov (alleging that large national 

lender demanded that appraisers inflate property values)_ 

5 
133 


26005.094

My office, like others across the country, has worked with countless homeowners facing 

foreclosure as the result of these schemes. One of my first clients were an elderly couple from 

Parkersburg, West Virginia. Mr. F., a glass glazer, built their home himself in the evenings after 

work in the 1980s. In 2002, the Fs had a fixed rate mortgage, which a loan officer began 

aggressively soliciting them by phone for a refinance. After multiple calls and promises. the Fs 

broke down and applied for the loan. The lender then directly contacted an appraiser who it 

regularly secured inflated valuations from. Although the Fs' home was actually only worth 

$50,000, the appraiser provided a value of nearly $100,000. Even though they did not ask for it, 

the loan was increased to the full appraised value. Instead of what they'd been promised, the Fs' 

payments increased, their interest rate increased, their home secured debt obligation increased, and 

they were switched from a fixed to an adjustable rate mortgage. l met the Fs after their payments 

skyrocketed and they had no way to refinance the loan or save the home they had built. I have 

countless examples like these oflenders who knew exactly which appraisers to contact to provide 

inflated loans that led inexorably to foreclosure. 

Another client was Mrs. R, a single, middle-aged woman. Mrs. R was repeatedly solicited 

to refinance her loan in the early 2000s. After purchasing her home for $15,000 in the mid-1990s, 

Mrs. R fell prey to a mortgage broker-appraiser team, who soon had her in a loan exceeding 

$70,000. Scared of losing her home and looking for lower payments, Mrs. R entered her 

information into a website that advertised that it could lower her bills. Soon an out-of-stale lender 

contacted her and promised lower payments. This lender did not bother with an appraisal from a 

licensed appraiser; instead, it utilized an automated valuation model (AVM) of her home which 

provided a wholly inaccurate and inHaled valuation of her home based on faulty market data. 

Although her home was actually only worth $34,000, the lender told her that her home was worth 

$84,000 based on the A VM. The lender pressured her to borrow additional funds up to the "value'' 

of her home to pay other debts. I mel Mrs. R. when the interest only feature of her loan expired 

and she was faced with impossibly high payments. Mrs. R. tried to refinance, but she was rejected 

because the loan so far exceeded the value of her home. Now she faced foreclosure. 

Mrs. R's situation highlights the need for appraisals conducted by properly educated and 

regulated appraisers, rather than alternative methods. The automated valuation used by her lender 

was based on aggregate data from unverified public records that is often inaccurate, incomplete, 

or outdated. Moreover, programs like these cannot adequately consider neighborhood, condition 

of the property, location appeal, or altered building characteristics. Each of these factors is essential 

in understanding the true value of a home. 

Incentil,es for Appraisal Fraud 

Without the strict requirements imposed by the Dodd Frank Act, the financial incentives 

of those involved in the mortgage loan process work against honest appraisals. 18 Origination fees 

18 See Wallace v. Midwest Fin. & Mortg. Services, Inc., 714 F.3d 414, 422 (6th Cir. 2013) (reversing summary 

judgment in favor of creditor on civil racketeering claim; noting that lender not dissuaded by facially unreasonable 

appraisal); Fed. Hous. Fin. Auth. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 902 F. Supp. 2d 476 (S.D.:N.Y. 2012) (quoting amended 

complaint, '"'WaMu falsely overstated appraisals in order to secure low LTV ratios for mortgages, thereby making the 

loans more attractive to prospective purchasers of certificates"); David Callahan, Home Insecurity: How Widespread 

Appraisal Fraud Puts Homeowners at Risk (Mar. 2005), available at lYlY:>Y.A£!nOs.org. 

6 
134 


26005.095

for lenders and loan brokers are commonly based on the amount of the mortgage loan. 19 This can 

make lenders and brokers complicit in, or simply indifferent to, appraisal fraud because higher 

loan volume and higher loan amounts lead to greater profits.20 Some lenders may deliberately seek 

inflated appraisals in order to trap borrowers in abusive loans and prevent them from rcfinancing. 21 

Lenders' indifference to appraisal fraud may be traceable, at least in pmt, to securitization, which 

allows them to pass on the risk of loss while retaining minimal liability in the event of default by 

the borrowerY Lenders also rely on mortgage insurance to insulate them either partially (or fully, 

in the case of the government-backed FHA insurance), from the risk of loss after foreclosure. 

Secondary market participants, those who buy loans from lax lenders, can also purchase their own 

19 Cf 15 U.S.C. § !639b(c)(l) (explicitly permitting compensation for loan originators to be based on loan amount). 20 See Fed. Hous. Fin. Auth. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 902 F. Supp. 2d 476 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting amended 

complaint, "WaMu falsely overstated appraisals in order to secure low LTV ratios for mortgages, thereby making the 

loans more attractive to prospective purchasers of certificates"); In re Bear Stearns Mortg. Pass-Through Certificates 

Litig., 851 F. Supp. 2d 746 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ("[L]oan officers applied 'intense' pressure on underwriters to approve 

risky loans and rewarded 'high producers."'); Cedeno v. Indy Mac Bancorp, Inc., 2008 WL 3992304 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 

26, 2008) (alleging that lender selected appraisers, who provided inflated appraisals, in order to complete more 

transactions and earn greater profits; granting lender's motion to dismiss RESP A and TILA claims). Cf. United States 

v. Grin\ies, 237 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 2001) (discussing evidence thattended to show that mortgage broker had knowledge 

of clients' property flipping scheme); Am. Mortg. Network v. Shelton, 2006 WL 909415 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 6, 2006) 

(discussing how a buyer arranged for and helped prepare a fraudulent appraisal), affd, 486 F.3d 815 (4th Cir. 2007). 21 See, e.g., Tocco v. Argent Mortg. Co., 2007 WL 170855 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 18, 2007) (describing a borrower's 

inability to refinance an Argent loan when the appraisal for the refinancing came in $300,000 lower than the appraisal, 

performed less than a year previously, on which the original loan had been based); Office of the New York State Att'y 

Gen., Press Release, N.Y. Attorney General Sues First American and Its Subsidiary for Conspiring with Washington 

Mutual to Inflate Real Estate Appraisals (Nov. I, 2007), available at www.ag.ny.gov (alleging that large national 

lender demanded that appraisers inflate property values). 22 See, e.g .. Wallace v. Midwest Fin. & Mortg. Services, lnc., 714 F.3d 414, 422 (6th Cir. 2013); Homeward 

Residential, Inc. v. Sand Canyon Corp., 2014 WL 2510809, at *9-10 (S.D.N.Y. May 28, 2014) (refusing to dismiss 

trust's breach of warranty claims against Option One based upon appraisal fraud); Prudential Ins. Co. v. Credit Suisse 

Sec. (USA) L.L.C., 2013 WL 5467093 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 20 13) (investor suit against parties to a securitization of New 

Century and Option One loans; fraud claim based on pattern of false appraisals survived motion to dismiss); Fed. 

llous. Fin. Auth. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 902 F. Supp. 2d 476 (S.D.N.Y. 2012); Fed.llous. Fin. Agency v. UBS 

Americas, Inc., 858 F. Supp. 2d .106, 320 (S.D.N.Y. 2012), aff'd, 712 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 2013); HSHNordbank AG v. 

Barclays Bank PLC, 986 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2014 WL 841289, at *15, 1& (Sup. Ct. 2014) (table) (refusing to dismiss 

investor claims of fraud against seller and depositor in deal involving Fremontlnv. & Loan and New Century Mort g. 

Co. loans based on appraisal fraud; data showed approximately 24.5%-51.6% of the loans had combined loan-tovalue ratios of over 100%, which contradicted the offering documents). See also Settlement Agreement, Annex 1, 

Statement of Facts at 4-5, U.S. Dcp't of Justice & JPMorgan Chase & Co. (Nov. 19, 2013), available at 

www.justice.gov (describing JPMorgan's purchase and pooling into securities of loans it knew were missing 

appraisals~ its tolerance tOr appraisals of 15% below loan amount, even when the loan-to-value ratio was 100%, and 

its inclusion in securitizations ofloans that exceeded even that tolerance). 

Secondary market purchasers may not be vigilant in policing lenders because they underestimate the risk of inflated 

appraisals or because they may be insured against this kind of fraud. See, e.g., Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Residential 

funding Co., 843 F. Supp. 2d 191 (D. Mass. 2012) (securities disclosures insufficient to put secondary market 

purchaser on notice that appraisers were systematically abandoning the represented appraisal procedures). In these 

cases, the insurer bears the risk of loss instead of the trust or other secondary market purchaser. 

Some of the notorious FAMCO loan trusts were insured by mortgage guaranty policies issued by MBIA Insurance 

Corp. Stipulation of Settlement, Fed. Trade Comm'n v. First Alliance Mortg. Co. (In re First Alliance Mortg. Co.), 

No. SA CV 00-964 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2002), available at ww~J'!f~_y. 

7 
135 


26005.096

insurance against failure and so have reduced incentives to police the pool. 23 even if the disclosures 

are enough to put them on notice of the inflated appraisals24 

In some cases, appraisers received direct benefits for their participation in the fraud, 

through the promise of repeat business or more overt kickbacks or payment schemes.25 Other 

times, lenders and brokers pressure appraisers to hit or exceed a predetermined value.26 Failure to 

do so could lead the lender or broker to withhold business from the appraiser, to refuse to pay the 

appraiser, or to blacklist the appraiser.27 

Appraisers themselves advocated for tighter regulation to protect their industry. In 2007, 

a petition with II ,000 appraiser signatures was delivered to Washington explaining that '·Lenders 

... as a nonnal course of business, apply pressure on appraisers to hit or exceed a predetennined 

value .... We believe that this practice has adverse effects on our local and national economies 

and that the potential for great financial loss exists. We also believe that many individuals have 

been adversely affected by the purchase of homes which have been over-valued."28 The appraisers 

went on to request that the government appropriately regulate the market to protect appraisers from 

··pressur[e] ... to do dishonest appraisals. "29 Given the potential incentives for lenders and 

appraisers to inflate appraisal amounts, the need for focused oversight and effective supervision of 

both appraisers and appraisal practices has long been recognized.30 

23 See. e.g. Stipulation of Settlement, Fed. Trade Comm"n v. First Alliance Mortg. Co. (In re First Alliance Mortg. 

Co.), No. SA CV 00-964 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25. 2002), available at www.ftc.gov (noting insurance of some of the 

notorious FAl\1CO loan trusts by mortgage guaranty policies issued by MBIA Insurance Corp.). 24 See. e.g. Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Residential Funding Co., 843 F. Supp. 2d 191 (D. Mass. 2012) (securities 

disclosures insufficient to put secondary market purchaser on notice that appraisers were systematically abandoning 

the represented appraisal procedures). 

"See First Magnus Fin. Corp. v. Star Equity Funding, L.L.C., 2007 WL 414272 (D. Kan. Feb. 2. 2007) (discussing 

scheme between mortgage brokers and appraisers). 26 See. e.g, Wallace v. Midwest Fin. & Mortg. Services,1nc., 714 F.3d 414,417 (6th Cir. 2013) (describing scheme 

whereby broker requested appraisal value needed from the appraiser); Davis v. Wells Fargo Bank, 976 F. Supp. 2d 

870, 876 (S.D. Tex. 2013) (describing pressure brought to bear on appraisers to produce low values at foreclosure 

sales of property, allegedly in order to maximize paper losses for tax purposes), dismissed on other grounds, 2014 WL 

585403 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2014); Office of the New York State Att'y Gen., Press Release, N.Y. Attorney General 

Sues First American and Its Subsidiary for Conspiring with Washington Mutual to Inflate Real Estate Appraisals 

(Nov. I, 2007). available at www.ag.ny.gov (detailing scheme in which a large national lender demanded that 

appraisers inflate property values). 

"See Davis v. Wells Fargo Bank, 976 F. Supp. 2d 870, 876 (S.D. Tex. 20 13) (appraiser who did not meet target values 

was blacklisted), dismissed on other grounds, 2014 WL 585403 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2014); Fed. Hous. Fin. Auth. v. 

JPMorgan Chase & Co., 902 F. Supp. 2d 476 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (quoting amended complaint; "WaMu selected 

individual appraisers who were willing to produce false, inflated appraisals and refused to hire appraisers who 

maintained their independence."); Gaudie v. Potestivo Appraisal Services. 837 F. Supp. 2d 799 (N.D. Ill. 2011) 

(discussing appraiser's possible motivation in inflating appraisal, noting that the appraiser was dependent on lender 

for employment and '"had to give [it] the the appraised values [it] desired if[he] wanted to work in that field'"); Office 

ofPol"y Dev. & Research, U.S. Dep"t ofHous. & Urb. Dev .• Report to Congress on the Root Causes of the Foreclosure 

Crisis 40-41 (2010), available at www.huduser.org (arguing that appraisal fraud depends on lack of underwriting 

control of the broker and appraiser). See also People v. First Am. Corp., 878 N.Y.S.2d 860 (Sup. Ct. 2009) (recounting 

complaint's allegations of lender control of appraisers, in violation of state law and Uniform Standards of Professional 

Appraisal Practice). affd, 902N.Y.S.2d 521 (App. Div. 2010). 28 Appraisers Petition, available at !Jttp:I/BQQ£qi~J5Q~1ition.c_QH!· 29 hi 

10 0ffice ofPol'y Dev. & Research. U.S. Dep't ofHous. & Urb. Dev .. Report to Congress on the Root Causes of the 

Foreclosure Crisis 40-41 (2010), available at w;vw.huduser.org (arguing that appraisal fraud depends on lack of 

8 
136 


26005.097

Consequences of Appraisal Fraud 

The consequences of appraisal fraud are far reaching. 31 When a borrower becomes bound 

to a mortgage that.exceeds the value of his home at origination, he is immediately prohibited from 

refinancing to obtain better loan terms, such as a fixed interest rate or lower interest rate. Unlike 

with other types of loans, this is of significant import because the borrower's home is placed at 

risk. Moreover, predatory lenders often pair overvalue mortgages with other exploitative terms 

that make a bon·ower's need to refinance even more pressing. 32 In addition, the borrower cannot 

sell his home to relocate, even if he needs to do so to find work. 33 And when the borrower finds 

himself in this dire situation, the last resort protections provided by the bankruptcy code provide 

him with little assistance. Even if he chooses to declare bankruptcy, the homeowner must pay the 

full balance of the mortgage or forfeit his home; he cannot avail himself of the relief available for 

unsecured debts or debts secured by personal property, which can be discharged or reduced to the 

value of the collateral.34 The homeowner becomes trapped with no way out of the loan except 

foreclosure. Finally, unlike with other loans, realizing on the security interest for a home-secured 

loan can result in homelessness, a far greater impact than loss of personal goods or loss of credit, 

and has negative spillover onto the surrounding community. 35 

Indeed, for many of these reasons, placing a borrower underwater significantly increases 

the risk of foreclosure. 36 Empirical data demonstrates that higher loan to value ratios lead to an 

increased risk of foreclosure. For example, securities ratings agencies have determined that loans 

with LTV ratios between 95% and I 00% are 4.5 times more likely to enter foreclosure than loans 

with ratios below 80%. Loans that exceed I 00% of the market value of the collateral are even more 

likely to enter forcclosure. 37 As a BUD-Treasury Report during the Bush Administration 

explained, 

Many of the borrowers who are victims of this [fraudulent appraisal] scheme cannot 

afford to repay or refinance the mortgage based on the inflated price, and these 

loans may go into default and foreclosure quickly. Appraisers and others engaging 

underwriting control of the broker and appraiser). See. e.g., Fed. Reserve Bank of A1lanta, Appraisal Reviews Arc 

Important to Safe Banking. Fin. Update. 4th Quarter, 2004, available at www.frbatlanta.org. 31 As the Sixth Circuit noted, ''a bon-ower has much to lose from entering into a too-big loan." Wallace v. Midwest 

Fin. & Mortg. Services, Inc., 714 F.3d 414,422 (6th Cir. 2013). 32 See. e.g., id. at 42l (noting key role of inflated appraisal in inducing borrower to take out overpriced payment-option 

AR:'Vf, with high fees and "unreasonable" terms, resulting ultimately in borrower's loss of home and bankruptcy). 33 The public policy against such transactions tracks the longstanding public policy against restraints on landowners 

that limit their ability to transfer or otherwise control their real property. See. e.g.. McCree1y v . .Johnston, II 0 S.E. 

464,466 (W.Va. 1922). 34 See 11 U.S.C. §§ 52l(a)(2)(A), 1322(b)(2). 15 See Adam J. Levitin & Tara Twomey, Mortgage Servicing. 28 Yale J. on Reg. 1, 69 (20 11 ); David Callahan, Home 

Insecurity: How Widespread Appraisal Fraud Puts Homeowners at Risk (Mar. 2005), available at 

lY~Y~.:_Q£1JlQ_l:~:::J defau It/ fi lesill.!J!ili9!l9.B5l]l_Q!}l~_j.D_?ecu ritv v 3. pdf. 36 Laurie S. Goodman et al., Negative F:quity Trumps Unemployment in Predicting Defaults. 19 J. Fixed Income 67 

(2010). 

37 Sec Federal Housing Finance Agency v. Nomure Holding America, lnc., 104 F.Supp.3d 441, 465 (S.D.N.Y. 20 15). 

9 
137 


26005.098

in this fraudulent practice are helping to send first-time home buyers and whole 

communities into economic ruin. 38 

While homeowners feel the direct impact of these foreclosures, investors, insurers, neighboring 

homeowners. and ultimately taxpayers incur significant losses from foreclosures caused by 

appraisal fraud. 

Regulation 

FIR REA 

In 1989, Congress, in response to the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s, enacted the 

Financial Institutions, Recovery, Reform, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA). 39 Under 

FIRREA, Congress mandated appraisal standards, review of appraisals and supervision of 

appraisers by lenders, and appraiser independence. FIRREA has the express purposes of ensuring 

that: 

Federal financial and public policy interests in real estate related transactions will 

be protected by requiring that real estate appraisals utilized in connection with 

federally related transactions are performed ... by individuals whose competency 

has been demonstrated and whose professional conduct will be subject to effective 

supervision. 40 

Guidelines promulgated by the federal banking agencies under FIRREA require covered 

institutions to establish an effective real estate and evaluation program that, among other things, 

ensures appraiser independence, provides for adequate review of appraisals, and monitors 

appraisers and reviewers. Institutions are also directed to establish policies and procedures for 

resolving any inaccuracies or weaknesses in an appraisal prior to the credit decision. 41 

As part of FIRREA,42 in order to ensure that appraisals were conducted according to 

'·unifonn standards,''43 Congress required that each federal banking regulator adopt rules 

governing appraisal standards, including the promulgation of appraisal standards and appraisal 

reviews for compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) 44 

Among other things, the rules of conduct state that an appraiser may not accept a fee for an 

assignment that is contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined result or of a particular amount 

of the value opinion.45 

38 See HUD-Treasury National Predatory Lending Task Force, Joint Report: Curbing Predatory Home Mortgage 

Lending (2000), available at hJ!rr:.!Larchives.hud.oov/reports/tr~lWJ'JJLc!f. 

19 Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, Pub. L. No. 101-73, 103 Stat. 183; H. Rep. 

No. 101-54(!), at 311, reprinted in 1989 U.S.C.C.A.N. 86 (discussing role of faulty appraisals in the crisis). 40 12 u.s.c. § 3331. 41 75 Fed. Reg. 77,450,77,463 (Dec. 10, 2010). 

"Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act ofl989, Pub. L. No. 101-73, 103 Stat. 183. 43 12 U.S.C. § 333!. 44 Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989, Pub. L. No. 101-73, tit. XI.§ 1110, 103 

Stat. 183 (as codified at 12 U.S.C. § 3339). 45 2016-2017 US PAP at 8-9. available at www.appraisa1foundation.org. 

10 
138 


26005.099

Truth in Lending Act 

Regulations issued under the Truth in Lending Act set some additional requirements for 

appraisals done in connection with higher-priced mortgage loans, 46 including that the appraisal be 

completed by a licensed appraiser who conducts a physical inspection of the interior of the home.47 

If the Joan is a purchase-money Joan, the property was purchased by the seller within the previous 

six months, and the new purchase price exceeds the old by certain amounts, the lender is 

responsible for getting two written appraisals.48 

Dodd-Frank Act 

Additionally, regulations promulgated in the Truth in Lending Act, pursuant to the DoddFrank Act, regulate the supervision of appraisers.49 Lenders are prohibited from extending credit 

when they know that an appraisal materially misrepresents the value of the consumer's principal 

dwelling. Creditors may only escape liability if they exercised "reasonable diligence."5

° Creditors 

and settlement service providers are required to report any material failure to follow USP AP by an 

appraiser. 5 1 

Appraiser Independence 

Standards for appraisals and review of appraisals are not, by themselves, enough to prevent 

coercion of appraisers by lenders and brokers anxious to make the deal. Independence is a key 

component of protecting the market from the widespread overvaluation that triggered the savings 

and loan crisis in the 1980s and the subprime collapse in the 2000s. Since 1989, federal law has 

attempted to protect appraisers by forbidding lenders from offering anything of value in exchange 

for an appraisal performed by other than a certified or licensed appraiser. 5

2 In 2008, the Federal 

Reserve Board used its authority to prohibit unfair or deceptive acts and practices to prohibit 

creditors, mortgage brokers, and their affiliates from exercising inappropriate influence over the 

amount at which a consumer's home is appraised. 53 Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have both issued 

46 See National Consumer Law Center, Truth in Lending §§ 9.5.2, 9.5.4 (9th cd. 2015), updated at 

'NV.w.nclc.orgllibrary (discussing the definition of higher-priced mortgage loans for purposes of the appraisal rules). 47 National Consumer Law Center, Truth in Lending § 9.5.4.6 (9th ed. 2015), updated at www.nclc.org/1ibrary 

(discussing the appraisal regulations for higher-priced mortgage loans). 48 12 C.F.R. § 1026.35(c)(4) (eff. Jan. 18, 2014). See generally National Consumer Law Center. Truth in Lending§ 

9.5.4.6 (9th ed. 2015), updated at www.nclc.org/library (discussing the appraisal regulations for higher-priced 

mortgage loans). 49 See generally National Consumer Law Center. Truth in Lending§§ 9.4.2 (discussing the appraisal regulations issued 

under Truth in Lending Act), 9.4.4 (reviewing Truth in Lending Act remedies for violations of these regulations) (9th 

ed. 2015), updated at www.nclc.org/library. 50 12 C.F.R. § 1026.42(e). 51 12 C.P.R.§ 1026.42(g)(l ). See gencra/fy National Consumer Law Center, Truth in Lending§§ 9.4.2 (discussing the 

appraisal regulations issued under Truth in Lending Act), 9.4.4 (reviewing Truth in Lending Act remedies for 

violations of these regulations) (9th ed. 20 15), updated at www.nclc.org/library. 

"12 U.S.C. § 3349(a)(l ). 53 12 C.F.R. § 1026.42. 

II 
139 


26005.100

guidance specifically addressed to the question of appraiser independence. 54 Bolstering the 

independence of appraisers and sheltering them from lender coercion has been at the heart of 

actions taken by the New York attomey general (in negotiating the settlement of an appraisal fraud 

investigation)55 and regulations issued under the Dodd-Frank Act. 5

6 

Regulations promulgated under the Dodd-Frank Act's amendments to the Truth in Lending 

Act have prohibited the falsification or alteration of an appraisal and a number of coercive practices 

that might influence an appraiser's valuation. 57 ln addition, the regulations limit conflicts of 

interest and require reasonable compensation of appraisers. 58 The Dodd-Frank Act also included 

provisions regarding licensure of appraisers and appraisal management companies. 59 

Impact of Regulation & Discussion Topics 

These reforms have worked. Unethical lenders, brokers, and appraisers can no longer join 

forces to defraud homeowners, communities, investors, and insurers. Appraisal independence is 

the comerstone of this regime. These requirements build upon earlier steps taken under FIRREA 

to ensure minimum standards for appraisals and appropriate training. The requirement of a 

complete appraisal by a licensed and educated appraiser further protects the market. 

The home buying and refinancing process is not currently complicated or difficult, and 

minimum regulatory requirements are necessary to protect homeowners and the economy at large. 

Any appraiser shortage would be appropriately addressed through market forces: increased 

demand would lead to increased customary rates, which would accordingly lead to a greater supply 

of appraisers entering the marketplace. Moreover, any shortage is likely to be temporary and to 

disappear as interest rates increase and the demand for mortgage refinances decreases. Lowering 

standards and qualifications, including permitting lenders to rely on altemative valuation products 

and broker price opinions, will further increase any such shortage, rather than remedy the need for 

qualified appraisers. Such reliance would further enable lenders to retum to obtaining unreliable 

reports which, in tum, create instability in the market. In short, the regulatory regime is a floor that 

is essential to avoid both unintentional errors as well as fraud. 

Indeed, lowering the de minimis appraisal threshold for Federally Related Transactions 

would assist in addressing any appraiser shortage. More importantly, lowering this thresholdwhich currently only requires an appraisal for loans over $250,000 or for Higher Priced Mortgage 

Loans over $25,000--would protect homeowners and communities. The majority of homes 

54 Fannie Mae. Appraiser Independence Requirements (Nov. 10, 2010), available at www.efanniemae.com; Freddie 

Mac. Oct. 15 Guide Bulletin 2010-23, available at www.freddiemac.com. 55 OfJicc of the New York State Att'y Gen., Press Release. New York Attorney General Cuomo Announces Agreement 

with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and OFHEO (Mar. 3. 2008). available at www.ag.ny.gov. 56 Pub. L. No. 111-203, §§ 1472, 1473, 124 Stat. !376 (2010); 75 Fed. Reg. 66.554 (Oct. 28, 2010). See 12 C.F.R. § 

1026.42; National Consumer Law Center, Truth in Lending§ 9.4.2.1 (9th ed. 2015), updated at www.nclc.org/library) 

(replacement of Federal Reserve Board's 2008 appraisal rules and e!Tective dates). 57 See 12 C.F.R. § 1026.42; National Consumer Law Center, Truth in Lending§ 9.4.2.1 (9th ed. 2015), updated at 

www.nclc.org/library (replacement of Federal Reserve Board's 2008 appraisal rules and effective dates). 58 See National Consumer Law Center, Truth in Lending §§ 9.4.2.3-9.4.2.5 (9th ed. 2015). updated at 

www.nclc.org/library (substantive prohibition of appraisal regulation). 59 Pub. L. No. 111-203. § 1473, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010). 

12 
140 


26005.101

throughout the country are worth less than $250,000.60 Low- and moderate-income homeownersand the govemment entities that insure or invest in their loans--deserve the same protections as 

higher income homcbuyers. 

A floor of overarching federal regulatory standards for lending and appraisals is necessary 

to ensure that both consumers and others impacted by the mortgage market are uniformly protected 

from fraud nationwide. National standards are appropriate for a national market in mortgage 

lending, investment, and insurance; and to enable appraisers to more easily act with reciprocity in 

jurisdictions and across state lines, where appropriate. Without this uniform baseline, the 

marketplace would become more costly and complicated for participants. Both the savings and 

loan crisis of the 1980s and the mortgage industry collapse in the 2000s demonstrate the clear and 

pressing need for this federal regulatory framework to establish a floor for acceptable appraisal 

conduct. Eliminating these protections and relying solely on the states would open the door to 

more economic crises that devastate homeowners and financial institutions alike. Of course, these 

federal protections are, appropriately, a floor and not a ceiling on appraisal safeguards. States have 

always been and continue to be able to create additional, state appropriate protections. This 

interplay between basic protections on a federal level with additional localized regulation is 

necessary and positive for the market and consumers. 

Conclusion 

In sum, it is essential that a national regulatory floor be retained and built upon to protect 

the American dream ofhomeownership into the future. Without these protections, the market will 

become more costly in the short term, and lead to new financial crises in the future, even while we 

have barely recovered from the last one. The appraisal protections were wisely adopted by 

Congress in response to real, demonstrated need in the very recent past. I urge you to keep these 

essential protections in place. 

60 See S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC, S&P/Case-Shiller 20-City Composite Home Price Index© [SPCS20RSA ], 

retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis; bi1J1s:/!lrecL 1lQ\!is_i<,s.Lore/serie'i/:)l'C~QJ3.2~, November 

13,2016. 

13 
141 


26005.102

April29, 2015 

PO Box 5613 

Greensboro, NC 27435 

Over the past year, a select group of professional appraisal organizations have met to discuss what are jointly viewed as major 

problems facing our appraisal profession. The results of these discussions are outlined below and in the accompanying document 

entitled Regulatory Issues Affecting the Real Estate Appraisal Profession. 

Real estate appraisers are currently experiencing significant pressures that threaten the structure and integrity of the appraisal 

profession while posing finanda~ risks to consumers. We believe that the declining attractiveness of the appraisal profession to new 

entrants is a major problem, leading to a dwindling qualified appraiser population, !ack of transparency in the appraisal process ~s 

underwriters off-load risk, and consumers being off{';'red fewer and !ower quality professional tools related to one of their most 

significant financial investments for which they are required to arrive at a fully informed, !nteHlgent decision. 

We, the undersigned professional appraisal organizations, seek the following actions to help stabilize the market for practitioners 

and consumers (taxpayers) alike: 

L Create a more effective training structure to support Appraiser Trainees 1n order to support and promote growth in the 

appraisal profession. 

2, Improve transparency in the valuation process by: 

a. Enforcing consistency in state licensing requirements. 

b. Supporting mandatory licensing rules that require the use of licensed or certlfled appraisers for any services for 

which an opinion of value for real property is developed. 

c, Requiring complete disclosure and breakdown of the components covered by the appraisal fees. 

3, Lower the de minimis threshold from $250,000 TO $25,000, providing consumers, at all levels, the opportunity to benefit in 

their decision making process by providing a professional, unbiased opinion of value. 

4. Enforce payment of "customary and reasonable" fees to appraisers to protect the profession against declining fees and the 

assumed related dedine in appraisal quality. 

5. Encourage heightened appraisal scrutiny of all 

(GSE) by amending rE'gulations to ensure that lenders Jre 

Mortgages and government~sponsored entitles 

to the same standards as that required of higher-risk 

mortgages. 

6. Relax the three-day requirement for appraisal fee estimates by lenders to allow them sufficient time to estimate these fees 

given the potential complexities of appraisals versus other required criteria, such as routine credit reports, flood 

certifications, and tax services. 

7. Support additional consumer access to educational products relating to the appraisal process. 

The attached summary describes each of the actions listed above along with suggested solutions. !n addition, a more detailed 

analysis including the historical development of the issues is available at bttQJl.YiY!._'tf.~~9JJJ.!!lQ!J122.rJ.~ . .K 

interested in discussing this issue with you or representatives from your office. Please contact us at 800-827-2720 to 

date to meet so that we may discuss in person. 

Respectfully, 

American Society of Appraisers 

Columbia Society of Real Estate Appraisers 

Institute de Va!uadores de Puerto Rico 

Massachusetts Board of Real Estate Appraisers 

National Association of Independent Fee Appraisers 

North Carolina Professional Appraisers Coalition 
142 


26005.103

Title: Chief Executive Officer 

American Society of Appraisers 

Title: National President 

Columbia Society of Real Estate Appraisers 

Title~ Executive Vice President 

Title: President 

National Association of Independent Fee Appraisers 

(~u~~~"~ 

Title: President 

North Carolina Professional Appraisers Coalition 
143 


26005.104
144 


26005.105

Executive Summary 

The real estate appraisal profession has experienced massive changes in recent years. The 

fallout from the Subprime Mortgage/Financial Crisis of 2007-2008 and the Dodd-Frank 

legislation that followed left the profession in disarray. Though the intention of Dodd-Frank 

was, in part, to protect the independence of the appraiser, it has done little to accomplish that 

goal. The purpose of this paper is to highlight significant issues facing the real estate appraisal 

profession and present potential solutions to the issues. Although the paper is focused on 

issues in the residential profession, we recognize that many of these problems could also affect 

other categories of appraisal. 

This document addresses only the main problems as perceived by the appraisal profession and 

our proposals for addressing those issues to the benefit of consumers and the profession as a 

whole. A more detailed white paper has been prepared by this group that provides a wider 

view of the historical aspects that underpin current conditions in the appraisal profession and 

the impact these conditions have on consumers. We would strongly urge the reader to refer to 

that document in conjunction with these recommendations. 

Regulatory fssues/Resaiutions Facing the Real Estate Appraisal Profession 
145 


26005.106

the Real Estate 

There needs to be recognition of the dwindling appraiser population, and steps must be 

taken to encourage entry into the appraisal profession 

According to data available from the United States Census Bureau and published in an April 

2013 article by the Appraisal Institute, the number of appraisers nationwide peaked in 2007 at 

118,657. The ASC lists the current number of appraisers at 100,129 as of April2015. Although 

these statistics represent total credentials rather than the actual number of appraisers (i.e. an 

appraiser may be counted multiple times if he/she is credentialed in multiple states), the trend 

is clear; a decline in appraiser credentials of more than 15% over the 6-plus year period. 

The decline is due in part to age attrition and fewer new entrants into the field. Another reason 

cited for the drop in appraiser credentials is increased use of alternative valuation products 

and/or broker price opinions (BPOs) by lenders. These factors, coupled with overall challenging 

business conditions and convoluted new government regulations, have led to limited growth 

opportunities in the real estate appraisal profession. 

Throughout this paper we will explore various factors that have influenced the decline in 

credentials; and we will give recommendations of how to improve the attractiveness of the 

profession to new entrants while protecting consumers. 

1. The appraisal profession and users of professional appraiser services must create an 

environment that encourages Appraiser Trainees 

In today's market for federally related transactions, lenders and AMCs do not typically accept 

work from anyone other than licensed or certified appraisers. This practice leaves appraisal 

trainees with no way to earn the work experience required by law. This structure discourages 

established appraisers from hiring Appraiser Trainees. The profession must take on the 

responsibility for training new entrants; otherwise, there will be too few appraisers remaining 

to assume responsibility from those retiring. 

Recommendation: 

The Appraisal Qualifications Board (AQB) currently has in place qualification criteria for 

Appraiser Trainees that gives clear guidelines for trainees and the supervisory appraisers who 

oversee them. Quality training programs need to be designed and implemented to support and 

link the educational and experience requirements for appraising. 

In one model, appraisal students could spend two years of a 4-year program dedicated to 

learning general and appraisal-specific concepts, followed by two years of a combined 

education/work experience program, thus allowing students to graduate with the qualifications 

for becoming certified appraisers. 

Regulatory Issues/Resolutions Facing the Real Estate Appraisal Profession 
146 


26005.107

We feel that it is important to also encourage lenders and AMCs to adopt policies regarding 

trainees and supervising appraisers and not insist that trainees be accompanied on inspections 

beyond the point where they are considered competent by their supervising appraisers. 

2. Consumers would benefit from added transparency in the valuation process 

Lack of consistency in state licensing requirements leaves consumers vulnerable to 

comparability and reliability issues. Presently, only 37 licensing jurisdictions require mandatory 

licensing, and the rest are either voluntary or mandatory for federally related transactions only. 

Another issue associated with transparency is the lack of disclosure about the components 

covered by the appraisal fees, such as lender fees, fees paid for AMC services, and direct 

appraisal fees. 

Recommendation: 

We propose mandatory licensing rules be put in place and enforced in all states, requiring the 

use of licensed or certified appraisers for any services for which an opinion of value for real 

property is developed. Mandatory licensing in all states would improve the comparability and 

reliability of appraiser valuations nationwide, supporting consumer's need for better 

information during the home buying process. It is also our opinion that each component of the 

appraisal fee should be listed separately when disclosed to the client, so that consumers know 

fully where their money goes as part of the overall mortgage transaction. 

3. The federal de minimis appraisal threshold should be reduced to encompass more 

valuation assignments 

The de minimis appraisal threshold, the dollar level set by the federal financial regulators to 

exempt real estate loans made by federally insured financial institutions from statutory 

appraisal requirements, was increased in 1994 from $100,000 to $250,000 as a way to reduce 

regulatory burden and encourage economic growth. Though many groups have lobbied to 

reduce the de minimis since that time, none have been successful except in one type of 

mortgage loan, the Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans (HPML)1 

It is important to note that in December 2012, the Federal Register discussed HPMLs and 

established a $25,000 de minimis for these loan types. In January 2013, after the Final Rule was 

issued, a consumer advocacy group expressed the view that "lower- to middle-income 

consumers needed the same protections as those seeking HPMLs." 2 When the final rule was 

issued, the de minimis for HPMLs was set at $25,000, or 1/10 that established for all other 

1 T!lA Regulation Z defines HPML's as: "a consumer credit transaction secured by the consumer's principal dwelling 

with an annual percentage rate that exceeds the average prime offer rate for a comparable transaction as of the 

date the interest rate is set by 1.5 or more percentage points for loans secured by a first lien on a dwelling, or by 

3.5 or more percentage points for loans secured by a subordinate lien on a dwelling." 2 Federal Register, VoL 78, No. 248, December 26, 2013. 78529. 

Regulatory Issues/Resolutions facing the Real Estate Appraisaf Profession 
147 


26005.108

'<t' 

federally related transactions. The de minimis for all other mortgage loans has remained at 

$250,000. 

Data analyzed for this paper, taken from the S&P Case-Shiller 20-City Home Price Index for the 

period 2009-2015, indicate that the average price for homes in surveyed markets ranged 

between $140,000 and $175,0003 The data show that, at a minimum, most residential real 

estate transactions are below the de minimis, thereby nullifying the federal requirement for an 

appraisal. Thus, many consumers are effectively being denied the right to professional 

appraisals in a significant amount of mortgage transactions. 

Recommendation: 

We propose that the existing de minimis threshold of $250,000 for all federally related 

mortgage transactions be lowered to $25,000 HPML Appraisal Rule passed by the combined 

efforts of the Department of the Treasury, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 

and the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. Reducing the de minimis threshold would 

increase the number of transactions requiring professional appraisals, giving more consumers 

access to more reliable valuations. 

4. More must be done to enforce the customary and reasonable fee requirements 

established by Dodd-Frank 

The level of fees paid to appraisers is clearly one of the most important issues facing the 

profession. Declining fees currently being paid by AMCs to appraisers have discouraged new 

entrants from coming into the profession. 

One of the mandates of Dodd-Frank is the requirement for State appraiser certifying and 

licensing agencies to register and oversee AMCs. At least one state, Louisiana, has gone a step 

further in dealing with the customary and reasonable debate. In May, 2012, Louisiana passed 

its Louisiana Appraisal Management Company Licensing and Regulation Act. The law requires 

that AMCs "compensate appraisers at a rate that is customary and reasonable for appraisals in 

the market area of the property being appraised, consistent with the presumptions of 

compliance under federa!law."4 

To determine what constitutes customary and reasonable fees, louisiana authorized a 

statewide survey done by the Southeastern Louisiana University Business Research Center. The 

survey focused on fees being paid by lenders, not AMCs, to determine customary and 

reasonable fees for specific assignments in specific areas. The survey also included appraiser 

input for comparison. The final results of the survey set the standard for customary rates in 

various regions of louisiana. 

~ 3 https:/ /research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/SPCS20RSA 

o... 4 http://www.reab.state.la.us/AMC license !aw.htm! 

Regulatory Issues/Resolutions Facing the Rea! Estate Appraisal Profession 
148 


26005.109

Although AMCs operating in louisiana are not bound to the rates prescribed, they are required 

to provide extensive documentation on how the rate used was developed if audited, 

Another suggestion has been to use the Veteran Administration's (VA) fee schedule as a 

guideline, as it fairly reflects, at a minimum, fees associated with the work involved in appraisal 

development and reporting, as well as time frame (7 to 10 days in most markets), and other 

requirements to develop and report credible and USPAP-compliant appraisals, 

Recommendation: 

We suggest that all states follow the louisiana AMC law and begin regulating AMCs as DoddFrank mandates, Furthermore, states should follow the louisiana model and conduct their own 

independent studies to determine what customary and reasonable fees should be for their 

geographic areas, Where studies have not yet been developed, we suggest the use of VA rates 

as an alternative. 

5. lenders should critically analyze the value and condition of the property as well as the 

borrower's ability to pay 

New regulations enacted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, entitled Ability-toRepay and Qualified Mortgage Standards under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) state 

that "The act (Appraisals for Higher-Priced Mortgage loans {HPMl) Act)) contains special 

appraisal requirements with respect to higher-risk mortgages"? The HPMl regulations contain 

language regarding a $25,000 de minimis and include very specific appraisal standards for 

higher priced mortgage loans. It is troubling that The Qualified Mortgage regulations further 

state that the following are exempt from these appraisal requirements: 

Qualified Mortgages 

Higher priced mortgages with a debt-to-income ratio of 43 or less 

loans with a higher debt to income ratio that are purchasable by the GSAs or 

insurable by FHA (this is presumably a temporary provision) 

The above three exclusions effectively remove the preponderance of loans from any defined 

appraisal requirements. 

Recommendation: 

To protect the homebuyer and ultimately the taxpayer, we argue that lenders should critically 

analyze the value of the property, the condition of the property and the borrower's ability to 

repay the loan. Ideally, lenders would be held responsible for failed loans within a reasonable 

time period (e.g. five years), Furthermore, lenders and not the AMCs should be held 

accountable for ordering these appraisals, This approach will contribute to ensuring that low 

cost and fast turnaround are not the basis for choosing qualified appraisers, 

5 Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, Ability-to-Repay and Qualified Mortgage Standards under the Truth in 

Lending Act (Regulation Z), January 10, 2013. 

Regulatory Issues/Resolutions Facing the Real Estate Appraisal Profession 
149 


26005.110

6. More is needed to educate consumers on the role of appraisers in the mortgage 

origination process 

Though consumers have a vague understanding of the appraisal process, they do not 

understand that one of the appraiser's main roles in the loan process is to protect the 

consumer. Appraisers have been unjustifiably blamed for "killing the deal" if the value comes in 

too low to satisfy the loan requirements. 

Recommendation: 

There are numerous pamphlets and flyers that explain the appraisal process to consumers; 

however, they are not being distributed widely. While The Appraisal Foundation is working 

closely with a public relations firm to promote the profession, federal and state governments 

must also participate in this educational process; financial institutions should be required to 

disseminate this information when accepting loan applications; and professional appraisal 

organizations could also support consumer education with wider distribution of educational 

and informational materials. 

7. Lenders need more flexibility in estimating appraisal fees 

There has been a change in the interpretation of the three-day requirement for estimates by 

lenders as a part of a 2014 TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule that has made it very difficult 

for the lenders to select the most qualified appraiser at a reasonable and customary fee. 

It is not difficult to estimate the cost of services such as credit reports, flood certifications, tax 

services, etc. since they are fairly well standardized; however, that is not true of an appraisal. In 

most cases, location, complexity of the valuation and scope of work cannot be immediately 

determined. Nonetheless, in order to comply with the 2014 TILA-RESPA rules, lenders are 

forced to quickly obtain and guarantee a fee. Time simply does not allow either the lender or a 

management company to analyze and determine a reasonable and customary fee for work 

undertaken by the most competent and experienced appraiser in such a short amount of time. 

Recommendation: 

To solve this problem, lenders should be given more flexibility in estimating the appraisal fee 

within the three day period and not be held to such strict requirements pertaining to upward 

adjustments in the cost of the appraisal. Where a state has performed an appraisal fee study, 

lenders may be better situated to provide more accurate estimates; as such, it is imperative 

that states engage in fee studies not only for the benefit of appraisers, but for consumer 

confidence in the estimated fee. 

Regulatory fssues/Resofutfons Facing the Real Estate Appraisal Profession 
150 


26005.111

Additional thoughts: 

Appraisers and underwriters should be allowed and encouraged to communicate with one 

another directly 

We believe that it is important that underwriters who are responsible for verifying credibility 

and USPAP compliance of appraisal reports be allowed and encouraged to communicate 

directly with the appraiser. This would eliminate much of the confusion and promote efficient 

time usage in the appraisal process by reducing the amount of information and questions 

passed through AMCs to either the underwriter or the appraiser. A more efficient process 

would benefit the consumer. 

Conclusion 

The real estate appraisal profession is currently experiencing several challenges affecting both 

appraisal professionals and consumers. We believe that the declining attractiveness of the 

appraisal profession to new entrants could be addressed by: 

1. Creating a more effective training structure for Appraiser Trainees to perpetuate the 

appraisal profession and support growth in the number of professionals in the market 

2. Lowering the de minimis threshold, thereby increasing the amount of work available for 

appraisers and providing consumers, at all levels, the opportunity to benefit in their 

decision making process by providing a professional, unbiased opinion of value 

3. Enforcing payment of customary and reasonable fees to maintain a fair environment for 

appraisers while discouraging further declining appraisal quality 

Additionally, we believe that consumers would ultimately benefit from: 

1. Increased transparency with respect to the role an AMC plays in the appraisal process, 

including a breakout of fees paid to AMCs for this role 

2. A lower de minimis threshold, covering more transactions and providing consumers with 

access to a valuable tool in determining risk 

3. Access to consumer education and educational products relating to the appraisal 

process 

Regulatory Issues/Resolutions Facing the Rea! Estate Appraisal Profession 
151 


26005.112
152 


26005.113

Contents 

Part 1-lntroduction ............................................................................................................. 2 

Part 2- Historical Context of the Real Estate Appraisal Industry ..........................•................. 2 

Setting the Stage ......................................•........................................................................... 2 

Savings and loan Crisis of the 1980s and 90s ........................................................................ 3 

The Creation of FIRREA and Title XI ............................................•......................................... 4 

The Subprime Mortgage/Financial Crisis of 2007-2008 .......................................................... 5 

Dodd-Frank/Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ............................................. 6 

Part 3-Challenges, Problems and Proposed Remedies .......................................................... 8 

Problem 1-Trainees Face Training Hurdles .......................................................................... 9 

Problem 2 -lack of Mandatory State licensing in All States ............................................... 10 

Problem 3-The Federal De Minimis limit is Set Too High .....•............................................ 11 

Problem 4- lack of Regulation Concerning Customary and Reasonable Fees ...................... 12 

Problem 5- lack of Communication between Clients and Appraisers ............................•.... 14 

Problem 6- New Regulations Dilute the Appraisal's Importance in loan Underwriting ....... lS 

Problem 7- How the Appraiser is Viewed by the Consumer and the Public Generally ......... 16 

Problem 8- Poor Implementation of AMC Regulation and Oversight ................................. 16 

Problem 9- Unreasonable Timeframe for lenders to Estimate Appraisal Fees .................... 18 

Part 4-Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 19 

References .......................................................................................................................... 21 

Our Thanks To ......................................................................•.............................................. 25 

Regulatory Issues/Resolutions Facing the Residentiaf Real Estate Appraisal Profession 
153 


26005.114

Part 1-Introduction 

The real estate appraisal profession, in recent years, has encountered massive changes. The 

fallout from the Subprime Mortgage/Financial Crisis of 2007-2008 and the Dodd-Frank 

legislation that followed have left the profession in disarray. Though the intention of DoddFrank was, in part, to protect the independence of the appraiser, it has done little to accomplish 

that goal. The purpose of this paper is to: 

Present a historical perspective of the relationship between real estate appraisers and 

the lending industry, 

Review federal rules and regulations affecting real estate appraisers, 

Determine the impact of federal rules and regulations on the real estate appraisal 

profession, and; 

Highlight specific issues facing the real estate appraisal profession and present potential 

solutions to these issues. 

Part 2- Historical Context of the Real Estate Appraisal Industry 

Setting the Stage 

Before the era of the 30-year mortgage, typical mortgage loans were based on terms which 

required 50% down, interest-only payments, five-year terms and balloon payments of the 

outstanding mortgage balances at the end of the loan terms. These terms insured the 

solvency of the lender's portfolio. 

In 1934, the federal government passed the National Housing Act in an attempt to revitalize 

the nation's economy and jumpstart the housing market, both of which were suffering 

greatly due to the Great Depression. The National Housing Act created the Federal Housing 

Administration (FHA). FHA's original mission was to insure mortgages originated by 

depository institutions; however, because lenders were required to hold these mortgages 

for the entire term of the loan, many institutions were reluctant to issue FHA loans. 

In 1938, Congress created the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA commonly 

known as Fannie Mae), which purchased mortgages from lenders, thus freeing up money 

the lenders could then relend to other borrowers. Along with Fannie Mae came more fair 

and efficient mortgage-lending practices. Now that lenders were going to a central funding 

source, loan terms, interest rates and underwriting guidelines began to be similar from 

institution to institution. lenders had to conform to Fannie Mae's guidelines and 

restrictions if they wanted to sell their loans in the secondary market. In 1944, the Veterans 

Administration (VA) followed suit with a similar program for veterans and military 

N personnel, who as a result could buy homes without down payments. This action 

~ catapulted the housing market. 

0.. 

Regulatory Issues/Resolutions Facing the Residential Real Estate Appraisal Profe'5sion 
154 


26005.115

the Real Estate 

In the 1950s, 60s and early 70s, most mortgages were 20-30 years loans. In 1968, FNMA 

was split into the current FNMA (Fannie Mae) and Government National Mortgage 

Association (GNMA), commonly known as Ginnie Mae. The present-day Fannie Mae is not a 

government agency, but a federally-chartered corporation owned by private shareholders. 

The present-day Fannie Mae purchases FHA, VA and conventional mortgages. The presentday Ginnie Mae is a government agency that does not purchase loans, but instead 

guarantees returns to investors who purchase mortgage-backed securities backed by FHA, 

VA and other government loans. 

Baby boomers, both men and women, entered the workforce in the late 1960s and early 

70s, creating double-income families. Boomers wanted larger, more expensive homes to fit 

their incomes and lifestyles. More mortgages were needed. In 1970, Congress chartered 

the Federal Home loan Mortgage Corporation (FHLMC), better known as Freddie Mac, to 

increase the supply of mortgage funds available to commercial lenders, savings and loan 

institutions, credit unions and other mortgage lenders. 

From the 1930s through the mid-70s, lenders (including thrifts) and residential real estate 

appraisers shared close working relationships. lenders relied on the appraiser's knowledge 

and also his/her reputation. lenders looked for appraisers who had affiliations with major 

nonprofit appraisal organizations in the selection process. There were many professional 

appraisal organizations, including The American Society of Farm Managers and Rural 

Appraisers - 1929 (AFMRA), The American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers - 1932 

(AIREA), the Society of Real Estate Appraisers 1935 (SRA), the American Society of 

Technical Appraisers - 1936 (AMSTA), the Technical Valuation Society - 1935 (TVS), the 

National Association of Independent Fee Appraisers - 1961 (NAIFA), and many others. The 

AMSTA and TVS merged in 1952 to become The American Society of Appraisers, and the 

AIREA and SRA merged in 1990 to form the Appraisal Institute. All of these professional 

organizations were formed to promote education and ethical standards as well as to attract 

competent appraisers. 

Up to the mid-70s, mortgage requirements were generally understood by the average 

consumer looking to buy a home. To qualify for a mortgage, the applicant generally had to 

provide a 20 - 25% down payment, and the monthly payment could not exceed 30% of gross 

income. Lenders used loan officers rather than mortgage brokers for most transactions. 

In an effort to prevent redlining and to meet the needs of low- to moderate-income groups, 

various federal regulations were enacted, beginning with the Community Reinvestment Act 

of 1977, which measured each financial institution's performance within defined areas. 

Non-compliance at that time could result in severe consequences. 

Savings and loan Crisis of the 1980s and 90s 

Due to spiraling inflation in the late 1970's, the Federal Reserve Bank doubled the interest 

rate by restricting the growth of the money supply, which in turn caused interest rates to 

Regulatory Issues/Resolutions Facing the Residential Real Estate Appraisal Profession 
155 


26005.116

skyrocket. Between June 1979 and March 1980, short-term interest rates rose by more 

than six percentage points. Low income on the inventory of existing mortgages vs. high 

interest on short term savings accounts resulted in extraordinary losses by the thrift 

institutions. In order to curtail the crisis, new federal rules allowed for expanded 

investment options and eliminated interest ceilings for the thrifts until such time that 

interest rates returned to normal. 

As a result of those risky investments, high interest rates and the transition from traditional 

mortgages to more risky investments, over 118 savings and loan associations failed in the 

next three years; and it is estimated that this move ultimately cost taxpayers over $150 

billion dollars.' 

The Creation of FIRREA and Title XI 

In the wake of the Savings and Loan crisis, Congress responded by enacting more legislation. 

It began in 1987 with Congressman Doug Barnard Jr. of Georgia introducing H.R. 3675, the 

Real Estate Appraisal Reform Act. This bill gave a major role to The Appraisal Foundation 

and established the Federal Interagency Appraisal Counsel to set real estate appraisal 

standards and qualifications for transactions in which the federal government has 

substantial financial or public policy interests. Because Congressman Barnard feared the bill 

would fail, he decided to use the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement 

Act of 1989 (FIRREA) as a vehicle for appraisal reform; and he inserted his bill as a separate 

amendment known as Title XI in FIRREA. 

FIRREA dramatically changed the S&L industry and its federal regulation, including title 

insurance. Title XI required that appraisals utilized in connection with federally related 

transactions be performed in writing, in accordance with uniform standards, and by 

competent individuals whose professional conduct was subject to effective supervision. In 

addition, it established the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) 2 to monitor the activities of the 

state regulatory agencies and The Appraisal Foundation, which promulgates the generally 

accepted appraisal standards and qualification standards for state licensed and certified 

appraisers. FIRREA also upgraded and consolidated the regulations of various federal 

agencies. 

1 House Committee on Government Operations, Impact of Appraisal Problems on Real Estate Lending, Mortgage 

Insurance, and Investment in Secondary Market, ggth Congress, 2nd session, 1986, H. Rep. 99-891,4-6. 2 Responsibilities of the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) 

The Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) maintains a National Registry of Appraisers and transmits a report to Congress 

annually detailing the activities of the ASC It also provides federal oversight of State appraiser regulatory 

programs and provides a monitoring framework for The Appraisal Foundation and the Federal Financial Institutions 

Regulatory Agencies in their roles to protect federal financial and public policy interests in real estate appraisals 

utilized in federally related transactions. 

1111

h Congress, Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. 

~ https://www.sec.gov/about/laws/wallstreetreform-cpa.pdf 

~ 0.. 

Regulatory Issues/Resolutions Facing the Residential Real Estate Appraisal Profession 
156 


26005.117

We do believe that generally Title XI of FIRREA and the establishment of the Appraisal 

Subcommittee provided effective regulatory oversight and that The Appraisal Foundation 

has been an effective, independent organization allowing for standardized rules within the 

profession. 

The Subprime Mortgage/Financial Crisis of 2007-2008 

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 amended the charter of both Fannie 

Mae and Freddie Mac to facilitate the financing of affordable housing for low- and 

moderate-income families. Again in 1999, more pressure was exerted on the financial 

institutions through the Community Reinvestment Act to expand mortgages and to ease 

credit requirements. This action adversely resulted in the financial institutions lowering 

their underwriting standards, offering interest-only loans and floating/adjustable rates (in 

some cases with little or no documentation to support the consumer's ability to repay the 

loan.) 

These high-risk loans came with higher interest rates; and the financial institutions began a 

radical move to mortgage-backed securities with earnings dependent on volume. The share 

of subprime mortgages to total originations increased from 9 percent in 1996 to 20 percent 

in 2006, according to Forbes. Subprime mortgages totaled $600 billion that year; and 

lenders held very few, if any, of these loans in their own portfolios. They were indeed 

reaping the benefits of these new high-risk investments without being held responsible for 

any of the risk. 3 

The secondary mortgage market, which includes collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), 

soared, and CDOs exploded from $75 billion in 2003 to $450 billion in 2006. These securities 

were backed by MA ratings. It appears that rating agencies did not do their jobs and that 

investors did not do their due diligence. 

Regrettably, the relaxed standards for mortgage loans and the movement to mortgagebacked securities led to the Subprime Mortgage/Financial Crisis of 2007-2008 for subprime, 

Alt-A, COOs, mortgage, credit, hedge fund, and foreign lending markets. In October 2007, 

the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson called the bursting housing bubble that led 

to the crisis "the most significant current risk"4 to the US economy. It was a catastrophe 

caused by many players, including some appraisers. Overall, appraisers contributed 

3 Ginnie Mae was a main participant in the mortgage crisis of 2008. Ginnie Mae's most important program was 

and is the mortgage-backed security program in which Ginnie Mae guarantees pools of mortgages accumulated by 

mortgage originators of "low- and moderate-income households across America by channeling global capita! into 

the nation's housing markets." 

Ginnie Mae Home, Who we are. What we do. Why it makes a difference, http:ljginniemae.gov/pages/default.aspx 4 Housingwlre, Paulson: Housing a 'Significant Risk' to Economy, October 16, 2007. 

http:l/www.housingwire.com/artic!es/paulson-housing-significant-risk-economy 

Regulatory Issues/Resolutions Facing the Residential Real £slate Appraisal Profession 
157 


26005.118

relatively little but were assigned a significant amount of the blame. 

As a result of the financial crisis, the Attorney General of New York State, Andrew Cuomo, 

began an investigation into the practices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Subsequently, 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac signed a settlement with Cuomo, agreeing to abide by new 

rules which would be embodied in the Home Valuation Code of Conduct (HVCC) that went 

into effect in May 2009. As part of the agreement, Cuomo's investigation into Fannie Mae 

and Freddie Mac's practices was terminated. With the co-signing of the agreement by the 

Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, HVCC was given federal rule status. 

HVCC was designed to protect appraiser independence and prevent pressure on appraisers 

to produce a desired property value. It was also intended to protect consumers. 

Compliance with the rules was required for all loans backed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. 

Most of the big appraisal organizations initially backed the policy; but by the end of the 

comment period (45 days) had reversed their stances and submitted commentary much 

more critical of HVCC than their original comments. The rules stayed in effect and were 

eventually incorporated, in part, into the next big legislation, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street 

Reform and Consumer Protection Act, signed into law in July 2010. 

While we believe that the reforms enacted by Title XI of FIRREA were good reforms and 

provide oversight and controls similar to those of many other licensed professions, the rules 

implemented as a part of the Home Valuation Code of Conduct (HVCC) and incorporated 

into Title XI as amended by the Dodd-Frank Reform Act have in many cases resulted in 

unintended consequences. We will discuss these unintended consequences in Part 2 of this 

document. 

Dodd-Frank/Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 

Dodd-Frank was signed into federal law on July 21, 2010, in response to the Subprime 

Mortgage/Financial Crisis of 2007-2008 and the subsequent Great Recession that followed. 

The legislation brought the most significant changes to financial regulation in the United 

States since reforms following the Great Depression. The reforms affected all federal 

financial regulatory agencies and almost every part of the nation's financial services 

industry, including appraisers. 

How did Dodd-Frank affect the financial services industry, including appraisers? 

1. Expanded the functions of the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) to include monitoring of 

State requirements for registration/supervision of operations/activities of appraisal 

management companies 

2. Required the ASC to report to Congress annually regarding activities of the ASC, 

including results of all audits of State appraiser certifying and licensing agencies 

3. Mandated national registry of appraisal management companies registered with and 

subject to supervision of State appraiser certifying and licensing agencies 

4. Set up grants available through ASC for State appraiser certifying and licensing 

Regulatory Issues/Resolutions Facing the Residential Rea! Estate Appraisal Profession 
158 


26005.119

the Real Estate 

agencies to support the efforts of such agencies to comply with Dodd-Frank 

5. Established that appraisals be subject to appropriate review for compliance with the 

Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice 

6. Authorized that thresholds established by financial institutions regulatory agencies 

and The Resolution Trust Corporation concur with Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection to provide reasonable protection for consumers who purchase 1-4 unit 

family residences 

7. Set new rules based on size and complexity of appraisal requiring the services of State 

certified appraisers 

8. Set minimum qualifications for Trainee Appraiser and Supervisory Appraiser through 

AQB 

9. Gave ASC the authority to remove State licensed or certified appraiser from the 

national registry for a period not to exceed 90 days, pending State agency action on 

licensing, certification, registration and disciplinary proceedings 

10. Established limitations on appraising through reciprocity based on State policy 

11. Prohibited discrimination against consideration of appraiser for an assignment based 

solely on membership in a nationally recognized professional appraisal organization 

12. Mandated ASC monitoring of State appraiser certifying and licensing agency for the 

purpose of maintaining appraiser independence 

13. Encouraged States to accept courses approved by AQB Course Approval Program 

14. Set up Complaint National Hotline to receive complaints of non-compliance with 

appraisal independence standards and Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal 

Practice (to address improper influence or attempted improper influence of 

appraisers or the appraisal process) 

15. Set requirements for Appraisal Management Companies including registration with 

State appraiser certifying and licensing agencies 

16. Set standards for Automated Valuation Models (AVMs) and limitations on use of 

Broker Price Opinions {BPOs) 

17. Required customary and reasonable compensation for appraisers 

18. Mandated additional provisions for high-risk mortgages, including interior inspections 

of subject properties by licensed or certified appraisers 

Regulatory issues/Resolutions Facing the Residential Real Estate Appraisal Profession 
159 


26005.120

Part 3- Challenges, Problems and Proposed Remedies 

According to data available from the United States Census Bureau and published in an April 

2013 article by the Appraisal Institute, the number of appraisers nationwide peaked in 2007 at 

118,657. The ASC lists the current number of appraisers at 100,129 as of April 2015. Although 

these statistics represent total credentials rather than the actual number of appraisers (i.e. an 

appraiser may be counted multiple times if he/she is credentialed in multiple states), the trend 

is clear. There has been a decline in appraiser credentials of more than 15% over the 6-plus 

year period. 

The decline is due in part to age attrition and fewer new entrants into the field. Another reason 

cited for the drop in appraiser credentials is increased use of alternative valuation products 

and/or broker price opinions (BPOs) by lenders. These factors, coupled with overall challenging 

business conditions and convoluted new government regulations, have led to limited growth 

opportunities in the real estate appraisal profession. 

At the same time the appraisal profession is becoming more challenging for current appraisers, 

educational requirements are becoming stricter. According to a January 2012 report to 

Congress from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), "Title XI of FIRREA (as amended by 

Dodd-Frank) created a complex regulatory structure that relies upon the actions of many state, 

federal and private entities to help ensure the quality of appraisals and the qualifications of 

appraisers used in federally related transactions."' 

One of the primary barriers facing appraisers entering the appraisal profession as of January 

2015 is increased educational requirements, including 

For licensed Residential appraisers, increasing formal education requirements from no 

degree requirement to "an Associate's degree or higher (in any field) from an accredited 

college, junior college, community college, or university"6 

For Certified Residential appraisers, increasing formal education requirements from 

"Associate's degree" to "Bachelor's degree or higher (in any field) from an accredited 

college or university"7 

Listed below are the requirements already in effect for licensed and certified appraisers: 

5 Government Accountability Office, Highlights of GA0~12~147, a report to congressional committees, January 

2012, page 8. 

"The Appraisal Foundation, New! Summary of Changes to the Real Property Appraiser Qualification Criteria 

(effective January 1, 2015}. 

https://netforum.avectra.com/eweb/Dyn.amicPage.aspx?Site::::taf&WebCode-RPCriteria 

7 Government Accountability Office. 

https://netforum.avectra.com/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?Site;;;taf&WebCode-RPCriteria 

Reguiotory Issues/Resolutions Facing the Residential Real Estate Appraisal Profession 
160 


26005.121

the Real Estate 

appraiser: 

obtained in no fewer than 12 months 

150 creditable class hours (7 courses) in appraisal-specific subjects 

passing a standardized Appraisal Qualifications Board (AQB) exam and 

28 credits of appraiser-specific continuing education every two years. 

For a Certified Residential appraiser: 

• 2500 hours of experience obtained in no fewer than 24 months 

• 200 creditable class hours (10 courses) in appraisal-specific subjects 

• passing a standardized Appraisal Qualifications Board (AQB) exam and 

• 28 credits of appraiser-specific continuing education every two years 

While there may be some rationale for higher educational requirements, the additional 

requirements listed above have made the process of becoming an appraiser more burdensome. 

(See footnote8 ) 

Throughout the rest of this paper we will explore various factors that have influenced the 

decline in credentials and give recommendations of how to improve the attractiveness of the 

profession to new entrants while protecting consumers. 

Problem 1-Trainees Face Training Hurdles 

In today's market, for federally related transactions, lenders and AMCs do not typically accept 

work from anyone other than licensed or certified appraisers. This practice leaves appraisal 

trainees with no way to earn the work experience required by law. This structure discourages 

established appraisers from hiring Appraiser Trainees. The profession must take on the 

responsibility for training new entrants; otherwise, there will be too few appraisers remaining 

to assume responsibility from those retiring. 

A survey done in June 2013 by the Appraisal Institute showed that trainee hiring will remain 

relatively weak for the next one to two years, based mainly on lenders/AMes resistance to 

s The basis for this change (higher educational requirements) is that individuals with higher educational levels have 

typically tested better on the AQB-approved examination. Test results also indicate that individuals with 

Bachelor's degrees or higher perform better on the exam than those with Associate degrees or without degrees. 

(The previous statements have been supported by demographic information on candidates sitting for exams in 

January 2010). 

Appraiser Qualifications Board, Proposed Revisions to the Future Real Estate Appraiser Qualification Criteria, 

October 28, 2010. 

Regulatory Issues/Resolutions Facing the Residential Real Estate Appraisal Profession 
161 


26005.122

having trainees do any work. Of those surveyed only 9 percent of residential appraisers plan to 

hire more trainees during this perlod.9 

Recommendation: 

The Appraisal Qualifications Board (AQB) currently has in place qualification criteria for 

Appraiser Trainees that gives clear guidelines for trainees and the supervisory appraisers who 

oversee them. Quality training programs need to be designed and implemented to support and 

link the educational and experience requirements for appraising. 

In one model, appraisal students could spend the first two years of a four-year degree program 

learning general and appraisal-specific concepts, followed by two years of a combined 

education/work experience program, thus allowing students to graduate with the qualifications 

necessary for becoming a certified appraiser. 

We feel that it is important to also encourage lenders and AMCs to adopt policies regarding 

trainees and supervising appraisers and not insist that trainees be accompanied on inspections 

beyond the point where they are considered competent by their supervising appraisers. 

Problem 2- lack of Mandatory State licensing in All States 

A reported issued in 2012 by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to Congress stated 

that "Under authority granted by Title XI, the federal regulators also have adopted regulations 

that exempt federally related transactions of $250,000 or less from appraisal requirements"10 

(meaning that the services of a licensed or certified appraiser are not required). Fannie and 

Freddie were also deemed exempt. 

The fact that licensed or certified appraisers are not required for the majority of mortgages 

leaves consumers at risk. The GAO in January 2012 found that "more than 70 percent of 

residential mortgages made from 2006 through 2009 were $250,000 or less."11 

As previously discussed, a residential appraisal license/certification takes years of training, 

education and experience to acquire. Lenders, in order to save money and meet federal 

requirements, are using alternatives to appraisals to obtain values on homes. Many utilize 

Broker Price Opinions (BPOs) in part for refinances. 

It should be noted that real estate salespersons and brokers in New York State, as an example, 

have no formal education requirements (whereas certified appraisers will require a bachelor's 

9 Appraisal Institute, 2013 Appraisal Outlook, June 28, 2013 10 Government Accountability Office, Highlights ofGA0-12-147, a report to congressional committees, January 

2012, page 23. 11 Government Accountability Office, Highlights of GA0-12-147, a report to congressional committees, January 

2012. 

Regulatory Issues/Resolutions Facing the Residential Real Estate Appraisal Profession 
162 


26005.123

the Real Estate 

degree in 2015), no work experience requirements for salespersons and only two years' work 

experience as a salesperson to qualify as a broker (certified residential appraisers require 2,500 

hours experience in no less than 24 months). Salespersons and brokers are not required to 

complete any appraisal related coursework or appraisal continuing education (certified 

residential appraisers require 200 hours of appraisal related coursework and 28 hours of 

appraisal continuing education every two years). 

Lack of consistency in state licensing requirements leaves consumers vulnerable to 

comparability and reliability issues. Presently, only 37 licensing jurisdictions require mandatory 

licensing, and the rest are either voluntary or mandatory for federally related transactions only. 

Another issue associated with transparency is the lack of disclosure about the components 

covered by the appraisal fees, such as lender fees, fees paid for AMC services, and direct 

appraisal fees. 

Recommendation: 

We propose mandatory licensing rules be put in place and enforced in all states, requiring the 

use of licensed or certified appraisers for any services for which an opinion of value for real 

property is developed. Mandatory licensing in all states would improve the comparability and 

reliability of appraiser valuations nationwide, supporting consumer's need for better 

information during the home buying process. It is also our opinion that each component of the 

appraisal fee should be listed separately when disclosed to the client, so that consumers know 

fully where their money goes as part of the overall mortgage transaction. 

Problem 3- The Federal De Minimis Limit is Set Too High 

The de minimis appraisal threshold, the dollar level set by the federal financial regulators to 

exempt real estate loans made by federally insured financial institutions from statutory 

appraisal requirements, was increased in 1994 from $100,000 to $250,000 as a way to reduce 

regulatory burden and encourage economic growth. Though many groups have lobbied to 

reduce the de minimis since that time, none have been successful except in one type of 

mortgage loan, the Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans (HPML) 12• 

Mortgage loans are HPMLs if they are secured by a consumer's principal dwelling and have 

annual percentage rates (APRs) that exceed the Average Prime Offer Rate (APOR) by 1.5 

percentage points or more (see footnote for reference to additional criteria''}. In other words, 

HPMLs are high-interest loans. 

11 TILA Regulation Z defines HPML's as: "a consumer credit transaction secured by the consumer's principal 

dwelling with an annual percentage rate that exceeds the average prime offer rate for a comparable transaction as 

of the date the interest rate is set by 1.5 or more percentage points for loans secured by a first lien on a dwelling, 

or by 3.5 or more percentage points for loans secured by a subordinate lien on a dwelling." 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, TILA Higher~Priced Mortgage Loans (HPML) Appraisal Rule, January 13, 

2014, http;l/files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201401 cfpb tila-hpml appraisal-rule-guide.pdf 13 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, http:/!ft!es.consumerfinance.gov/f/201401 cfpb tila-hpml appraisalRegulatory Issues/Resolutions Facing the Residential Rea! Estate Appraisal Profession 
163 


26005.124

It is important to note that in December 2012, the Federal Register discussed HPMls and 

established a $25,000 de minimis for these loan types. In January 2013, after the Final Rule was 

issued, a consumer advocacy group expressed the view that "LMI (lower- to middle-income) 

consumers obtaining or refinancing loans secured by lower-value homes may have a particular 

need for the protections of the HPML"14 When the final rule was issued, the de minimis for 

HPMLs was set at $25,000, or 1/10 that established for all other federally related transactions. 

The de minimis for all other mortgage loans has remained at $250,000. 

Data analyzed for this paper, taken from the S&P Case-Shiller 20-City Home Price Index for the 

period 2009-2015, indicate that the average price for homes in surveyed markets ranged 

between $140,000 and $175,000.15 The data show that, at a minimum, most residential real 

estate transactions are below the de minimis, thereby nullifying the federal requirement for an 

appraisal. Thus, many consumers are effectively being denied the right to professional 

appraisals in a significant amount of mortgage transactions. 

Recommendation: 

We propose that the existing de minimis threshold of $250,000 for all federally related 

mortgage transactions be lowered to the $25,000 HPML Appraisal Rule passed by the combined 

efforts of the Department of the Treasury, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System 

and the Bureau of Consumer Protection. Reducing the de minimis threshold would increase the 

number of transactions requiring professional appraisals, giving more consumers access to 

more reliable valuations. 

Problem 4- lack of Regulation Concerning Customary and Reasonable Fees 

The level of fees paid to appraisers is clearly one of the most important issues facing the 

profession. Declining fees currently being paid by AMCs to appraisers have discouraged new 

entrants from coming into the profession. 

Dodd-Frank requires that lenders and their agents compensate fee appraisers at a rate that is 

customary and reasonable for appraisal services- customary as it pertains to the market area 

and reasonable as it pertains to the complexity of the specific appraisal. The law allows for two 

alternatives approaches when determining rates: 1) that the rate be "reasonably related to 

recent rates paid for comparable appraisal services performed in the geographic market of the 

property being appraised" or 2) that the rate be established "by relying on information about 

rates that Is based on objective third-party information, including fee schedules, studies, and 

surveys prepared by independent third parties such as government agencies, academic 

ru!e-guide.pdf 

14 Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 248, December 26, 2013. 78529. 15Federal Reserve Bank of St. louis~ S&P Case-Schiller 20 City Home Price Index, 2014. 

https:ljresearch.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/SPCS20RSA. January 2000. 

Regufatory Issues/Resolutions Facing the Residential Real Estate Appraisal Profession 
164 


26005.125

M 

the Real Estate 

institutions, and private research firms."16 

In our research we found little actual data indicating that AMCs are paying customary and 

reasonable fees. Instead, many appraisers have stated that AMCs shop the marketplace for 

rock-bottom prices. The process is as follows: an AMC sends an email blast to all appraisers 

within a given area, detailing the property and offering a certain fee for the completion of the 

assignment within a prescribed time frame. The email may or may not even discuss assignment 

elements that an appraiser must consider in order to make an appropriate scope of work 

decision for the assignment. Time frames offered are many times less than what the appraisal 

actually entails. Appraisers receiving the email are left with one choice: accept the assignment 

as-is, at the fee being offered, in the time-frame being given. If an appraiser tries to counter 

with a higher fee, invariably the AMC has already hired someone else based on the original fee 

and timeframe requested. 

Another concern is whether or not AMCs are addressing the "reasonable" aspect of customary 

and reasonable, the things that make an appraisal more complex and time consuming than the 

average, things like location, size, driving distance, availability of comparable data, and access 

to sales contracts and other information supplied by third parties. 

To help address these problems, Dodd-Frank requires that State appraiser certifying and 

licensing agencies register and oversee AMCs. At least one state, Louisiana, has gone a step 

further in dealing with the customary and reasonable debate. In May, 2012, louisiana passed 

its Louisiana Appraisal Management Company Licensing and Regulation Act. The law requires 

that AMCs "compensate appraisers at a rate that is customary and reasonable for appraisals in 

the market area of the property being appraised, consistent with the presumptions of 

compliance under federallaw." 17 

To determine what constitutes customary and reasonable fees, louisiana authorized a 

statewide survey done by the Southeastern louisiana University Business Research Center. The 

survey focused on fees being paid by lenders, not AMCs, to determine customary and 

reasonable fees for specific assignments in specific areas. The survey also included appraiser 

input for comparison. The final results of the survey set the standard for customary rates in 

various regions of Louisiana. Although AMCs operating in Louisiana are not bound to the rates 

prescribed, they are required to provide extensive documentation on how the rate used was 

developed if audited. 

The question relating to the proper methodology to determine customary and reasonable fees 

has been an issue since they were mandated by Dodd-Frank. In a Division of Consumer and 

Community Affairs report dated October 28, 2010, appraiser representatives and one state 

legislator argued that creditors and AMCs rely on published fee studies such as Veterans 

"t""""( 16 http://www.sec.gov/about/!aws/wal!streetreform-cpa.pdf 

~ 17 louisiana Real Estate Appraisers Board, AMC Licensing and Regulation Act, Acts 2009, No. 502, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 

o... 2010, http://www.reab.state.la.us/AMC license !aw.html 

Regulatory Issues/Resolutions Facing the Residential Real Estate AppraiSal Profession 
165 


26005.126

Administration fee schedules to determine how much to pay appraisers. Creditors and AMCs 

argued that VA fees were too high for "average appraisals." We disagree with the creditors and 

AMCs.18 

It has been suggested that the Veteran Administration's (VA) fee schedule fairly reflects, at a 

minimum, fees associated with the work involved in appraisal development and reporting, as 

well as time frame (7 to 10 days in most markets), and other requirements to develop and 

report credible and USPAP-compliant appraisals. 

Recommendation: 

We suggest that all states follow the louisiana AMC law and begin regulating AMCs as DoddFrank mandates. Furthermore, states should follow the Louisiana model and conduct their own 

independent studies to determine what customary and reasonable fees should be for their 

geographic areas. Where studies have not yet been developed, we suggest the use of VA rates 

as an alternative. 

Problem 5- Lack of Communication between Clients and Appraisers 

The lack of understanding regarding communication between the client and the appraiser 

became even more prevalent after the enactment of Dodd-Frank. Lenders quickly promoted 

AMCs as middlemen, and AMCs quickly and happily accepted this new and growing business. 

Actually, Dodd-Frank never restricted communication between the client and the appraiser; 

instead, its intent was to protect the independence of the appraiser and the appraisal process. 

In addition, Dodd-Frank, TILA, GSE Servicing guidelines and USPAP all address appraiser/agent 

communications. None prohibit appraisers from speaking with real estate agents during the 

appraisal process. Agents may talk with appraisers and provide additional property 

information, including a copy of the sales contract for purchase transactions. Of course an 

agent must not intimidate or bribe an appraiser, and an appraiser must not disclose 

confidential information at any time. (See footnote for Dodd-Frank language on this topic.19) 

Once an appraisal assignment is completed and sent to the client, USPAP prohibits an appraiser 

from discussing the results of the report with anyone other than the client or parties designated 

18 Federal Reserve Board Staff, Docket No. R"l 3 9 4- Valuation Independence Interim Final Rule (12 CFR 226.42), 

October 28, 2010. 19 "The requirements of subsection (b) shall not be construed as prohibiting a mortgage lender, mortgage broker, 

mortgage banker, real estate broker, appraisal management company, employee of an appraisal management 

company, consumer, or any other person with an interest in a real estate transaction from asking an appraiser to 

undertake 1 or more of the following: 

Consider additional, appropriate property information, including the consideration of additional comparable 

properties to make or support and appraisaL 

Provide further detail, substantiation, or explanation for the appraiser's value conclusion. 

Correct errors in the appraisal report." 

lllth Congress, https://www.sec.gov/about/laws/wallstreetreform-cpa.pdf 

Regulatory issues/Resolutions Facing the Residential Real Estate Appraisal Profession 
166 


26005.127

by the client. At this point no one except the client can ask for corrections or request 

consideration of additional data. (See footnote for US PAP Ethics Rule language on this topic. 20) 

Recommendation: 

We believe that it is important that underwriters who are responsible for verifying credibility 

and USPAP compliance of appraisal reports be allowed and encouraged to communicate 

directly with the appraiser. This would eliminate much of the confusion and promote efficient 

time usage in the appraisal process by reducing the amount of information and questions 

passed through AMCs to either the underwriter or the appraiser. A more efficient process 

would benefit the consumer. 

Problem 6 Loan Underwriting 

New regulations enacted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, entitled Ability-toRepay and Qualified Mortgage Standards under the Truth in Lending Act (Regulation Z) state 

that "The act (Appraisals for Higher-Priced Mortgage loans {HPML Act}) contains special 

appraisal requirements with respect to higher-risk mortgages"21 The HPML regulations contain 

language regarding a $25,000 de minimis and include very specific appraisal standards for 

higher-priced mortgage loans. It is troubling that the Qualified Mortgage regulations further 

imply that the following are exempt from these appraisal requirements: 

• Qualified Mortgages (Unclear what, if anything, is required); 

Higher-priced mortgages with a debt-to-income ratio of 43 or less; 

loans with a higher debt to income ratio that are purchasable by the GSAs or 

insurable by FHA (this is presumably a temporary provision). 

The above three exclusions effectively remove the preponderance of loans from any defined 

appraisal requirements. 

With this in mind, the Qualified Mortgage regulations conclude that "The impact of this 

reduction in the scope of appraisal requirements is relatively muted for first lien mortgages 

because of the small number of high-risk mortgages to begin with and the fact that most 

lenders already do a full interior appraisal and share the results with the consumer". 22 

20 "An appraiser must not disclose 1) confidential information or 2) assignment [appraisal] results to anyone other 

than the client, persons specifically authorized by the client, state appraiser regulatory agencies, third parties as 

may be authorized by due process of law, or a duly authorized professional peer review committee except when 

such disclosure to a committee would violate applicable law or regulation." 

1111

h Congress, https://www.sec.govLill;Lout/laws/wa!lstreetreform-cpa.pdf 21 Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, Ability-to-Repay and Qualified Mortgage Standards under the Truth in 

Lending Act {Regulation Z}, January 10, 2013 .. 22 Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, Ability-to-Repay and Qualified Mortgage Standards under the Truth in 

Lending Act (Regulation Z}, January 10, 2013, 

Regulatory Issues/Resolutions Facing the Residential Real Estate Appraisal Profession 
167 


26005.128

the Real Estate 

Recommendation: 

It is our opinion that in underwriting a loan, the parties responsible for underwriting the loan 

should critically analyze the value of the property, the condition of the property and the 

borrower's ability to repay the loan. Historically, when lenders wrote mortgages they 

considered all three aspects very carefully since they were responsible for the property if a loan 

defaulted. Ideally, lenders would be held responsible for failed loans within a reasonable time 

period (e.g. five years). This would ensure a critical review of all three criteria. However, this 

option was considered and not implemented by Dodd-Frank. In the absence of this alternative, 

it is imperative to ensure that lenders are responsible for ensuring that all loans in excess of the 

de minimis be held to the same standards as the higher-priced mortgages with regard to 

property valuation/condition. It is not acceptable to simply state that "most lenders already do 

a full interior appraisal .... " If this standard is not applied to each and every mortgage written, 

consumers and ultimately taxpayers are placed in jeopardy. Furthermore, lenders and not the 

AMCs must be held accountable for underwriting the risks associated with these loans, 

including the accuracy of appraisals. This approach will contribute to ensuring that low cost 

and fast turnaround are not the basis for choosing qualified appraisers. 

Problem 7- How the Appraiser is Viewed by the Consumer and the Public Generally 

Though consumers have a vague understanding of the appraisal process, they do not 

understand that one of the appraiser's main roles in the loan process is to protect the 

consumer. Appraisers have been unjustifiably blamed for "killing the deal" if the value comes in 

too low to satisfy the loan requirements. 

Recommendation: 

There are numerous pamphlets and flyers that explain the appraisal process to consumers; 

however, they are not being distributed widely. While The Appraisal Foundation is working 

closely with a public relations firm to promote the profession, federal and state governments 

must also participate in this educational process; financial institutions should be required to 

disseminate this information when accepting loan applications; and professional appraisal 

organizations could also support consumer education with wider distribution of educational 

and informational materials. 

Problem 8- Poor Implementation of AMC Regulation and Oversight 

We believe that, while Dodd-Frank put heavy regulation on appraisers, there is insufficient 

regulation of the middlemen, the appraisal management company (AM C) 

\0 The FDIC, in its Interagency Evaluation and Appraisal Guidelines, talks about third party 

rl arrangements in which a lender engages a third party (AMC) to perform real property 

~ valuation-related services, such as selecting an appraiser to perform an appraisal. In those 

Regulatory Issues/Resolutions Facing the Residential Real Estate Appraisal Profession 
168 


26005.129

['-. 

M 

the Real Estate 

cases it is the responsibility of the lender to understand and manage the risks associated with 

the arrangement. The Guidelines caution that an institution should have the resources and 

expertise necessary for performing ongoing oversight of third party arrangements. They go on 

to say that "An institution also is responsible for ensuring that a third party selects an appraiser 

or a person to perform an evaluation who is competent and independent, has the requisite 

experience and training for the assignment, and thorough knowledge of the subject property's 

market."23 

But the question is, "Are lenders doing their due diligence in overseeing AMCs; and if not, are 

the States?" Some States have undertaken the task of regulating AMCs, but not enough has 

been done in this area. While this will be addressed through the requirements placed on states 

to regulate AMCs under Dodd-Frank, the laws of each state will go a long way to determining 

how effective AMC regulation will ultimately prove. 

We also recommend that lenders be held to their new responsibilities as created by DoddFrank. If lenders remain in charge of the lending and appraisal process, they will be less likely 

to rely on AVMs and BPOs and will instead look for quality appraisals done by licensed or 

certified appraisers. 

~ 23 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines, 

0... https://www.fdtc.gov/regulations/laws/rules/5000~4800.html 

Regulatory Issues/Resolutions Facing the Residential Real Estate Appraisal Profession 
169 


26005.130

There has been a change in the interpretation of the three-day requirement for estimates by 

lenders as a part of a 2014 TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule that has made it very difficult 

for the lenders to select the most qualified appraiser at a reasonable and customary fee. 

The problem is that the 19741aw entitled RESPA stated: 

"(c) Estimate of charges 

Each lender shall include with the booklet a good faith estimate of the amount or range 

of charges for specific settlement services the borrower is likely to incur in connection 

with the settlement as prescribed by the Secretary. 

(d) Distribution by lenders to loan applicants at time of receipt or preparation of 

applications 

Each lender referred to in subsection (a) of this section shall provide the booklet 

described in such subsection to each person from whom it receives or for whom it 

prepares a written application to borrow money to finance the purchase of residential 

real estate. Such booklet shall be provided by delivering it or placing it in the mail not 

later than 3 business days after the lender receives the application, but no booklet need 

be provided if the lender denies the application for credit before the end of the 3-day 

period."24 

The 2014 TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure Rule replaced the 1974 RESPA language shown 

above, and while still stating that the "creditor is required to provide the consumer with goodfaith estimates (underline added for emphasis) of credit costs and transaction terms in Section 

5.1 of the Small Entity Compliance Guide, it states that "Creditors generally may not issue 

revisions to Loan Estimates because they later discover technical errors, miscalculations, or 

underestimations of charges." 25 Furthermore, In Section 7.1 of the document it is made clear 

there is little tolerance for revision of the "estimate" where the rules state that: 

Generally, if the charge paid by or imposed on the consumer exceeds the 

amount originally disclosed on the Loan Estimate it is not in good faith, 

regardless of whether the creditor later discovers a technical error, 

miscalculation, or underestimation of a charge. 

It is not difficult to estimate the cost of such services as routine credit reports, flood 

certifications, tax services, etc. since they are fairly well standardized; however, this is not true 

of an appraisal. In most cases, location, complexity of the valuation and scope of work cannot 

14 HUO website, http:ljportal.hud.gov/hudportai/HUD?src::::/program offices/housing/rmra/res/resp2604 25 ConsumerFinance website, http:/ /files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201403 _ cfpb _ tila-respa-integrated-disdosurerule_compliance-guide.pdf 

Regulatory fssues/ResofuVons Facing the Residential Real Estate Appraisal Profession 
170 


26005.131

lenders are forced to quickly obtain and guarantee a fee. An easy way to do this is to utilize the 

services of an appraisal management company that sends out email requests and generally 

accepts the lowest bidder providing the fastest turnaround. Time simply does not allow either 

the lender or the appraisal management company to analyze and determine a reasonable and 

customary fee done by the most competent and experienced appraiser in the time allowed. 

Recommendation: 

To solve this problem, the lenders should be given more flexibility in estimating the appraisal 

fee within the three day period, and not be held to such strict requirements as it pertains to 

upward adjustments in the cost of the appraisal. Where a state has performed an appraisal fee 

study, lenders may be better situated to provide more accurate estimates; as such, it is 

imperative that states engage in fee studies not only for the benefit of appraisers, but for 

consumer confidence in the estimated fee. 

Part 4 - Conclusion 

Unfortunately, a small number of real estate appraisers played a role in the Subprime 

Mortgage/Financial Crisis of 2007-2008; however, their part was not commensurate with 

the heavy toll the appraisal profession took legislatively. Some of the legislation, while well 

intentioned, had negative consequences that are affecting the livelihoods of appraisers, 

especially residential appraisers, and threatening the future of the profession in general. 

More importantly, consumers are paying the price as well. 

Many appraisers are leaving the profession due to heightened regulations, undue 

interference by AMCs, low pay, and other factors not necessarily discussed in this paper. 

New entrants are not coming in due to a variety of reasons, including new and heightened 

educational standards that went into effect on January 1, 2015. 

lenders are relying more heavily on third parties (AMCs) in overseeing the appraisal 

process. Dodd-Frank puts lenders in charge of managing the risks associated with AMCs, 

including the lender's obligation to insure that AMCs hire appraisers based on competence, 

independence, and thorough knowledge of the subject property's market. If lenders 

understand and accept their obligations in this area, they may be willing to rely less on BPOs 

or AVMs performed by non-appraisers and ask for quality appraisals by licensed and 

certified appraisers instead. 

lenders should be held responsible for loans that they underwrite and process even where 

the loan is sold to third parties such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. If a loan fails within 

the first five years, the lender should be held responsible for the full amount of the balance 

of the loan. If this is required, lenders will insist on reasonable underwriting standards and 

quality appraisals. 

Regulatory Issues/Resolutions Facing the Residential Real Estate Appraisal Profession 
171 


26005.132

AMCs have to be regulated consistently state to state, not haphazardly as is now the case. 

Appraisers should not be the only party who has to abide by the rules of USPAP. All parties 

participating in federally related mortgage transactions should adhere to the same ethical 

standards as appraisers. 

Some AMCs have created communication wedges between lenders and appraisers due to 

lack of understanding of the rules. This lack of communication has hurt the appraisal 

process in generaL The resistance of lenders and AMCs to allow appraiser trainees to 

perform work is another barrier. Low fees and illogical turnaround time requirements for 

work performed by residential appraisers have further compromised the appraisal process 

and quality of the product. 

Mandatory state licensing would go a long way to alleviate some of the problems created by 

Dodd-Frank and Title XI. It would require the use of licensed and certified appraisers for all 

federally related mortgage transactions involving appraisals and appraisal reviews, in lieu of 

brokers/salespersons and others who are not as knowledgeable or experienced. lowering 

the de minimis to $25,000 would also be beneficial. 

In the end, the consumer pays the ultimate price. This fact cannot be overemphasized. The 

entire reason for Dodd-Frank was to protect the consumer, as well as the independence of 

the appraiser. Due to unintended consequences, the law has done neither. It is the 

responsibility of all parties involved in the mortgage lending process legislators, regulators, 

lenders, AMCs, nonprofit appraisal organizations, and appraisers to understand and 

correct the current deficiencies in the law. 

Regulatory fssues/Re:;o!utions Facing the Residential Rea! Estate Appraisal Profession 
172 


26005.133

the Real Estate 

References 

Armentrout, M. (2012). Why AMCs May Be Built on a Faulty Business Model. Appraisal News 

Online. 

http://aporaisalnewsonline.typeoad.com/appraisal news for real e/2012/06/whyamcs-may-be-built-on-a-faulty-business-model.html 

Bianco, K. (2008). The Subprime Lending Crisis: Causes and Effects of the Mortgage 

Meltdown. CCH. http:/(www.consejomexicano.org/Emails/subwprev.pdf 

Ely, B. (n.d.). Savings and Loan Crisis. Library of Economics and Uberty. 

http://www.econlib.org/librarv/Enc/SavingsandloanCrisis.html 

Fincham, W. (2013). Virginia is for Lovers: All but AMCs. Appraisal News Online. 

http://appraisalnewsonline.typepad.com/appraisal news for real e/2013/01/virginiais-for-lovers-all-but-amcs.html 

Foster, J. (2013). A National Blind Order System Hoslts Time Come? Appraisal News 

Online. 

http://appraisalnewsonline.typepad.com/appraisal news for real e/2013/01/anational-blind-order-system-has-its-time-come.html 

Jackson, P. (2007). Paulson: Housing a 'Significant Risk' to Economy. Housingwire. 

http://www.housingwire.com/articles/paulson-housing-significant-risk-economy 

Mann, K. (2012). Appraisal Oversight: The Regulatory Impact on Consumers and Businesses. 

American Society of Appraisers and the National Association of Independent Fee 

Appraisers before the Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community 

Opportunity, Committee on Financial Services, US House of Representatives. 

Marples, G. (2014). The History of Home Mortgages- A Dead Pledge. TheHistoryOf.net. 

http://thehistoryof.net/history-of-home-mortgages.html 

Murphy, E. (2012). Regulation of Real Estate Appraisers. Congressional Research Service. 

Seas, B. (1994). Evolution of Appraisal Reform and Regulation in the United States. Appraisal 

JournaL 

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Evolution+of+appraisal+reform+and+regulation+in+the 

+United+States.-a014979995 

.-1 Sousa, S. and Asker, J. (n.d.). Preparing Tomorrow's Appraisers Today. Massachusetts Board 

N of Real Estate Appraisers. gj, 

6': 

Regulatory fssues/Resolutfons Facing the Residential Real Estate Appraisal Profession 
173 


26005.134

N 

N 

0., 

~ 

the Real Estate 

Stephens, S. (2012). Appraisal Oversight: The Regulatory Impact on Consumers and 

Businesses. Appraisal Institute before the Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and 

Community Opportunity, Committee on Financial Services, US House of 

Representatives. 

Watkins, T. (n.d.). The Nature and the Origin of the Subprime Mortgage Crisis. San Jose State 

University Department of Economics. 

http:Uwww.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/subprime.htm 

(1977). Community Reinvestment Act. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. 

htto:Uen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community Reinvestment Act. 

(1986). Impact of Appraisal Problems on Real Estate Lending, Mortgage Insurance, and 

Investment in Secondary Market. House Committee on Government Operations, 99th 

Congress, 2"d session, 1986, H. Rep. 99-891, 4-6. 

(2000). History of the 80s- Lessons for the Future, a Study Prepared by the FDIC's Division of 

Research and Statistics, Presents: The Savings and Loan Crisis and Its Relationship to 

Banking. FDIC. https://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/history/ 

(2010). Title XI of FIRREA Real Estate Appraisal Reform {12 U.S. C. 3331-3351) as Amended by 

the Dodd-Frank Reform Act. 

(2010), Docket No. 1394- Valuation Independence Interim Final Rule (12 CFR 226.42). Board 

of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Division of Consumer and Community 

Affairs. 

(2010). Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. lll'h Congress. 

https:Uwww.sec.gov/about/laws/wallstreetreform-cpa.pdf 

(2010). Regulation of the Department of Consumer Protection Concerning Appraisal 

Management Companies. State of Connecticut. 

http:Uwww.ct.gov/dcp/lib/dcp/pdf/laws and regulations/r appraisal management c 

ompanies - amc101112.pdf 

(2011). New! Summary of Changes to the Real Property Appraiser Qualification Criteria 

(effective January 1, 2015). The Appraisal Foundation. 

https://netforum.avectra.com/eweb/DynamicPage.aspx?Site=taf&WebCode=RPCriteria 

(2010). Proposed Revisions to the Future Real Estate Appraiser Qualification Criteria. 

Appraiser Qualifications Board. Federal Reserve Board Staff. 

Regulatory fssues(Resofutions Facing the Residential Real Estate Appraisal Profession 
174 


26005.135

(2012). Statement of theNAR Submitted for the Record to the US House of Representatives 

Committee on Financial Services Subcommittee on Insurance~ Housing and Community 

Opportunity. Hearing Regarding Appraisal Oversight: The Regulatory Impact on 

Consumers and Businesses. National Association of REALTORS. 

(2012). Real Estate Appraisals. Appraisal Subcommittee Needs to Improve Monitoring 

Procedures. US Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees. 

(2013). 2013 Valuation Summit Notes. National Association of REALTORS. 

(2013). 2013 Real Estate Appraisal Outlook. Appraisal Institute. 

(2013). Ability-to-Repay and Qualified Mortgage Standards under the Truth in Lending Act 

(Regulation Z}, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, January 10, 2013. 

(2013). Real Property Appraiser Qualification Criteria and Interpretations of the Criteria, 

Effective Jan 1, 2008 and Jan 1, 2015. The Appraisal Foundation. 

https:Uappraisalfoundation.sharefile.com/download.aspx?id=s09bdbe88c8c4e5f8 

(2013). Appraisals for Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans, Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 248, 

December 26, 2013. 

(2014). Who we are. What we do. Why it makes a difference. Ginnie Mae Home. 

http:l/ginniemae.gov/pages/default.aspx 

(2014), T/LA Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 

http:l/files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201401 cfpb tila-hpml appraisal-rule-guide.pdf 

(2014). S&P Case-Shiller 20-City Home Price Index. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. 

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/SPCS20RSA 

(2014). AMC Licensing and Regulation Act. Louisiana Real Estate Appraisers Board. 

http://www.reab.state.la.us/AMC license law.html 

(2014 ). 2014·15 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. The Appraisal 

Foundation. http:l/www.uspap.org/ 

(2014). 12 USC Section 2604 Special Information Booklets. HUD Website. HUD website, 

http:ljportal.hud.gov/hudporta!/HUD?src=/program offices/housing/rmra/res/resp2604 

(2014). Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines. Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation. https:ijwww.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/5000-4800.html 

(2014). Integrated Disclosure rule. ConsumerFinance website. 

Regulatory fssues/Resofutions Facing the Residentiaf Real Estate Appraisal Profession 
175 


26005.136

the Real Estate 

http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201403 cfpb tila-respa-integrated-disclosurerule compliance-guide.pdf 

Regulatory Issues/Resolutions Facing the Residential Real Estate Appraisal Profession 
176 


26005.137

Our Thanks To 

Our thanks to the organizations listed below, who freely endorse the publication of this 

paper; and our special thanks to the following sub-group who have worked long and 

hard to research, write and review this document: William H. Green Ill, Chairman; 

Phillip Gainey; John Russell; Gil Santana; and linda Fusco. 

John Russell 

American Society of Appraisers 

William H. Green Ill, linda Fusco, and William Smolen 

Columbia Society of Real Estate Appraisers 

Gil Santana 

lnstituto de Evaluadores de Puerto Rico 

Steve Sousa 

Massachusetts Board of Real Estate Appraisers 

Molly Orman 

National Association of Independent Fee Appraisers 

Baldy Williams 

North Carolina Professional Appraisers Coalition 

Regulatory Issues/Resolutions Facing the Residential Rea! Estate Appraisal Profession 
177 


26005.138

June 13, 2016 
178 


26005.139

White Paper on FRT Issue Page 2 June 13,2016 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The banking agencies, led by the FDIC, have recently taken the position that the 

vast majority of real estate related financial transactions in which the government 

has a safety and soundness or a consumer protection responsibility are exempt 

from Title XL1 They have made clear that under their restrictive interpretation of 

Title XI's "federally related transaction" phrase, the appraisal law does not apply 

to or protect the hundreds of billions of dollars in mortgage loans guaranteed by 

the FHA, the VA or USDA's rural housing program; the mortgages purchased and 

sold by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac; and, any originated mortgage which even 

qualifies for sale to a GSE, This shocking interpretation of Title XI- which places 

the overwhelming majority of all residential mortgages beyond the law's 

protections surfaced and became clear only recently when it was announced by a 

representative ofthe FDIC at an April2016 meeting of state appraiser licensing 

agencies. As word of the FDIC's Title XI interpretation spread, it stunned federal 

agencies which have relied for many years on the law's provisions as well as its 

private sector stakeholders. 

The FDIC (and, it seems, the other federal banking agencies) argue that they 

exempted these transactions in their 1994 Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines by 

declaring that they are not "federally related transactions" within the meaning of 

the law. This position is indefensible and flat-out wrong. As explained in some 

detail below, the banking agencies' current interpretation of Title XI is directly 

contradicted by the following facts-

(l)AII Title XI stakeholders disagree: All Title XI stakeholders at the state 

and federallcvcls of government and in the private sector have had a 

common understanding for 25 years that the law was intended to be broadbased and that it applied to all real estate related financial transactions. This 

1 Under Title XI, the tenn "real estate-related financial transaction" means "any transaction 

involving-- . 

(A) the sale, lease, purchase, investment in or exchange of real property, including interests in 

property, or the financing thereof; 

(B) the refinancing of real property or interests in real property; and 

(C) the use of real property or interests in property as security for a loan or investment, including 

mortgage-backed securities.'' 
179 


26005.140

FRT Issue White Paper Page 3 June 13, 2016 

common understanding existed prior and subsequent to issuance of the 1994 

Appraisal Guidelines and continues to this day; (See page 7 for more detail) 

(2)The federal banking agencies have never objected, until now, to the 

broad interpretation of Title XI's reach that the state appraiser 

licensing agencies, the government's housing and mortgage insurance 

agencies and the federal Appraisal Subcommittee have observed for 

decades: It is important to recognize that while the banking agencies now 

contend they exempted the vast majority of real estate related financial 

transactions from Title XI in 1994, they have known for dozens of years that 

the state licensing agencies and the federal Appraisal Subcommittee were 

exercising their Title XI responsibilities as applying broadly across 

government agencies and that the government's housing and mortgage 

guaranty/insurance agencies had depended on and had benefitted from Title 

XI's protections- yet the federal bank regulators never objected. They never 

once told these state and federal entities that their interpretation of the 

appraisal Jaw was in conflict with their regulatory Guidelines and was, 

therefore, invalid. The banking agencies' "say nothing, do nothing" stance 

until now demonstrates that their current interpretation of"federally related 

transaction" is actually a reinterpretation of the law that is arbitrary and 

capricious; 

(3) The legislative history of Title XI Is conclusive that Congress intended 

the law to apply broadly across all government housing and mortgage 

programs: The conditions which gave rise to Title XJ as well as its legislative 

history clearly demonstrate that it was intended by Congress to apply broadly 

across all real estate related financial transactions involving governmental 

programs. Moreover, the principal author and the Congressional sponsors of 

Title XI were acutely aware of the banking agencies' regulatory failures in 

connection with the 1980s collapse of the thrift industry, including their 

inattention to the role played by an unregulated appraisal services industry and 

faulty and fraudulent appraisals which added billions of dollars to the cost of 

the S&L cleanup. Given this legislative history, it is inconceivable that 

Congress intended for these same regulatory agencies to have authority not only 

to rewrite the appraisal reform law but to effectively repeal it for most real 
180 


26005.141

FRT Issue White Paper Page 4 June 13, 2016 

estate related financial transactions, as they are attempting to do and close to 

doing; (See bottom of page 7 for more detail) 

(4) Subsequent to the 1994 Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines, Congress 

enacted major laws that applied Title XI to federal programs that the 

banking agencies say they have exempted from the appraisal law: Congress 

has recently enacted major laws which explicitly extend Title XI to federal 

housing and mortgage guaranty programs that the banking agencies say are 

exempt from Title XI because they are not federally related transactions. It is 

beyond improbable that Congress would enact laws which extended Title XI 

requirements to federal programs that the banking agencies' claim are not 

covered by Title XI if Congress didn't believe that these programs are, in fact, 

covered by the appraisal law. It is absurd to believe that the banking agencies 

have a better and more authoritative understanding of the intent of Congress 

when it enacted Title XI than Congress itself; (See page 11 for more detail) 

(5) The exemption provisions of the 1994 Appraisal Guidelines, which the 

banking agencies now claim excluded most transactions from Title XI 

requirements, do no such thing. A full reading of the Guidelines makes 

clear that at the time they were issued, the banking agencies did not 

exempt the government's real estate related financial transactions from 

Title XI's enforcement provisions: The banking agencies' contention that its 

1994 Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines exempted most real estate related 

transactions from the entirety of Title XI is false. A complete reading of those 

Guidelines demonstrates clearly that it does no such thing. Apart from the fact 

that Title XI does not give the banking agencies any exemption authority, the 

most that can be argued is that the 1994 exemptions only apply to Title XI's 

appraiser qualifications and appraisal standards provisions (and only if the 

affected housing and mortgage agencies already had their own comparable 

appraisal requirements - which they did). The plain language of the 1994 

Guidelines makes clear that the exemptions did not apply to Title XI's 

enforcement provisions (i.e., the state appraiser licensing agencies and the 

federal Appraisal Subcommittee) -provisions without which there is no 

realistic way to ensure compliance with the law's substantive requirements. 

They merely recognized that since these agencies had appraiser qualifications 
181 


26005.142

FRT Issue White Paper Page 5 June 13, 2016 

and appraisal standards comparable to those of Title XI, requiring them to meet 

the Title XI provisions would be redundant. (See page 9 for more detail) 

The points made in this Executive Summary are discussed below and in the pages 

that follow in more detaiL 

I. Background of the Banking Agencies' Aggressive Efforts To Restrict 

the Reach of Title XI 

The federal bank regulatory agencies are on the verge of effectively repealing Title 

XI ofFIRREA by taking the position that its appraisal reforms only apply to a tiny 

fraction of all real estate related financial transactions in which the federal 

government has a safety and soundness or a consumer protection responsibility. 

They have done so in two ways: First, by defining a key operative phrase in Title 

XI ("federally related transaction") in a way that dramatically shrinks the reach of 

the law; and Second,_ by approving a series of increases in the de minimus dollar 

threshold under which a Title XI professional appraisal of residential property is 

not required: from a $50,000 threshold in 1990 to $100,000 in 1992 and to 

$250,000 in 2010 (the current threshold). An additional threshold increase to 

$400,000 or $500,000 is currently being considered by the banking agencies under 

the EGRPRA regulatory review process. 

The FDIC appears to be the lead agency in declaring that Title XI gives the 

banking agencies unprecedented legal authority to unilaterally dismantle, by 

administrative fiat, the law they are required to administer as Congress intended. A 

senior representative of the FDIC told an April meeting of Association of 

Appraiser Regulatory Officials (AARO) that under its interpretation of the Title XI 

phrase, "federally related transaction", only about 10%- 12% of all governmental 

real estate related financial transactions are covered by the law. The FDIC 

representative also said that ifthe additional de minimus increase being considered 

is adopted, the 10% to 12% number would fall to about 4% of all real estate related 

financial transactions. 

Although the conference attendees were startled by the FDIC representative's 

message (i.e., that their decades old interpretation of what is or is not a federally 

related transaction was wrong). they were told that they shouldn't be surprised by 

the pronouncement because the banking agencies exempted most such transactions 
182 


26005.143

FRT Issue White Paper Page6 June 13,2016 

from the jurisdiction of Title XI twenty-two years ago in the 1994 Interagency 

Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines (see appendix A, exemptions 9 and 10). 

However, as is made clear in this paper, none of the Title XI government agency or 

private sector stakeholders- none understood exemptions 9 and 10 as having the 

meaning and effect the FDIC now says it does. Moreover a careful and common 

sense reading ofthe 1994 Guidelines leads to an interpretation of exemptions 9 and 

10 that is very different than and inconsistent with the FDIC's current 

interpretation (also explained below). 

II. The de minimus dollar threshold issue 

While the focus of this White Paper is on the banking agencies' improper 

definition of the Title XI phrase, "federally related transaction", the agencies' 

systematic and arbitrary increases in the dollar threshold below which appraisals 

are not required (and the prospect of further increases) also severely undermines 

the effectiveness of Title XI and, we believe, deserves the intervention of 

Congress. While Title XI does grant the banking agencies authority to increase the 

dollar threshold if they determine that an increase will not impact the safety and 

soundness of financial institutions, it should be self-evident that Congress never 

intended that authority to be exercised in a way that effectively repeals a law 

whose central purpose affirms and promotes the role of appraisals as the most 

effective method to ensure the reliability and integrity of collateral valuations for 

loans ultimately backed by taxpayers. If the banking agencies believe that 

professional appraisals of properties collateralizing millions of residential 

mortgage loans that are guaranteed or insured by taxpayers, are an unnecessary 

component of safe and sound loan underwriting, then it should ask Congress to 

amend Title XI in a way which explicitly gives them limitless authority to 

eliminate or marginalize the role of appraisals in the underwriting process. They do 

not now have this authority. 

Given the strongly pro-appraisal policies ofthe government's housing and 

mortgage guaranty agencies and given the collapse of the housing and mortgage 

markets in the 1980s and much more recently, we do not believe that Congress will 

share the apparent view of the bank regulators that appraisals are a throw-away 

part ofloan underwriting and grant them such authority. Our view is that the 

current $250,000 threshold for residential loans represents an abuse of the 
183 


26005.144

FRT Issue White Paper Page 7 June 13, 20!6 

discretion Congress granted the banking agencies and we respectfully urge 

Congress to address this matter at its earliest opportunity. 

III. The "federally related transaction" Definition Crisis 

The banking agencies have made clear that under their restrictive interpretation of 

Title XI's "federally related transaction" phrase, the appraisal law does not apply 

to or protect any FHA or VA housing loan guaranty; any USDA rural housing 

program; any Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac mortgage purchase or sale; and, any 

mortgage origination that simply qualifies for sale to a GSE. This shocking 

interpretation of Title XI which places the overwhelming majority of all 

residential mortgages beyond the law's protections- surfaced and became clear 

only recently and stunned Title XI stakeholders, in both the public and private 

sectors. 

The banking agencies' interpretation of the "federally related transaction" phrase, 

means that neither Title XI's substantive appraisal provisions (i.e., appraiser 

qualifications and adherence to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal 

Practice or USPAP) nor the enforcement infrastructure it established (i.e., the state 

appraiser licensing boards and the federal Appraisal Subcommittee) are available 

to users of appraisal services or to federal agencies that administer programs 

dependent on reliable uniform appraisals and on professional appraisers whose 

work is overseen by the state licensing agencies which credentialed them. Without 

these state and federal enforcement mechanisms, there is no realistic or costeffective way to ensure compliance by appraisers and by users of their services 

with Title XI's appraisal reform provisions or with the appraisal policies of 

government agencies. 

The improbability of the legitimacy ofthe banking agencies' interpretation is 

clearly illustrated by the following bullet points: 

• The banking agencies' interpretation is contradicted by the fact that 

Title XI's stakeholders both in government and in the private sector 

have believed for 25 years that the appraisal reform law is extremely 

broad-based. In other words, they are in profound disagreement with 

the banking agencies' interpretation. 
184 


26005.145

FRT Issue White Paper Page 8 June 13,2016 

Federal officials whose agencies administer the nation's housing and mortgage 

guaranty programs have for decades operated on the basis of their belief that Title 

XI applies to the programs they administer. Indeed, the appraisal regulations and 

written policies of agencies such as FHA, VA, USDA, FHF A and the GSEs are 

filled with references to and reflect a dependence on Title XI, including the 

enforcement mechanisms it established in the form of the state appraiser licensing 

agencies and the federal Appraisal Subcommittee. These agencies are responsible 

for ensuring that valuations for federal purposes are performed by state certified or 

licensed appraisers who are accountable to their state licensing boards for their 

professionalism. Without the backup of Title XI's enforcement provisions, each of 

these agencies and enterprises - which rely greatly on the services of state licensed 

and certified appraisers -would be required to establish their own qualifications 

requirements for individuals who wish to provide them with collateral valuation 

services; to establish testing protocols to ensure that applicants meet the 

qualifications requirements; and, to create their own enforcement and sanctions 

mechanisms functions which if not available through the Title XI structure would 

cost taxpayers tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to create and administer 

themselves. 

• The banking agencies' interpretation of their powers to restrict the 

reach of Title XI is sharply contradicted by the legislative history of the 

law and by strong indicators of Congressional intent that it should 

operate broadly across government housing and mortgage market 

programs 

The banking agencies' actions are unambiguously contrary to the legislative 

history of Title XI and to Congressional intent. What Congress intended as a robust 

appraisal reform law designed to protect broad federal programs and interests, is 

close to becoming a nullity. 

The agencies have falsely determined that Congress intended for Title XI's 

appraisal reform provisions to cover only an insignificant fraction of government 

housing and mortgage programs- a far-fetched and even preposterous assertion 

given that the law was an important component of Congress's aggressive overall 

legislative response to the banking agencies egregious regulatory failures relative 

to the collapse of the S&L industry in the 1980s. One of the most serious of those 
185 


26005.146

FRT Issue White Paper Page 9 June 13,2016 

regulatory failures was the banking agencies lack of attention to the flood of poor 

quality appraisals that were used by lenders to make thousands of bad real estate 

loans appear to be adequately collateralized; and, to the billions of dollars in added 

losses to the federal deposit insurance system caused by an unregulated appraisal 

services industry and by faulty and fraudulent appraisals. 

The enactment of Title XI was a direct result of and reflected information gathered 

at more than a dozen Congressional oversight hearings which broadly examined 

the role of faulty real estate appraisals on a wide range offederal interests. The 

subject matter of these hearings involved not just the collapse of the S&L industry 

and the billions of dollars in losses to the FSLIC resulting from faulty and 

fraudulent appraisals of collateral properties but also the negative effects of poor 

quality appraisals on the government's home loan guaranty programs (i,e,, FHA 

and VA) and the mortgage purchase and secondary market activities of Fannie 

Mae and Freddie Mac. Many other federal agency programs which rely to some 

extent on real property valuations were also examined during the hearings, 

including rural housing and multi-family programs. The provisions of Title XI 

were intended by its sponsors and by Congress to apply broadly to all real estate 

related financial transactions where the reliability of property appraisals had 

always been important to the mission ofthe agencies administering them. 

Given this history, it is beyond improbable that Congress intended Title XI's 

appraisal reforms to only apply to an insignificant slice of federally related 

transactions in situations where reliable valuations of collateral property are an 

important component of safe and sound mortgage loan underwriting. It is equally 

improbable that Congress would entrust the banking agencies with carte blanch 

authority to dismantle the law by administrative fiaL 

Importantly, since its enactment in 1989 and notwithstanding the highly restrictive 

interpretation of the law by the banking agencies, all Title XI stakeholders, both in 

government and in the private sector, have regarded the law as applying to a broad 

range of real estate related financial transactions in which the government has a 

safety and soundness or a consumer protection responsibility, This includes the 

entire community of professional appraisers; all the state appraiser licensing 

agencies; the federal Appraisal Subcommittee; the real estate, mortgage and 

housing industries; and, critically, Congress itself. This commonly held belief 
186 


26005.147

FRT Issue White Paper Page 10 June 13,2016 

continued after issuance of the 1994 Interagency Guidelines which purported to 

exempt most real estate related financial transactions from the law; and it continues 

to this day. 

Nevertheless, the FDIC representative's assertion at the recent AARO meeting that 

85 - 90 percent or more of real estate related financial transactions are exempt from 

Title XI has caused great consternation and confusion at the state appraiser 

licensing agencies and among other Title XI stakeholders. They were also told that 

this pronouncement should not come as a surprise because the banking agencies 

exempted these transactions in the Appraisal & Evaluation Guidelines they issued 

in 1994 22 years ago. 

• The banking agencies' current explanation of what was intended by 

exemptions 9 and 10 in the 1994 Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines is 

inconsistent with- and contrary to- the full text of the Guidelines 

The FDIC's recent explanation of the purpose and effect of exemptions 9 and 10 is 

inconsistent with the full text of the 1994 Guidelines as well as the text of the 

current Guidelines which were issued on December 2, 2010. Section VII ofthese 

Guidelines entitled "Transactions That Require Appraisals" states: "Although the 

Agencies' appraisal regulations exempt certain real estate related financial 

transactions from the appraisal requirements, most real estate related financial 

transactions over the appraisal threshold are considered federally related 

transactions and, thus, require appraisals." (Emphasis added). 

This declaration stands in stark contrast to the FDIC's current position that most 

transactions are not federally related transactions. 

As further evidence that the banking agencies' current interpretation of"federally 

related transaction" is actually a reinterpretation that is clearly erroneous, consider 

that the commentary accompanying the 1994 and the 2010 Guidelines relating to 

the exemptions makes clear that they only relate to Title XI's appraiser 

qualifications and appraisal standards requirements if the loan guaranty agencies 

and the secondary market enterprises already have comparable requirements 

which they did. The exemptions in the Guidelines do not create an exemption from 

Title XI's enforcement provisions (i.e., the state licensing agencies and the federal 

Appraisal Subcommittee) and were never intended to do so. A reading of the plain 
187 


26005.148

FR T Issue White Paper Page II June !3.2016 

language of the exemption provisions of the Guidelines makes this conclusion 

certain: 

"9. Transactions Insured or Guaranteed by a U.S. Government Agency or U.S. 

Government-Sponsored Agency 

This exemption applies to transactions that are wholly or partially insured or guaranteed 

by a U.S. government agency or U.S. government-sponsored agency. The Agencies 

expect these transactions to meet all the underwriting requirements of the Federal insurer 

or guarantor, including its appraisal requirements, in order to receive the insurance or 

guarantee. (Emphasis added) 

10. Transactions That Qualify for Sale to, or Meet the Appraisal Standards of, a 

U.S. Government Agency or U.S. Government-Sponsored Agency 

This exemption applies to transactions that either (i) qualify for sale to a U.S. government 

agency or U.S. government-sponsored ageney,'ll or (ii) involve a residential real estate 

transaction in which the appraisal confonns to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac appraisal 

standards applicable to that category of real estate. An institution may engage in these 

transactions without obtaining a separate appraisal confonning to the Agencies' appraisal 

regulations. Given the risk to the institution that it may have to repurchase a loan that 

does not comply with the appraisal standards of the U.S. government agency or U.S. 

government-sponsored agency, the institution should have appropriate policies to confirm 

its compliance with the underwriting and appraisal standards of the U.S. government 

agency or U.S. government-sponsored agency." (Emphasis added) 

It is unsurprising, therefore, that all the federal, state and private sector 

stakeholders understood that the so-called exemptions found in the 1994 

Guidelines related only to the Title's appraiser qualifications and appraisal 

standards provisions based on the fact that these agencies' own appraisal 

requirements were comparable to those in Title XI. Applying Title XI's appraiser 

qualifications and appraisal standards provisions would have been redundant. None 

of the federal agencies believed or had reason to believe that the appraisers and 

appraisals utilized in connection with their programs were exempt from the 

enforcement authority of the state appraiser licensing agencies and the federal 

Appraisal Subcommittee. Nor did any of the private sector stakeholders involved 

in mortgage loans guaranteed or insured by government agencies or enterprises 

believe that the I 994 Guidelines exempted them or their transactions from the 

entirety of Title XI. 
188 


26005.149

FRT Issue White Paper Page 12 June 13,2016 

Title XI stakeholders understood that exemptions 9 and 10 in the Guidelines were 

nothing more than an acknowledgement that the FHA, VA, FHF A, USDA and the 

GSEs already had in place substantive appraiser qualifications and appraisal 

standards that were equivalent to, or strong than, those established in Title XI; and 

that applying Title XI's substantive requirements was unnecessary, 

• The banking agencies current interpretation of"federally related 

transaction" is directly contradicted by the enactment of laws 

subsequent to 1994 that extended Title XI to transactions the FDIC now 

says are outside the scope of Title XI because they are not federally 

related transactions 

Consider, for example, that in 2009, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act 

directed that "any appraiser chosen or approved to conduct" FHA appraisals must 

hold a state certified appraiser credential (previously, licensed appraisers were 

eligible to perform FHA-related valuations), It is extremely difficult to understand 

why Congress, in 2009, would legislate an improvement in FHA 's appraisal 

requirements if Congress believed that 15 years earlier the banking agencies had 

exempted FHA's loan guaranty programs from the authority of the state licensing 

agencies established pursuant to Title XI to credential appraisers and oversee their 

professionalism; and exempted FHA's appraisers from the indirect authority of the 

federal Appraisal Subcommittee, Federal programs which rely on the services of 

state certified or licensed appraisers are tied into and depend upon Title XI (in 

some cases to establish appraiser qualifications and appraisal standards if the 

agencies don't already have them) but always in connection with the Title's 

enforcement mechanisms which ensure the integrity and uniformity of federallyrelated valuations, 

Consider what each federal agency utilizing the services of certified and licensed 

appraisers would have to do if their programs were exempt from Title XI: Each 

agency would be forced to establish their own qualifications and standards 

requirements for their appraisers; each would be required to test and approve or 

deny eligibility to those wanting to perform appraisals for the government; each 

would be required to create teams of investigators to review complaints of 

appraiser incompetence or misconduct; and, each would have to establish their 

own sanctions regimes for alleged misconduct or negligence including due process 
189 


26005.150

FRT Issue White Paper Page 13 June 13.2016 

protections. In short, each federal agency with a need for appraisal services would 

have to duplicate systems which are already in place pursuant to Title XI. This 

would cost taxpayers tens and possibly hundreds of millions of dollars. 

Also consider that in 2010, Congress enacted Dodd-Frank which included 

numerous important changes to Title XI's appraiser certification and licensing 

system that directly impact appraisals performed for the government's principal 

housing and loan guaranty programs- programs which the FDIC now claims are 

not even subject to Title XI because they are not federally related transactions. 

For example, Dodd-Frank's appraisal provisions strengthen Title XI's appraiser 

independence provisions by prohibiting acts and practices which seek to 

improperly influence an appraiser's opinion of value and by requiring that 

appraiser's be paid customary and reasonable fees. Dodd-Frank also amended Title 

XI by requiring state appraiser agencies to regulate Appraisal Management 

Companies (through which most appraisal engagements are ordered by mortgage 

lenders); by mandating that the federal Appraisal Subcommittee award grants to 

state licensing agencies so that they can more effectively investigate complaints 

filed against their appraisers; by establishing an appraisal complaint hotline to 

enhance the enforcement powers of state licensing agencies; and, by giving the 

Appraisal Subcommittee explicit authority to engage in rulemaking on issues 

central to the effective functioning of the system Title XI created. 

If Members of Congress shared the FDIC's view that only about 10% of all real 

estate related financial transactions are federally related transactions covered by 

Title XI, they never would have devoted the time and effort necessary to enact 

such far-reaching Title XI changes. 

Moreover, virtually all of the appraisal authority and requirements established by 

Congress in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2009 and in the DoddFrank Act of201 0 would be a nullity if the FDIC's reinterpretation of Title XI 

were allowed to stand. Whose judgment should prevail on the issue of 

Congressional intent with respect to whether Title XI was intended to operate 

broadly across government programs or narrowly: Congress itself or the banking 

agencies? The question answers itself. 
190 


26005.151

FRT Issue White Paper Page 14 June 13,2016 

IV. Additional Points for Clarification Purposes 

• Title XI was constructed in two interdependent ways to safeguard federal 

interests: First, it established substantive requirements to ensure appraiser 

competency, independence and accountability and mandated appraiser 

adherence to the uniform standards of professional appraisal practice 

(USPAP); and, second, it established an institutional framework to ensure 

and enforce compliance with appraiser qualifications and uniform appraisal 

standards. This institutional framework is composed of appraiser licensing 

agencies (in the 50 states, four territories and DC) which test and license 

professional appraisers and can sanction them based on a finding of 

negligence or unethical behavior; and, a federal Appraisal Subcommittee 

(which is a part of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council or 

FFIEC) to oversee the licensing agencies to ensure their diligence and 

effectiveness. Without this institutional framework, Title XI's substantive 

requirements would exist in a vacuum without the ability to be enforced; 

• State laws establishing real estate appraiser licensing agencies pursuant to 

Title XI of FIRREA generally limit the authority of these agencies to 

"federally related transactions" performed within the state. As a result, 

transactions exempted from Title XI by the federal banking agencies are 

largely beyond the scope of the authority of most state appraiser licensing 

agencies and entirely beyond the scope of the authority of the federal 

Appraisal Subcommittee which oversees the effectiveness of the state 

appraiser licensing agencies. While states with laws that mandate the use of 

licensed or certified appraisers for all transactions within their state might be 

able to exercise some authority over exempted transactions, the extent of 

their authority over non-federally related transactions has never been tested. 

Moreover, if 85 - 90% of transactions occurring in a state are no longer 

considered federally related transactions by the banking agencies, the 

legislatures in these states would be tempted to amend their appraisal 

licensing laws to restrict the activities of their appraiser licensing agencies 

just to federally related transactions and pare their budgets accordingly. This 

is a likely scenario because the impetus to establish state appraiser licensing 

agencies in the first place resulted from the enactment of Title XI and the 
191 


26005.152

FRT Issue White Paper Page 15 June 13,2016 

belief that the vast majority of real estate related financial transactions 

occurring in the states were federally related transactions. If most are now 

deemed not to be federally related transactions, many of these appraiser 

licensing agencies would be shut down or their activities substantially 

curtailed. 
192 


26005.153

I] NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION of 

REALTOR' REALTORS" 

500 ?\lc\v ]O'rsey .-\venue, N.W 

\'>/ashington, DC 2f)(J(Jl-2020 

STATEMENT OF THE 

2016 President 

Dale A- Stmton 

ChiefExccuti\<tOfficcr 

GO\'ERN:\fENT .-\FFATR-'-' 

Jcn;: G!(>nOJcllo, Sf'nior V!Ce Jlresidcnt 

Jamie Greg:ory. Deputy Chit•f Lobbyist 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REAL TORS® 

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO THE 

THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE 

HEARING TITLED 

"MODERNIZING APPRAISALS: A REGULATORY REVIEW AND 

THE FUTURE OF THE INDUSTRY" 

NOVEMBER 16, 2016 

Jntl subscribe to It~ strict (:udt" of Ethic~ 
193 


26005.154

Introduction 

The National Association ofREALI'ORS"' (NAR) thanks the House Financial Services Committee 

for holding this important hearing. Appraisals provide an independent and impartial analysis of local 

housing markets, and a credible opinion of the value of a house. This analysis is a critical component 

of the home mortgage transaction, helping to ensure the buyer is paying a fair market value for the 

property, and that the lender is fully informed when detemunirig loan terms. NAR represents a wide 

variety of housing industry professionals, including approximately 30,000 licensed and certified 

appraisers, committed to the development and preservation of the nation's housing stock and 

making it available to the widest range of potential home buyers. Proper regulation of the appraisal 

industry is necessary to ensure safety and soundness in the nation's housing market. 

Federally Related Transactions 

NAR ftrmly supports maintaining the current de n1inimus requirement for federally related 

transactions, in which real estate appraisals are reqnired for real estate loans \\~th a transaction valne 

equal to or greater than $250,000. According to N"-\R's research, in 2015, there were 1,591,357 

existing single-family homes sold for between $250,000 and $500,000. This equals about 30'Yo of the 

total home sales in 2015. Compared to that number, only 632,509 existing single-family homes sold 

for over $500,000 in 2015. ln addition, only 5 out of 180 U.S. metropolitan areas had a median 

existing single-family home value above $500,000. Increasing the appraisal threshold to $500,000, 

which some in the industry have suggested, would severely reduce the number of appraisals required 

in residential real estate transactions in many commmuties, putting into question the safety and 

soundness of those transactions, as well as the well-being of neighborhoods in which those loans are 

made. 

Ni\R is concerned about the varying quality of valuation tools used by lenders for transactions that 

fall outside of the federal requirements for an appraisal. Some of the on-line automated valuation 

tools available today are not sophisticated enough to be relied on for an accurate valuation of real 

property. Should the appraisal threshold be raised, lenders relying on these estimating tools could be 

severely under- or over-estimating a property's value in a number of real estate transactions. NAR 

believes that there should be qualified appraiser oversight of all review processes that meet Cniform 

Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice review guidelines. Computer generated materials and 

check lists can complement an appraisal review, but should not act as substitutes for a licensed or 

certified appraiser's opinion. 

Raising the appraisal threshold level would likely increase the levels of risk lending institutions have 

to manage. When the Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigated this issue', GAO 

found no support for raising the current threshold. Rather, GAO reported that many stakeholders 

supported the reduction or clin1ination of current threshold levels, helping to improve risk 

1"RE. \L ESTXI"E ,\PPRA!S_\LS: c\pprnisal Subcommittee :\leeds to 

Published: Jan 18, "012. Publicly Released: Jan 18, 2012. 

2 
194 


26005.155

management and providing better consumer protection. Increasing the appraisal threshold levels 

would undermine the health of the real estate lending industry as a whole. 

Appraiser Qualifications 

NAR firmly believes in the continuing need for competent, professional appraisers. Persons who 

perform appraisals of real property must be licensed or certified by their respective state regulatory 

agency. Appraisers follow the minimum education, experience, and examination requirements for 

real property appraisers to obtain a state license or certification. Appraisal competency requires a 

true understanding of the valuation process and is developed over time through training and 

experience. 

In December 2011, the Appraiser Qualifications Board (AQB) adopted revisions to the Rea! Property 

/1ppraiser.Qualification Criteria to require a Bachelor's degree or higher for Certified General and 

Certified Residential classifications. The new education requirement went into place on January 1, 

2015. College degrees are costly and time-consuming. NARis concerned that the wages earned as an 

appraiser arc not an incentive for an individual to enter the profession after paying for a four-year 

college degree, especially when a graduate must do a multi-year internship that is often unpaid. The 

degree requirement also disadvantages workers who already have thousands of hours of appropriate 

on-the-job training and could be great candidates to take the certified general or certified residential 

exam without completing a four-year degree. The AQB should count years of experience in the 

appraisal profession under a trainee license to qualify for at least part of the four-year college degree 

requirement. Many very good existing Certified General and Certified Residential appraisers do not 

have four-year degrees. These same appraisers have successfully mentored many others to follow in 

the profession with the highest standards. 

Regulatory Structure 

NARis committed to responsible valuation principles and to ensuring a regulatory framework that 

supports credible, independent valuations of real property because credible independent valuations 

of real property arc critical to the health of the overall real estate industry. As such, NAR supports 

and promotes the mission and vision of the Appraisal Foundation2 which promotes professionalism 

and ensures public trust in the valuation profession through the promulgation of the Uniform 

Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP), appraiser qualifications (AQB), and guidance 

regarding valuation methods and techniques. N1\R supports USPAP as the national valuation 

standard. Additionally, theNAR Code of Ethics requires REAI:fORS® who provide appraisal 

services, to conform to the standards of practice expected in that specific real estate discipline. N AR 

believes that appraisal standards should be uniform across the United States and territories, and does 

not support efforts to dilute USP AP or layer on additional sets of valuation standards. 

2 Ni\R is an affiliate sponsor of the Appraisal Foundation. 

3 
195 


26005.156

Federal and Conventional Programs 

Over the past year, many appraisers became wary of participating in Federal r lousing Administration 

(FHA) insured home loan transactions due to concern and confusion over appraisal requirement 

changes in the FlL'\ Single Family I lousing Policy Handbook Specific rules that required appraisers 

to test appliances resulted in many appraisers increasing their fees for FHA appraisals. Some 

appraisers even stopped taking on any PH:\ appraisals, or asked for additional home inspections to 

comply w-ith the Handbook requirements. NAR members voiced serious concern that the entire 

transaction had become costlier and time-consuming; hindering an filA borrower's ability to 

compete in today's housing markets. In response to those concerns, FHA recently announced 

updates to the Handbook that clarifies this requirement. According to the new guidance, appraisers 

must simply note that certain appliances contributing to the market value of the property arc 

physically present rather than retluiring an appraiser to operate the appliances. 

However, there are still improvements to be made in both the Handbook and FHA's general policy 

on appraisals. In particular, NAR has great concern over the requirement that an appraisal stays with 

a property for 120 days for any FHA transaction. Tlus policy harms both buyers and sellers in 

rapidly changing markets, hindering econonuc recovery in certain neighborhoods across the country. 

By remm-ing the requirement, FI !.;\ ,,1]] help foster home-ownership and ensure borrowers who rely 

on PHA financing pay the fair and accurate market nlue for their home. 

Recently, both Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac announced programs that would allow for the use of 

automated valuation tools in the place of traditional appraisals for certain mortgages. NARis 

engaged with both entities on this matter and will monitor and assess these programs as they 

progress. NAR urges caution with regards to any programs that rely solely on automated valuations, 

but will not be making a definitive statement at this time on Fannie t-fae and Freddie Mac's 

initiatives pending further review. 

Conclusion 

Thank you for the opportututy to submit these comments. NAR looks forward to working with 

committee members and the rest of Congress to maintain the safety and soundness of the appraisal 

industry while ad,·ancing growth in the appraisal field. 

4 
196 


26005.157

November 16,2016 

The Honorable Blaine Luetkemeyer 

Chairman, House Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance 

2129 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Emmanuel Cleaver 

Ranking Member, House Committee on Financial Services 

Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Office Building, 4340 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Luetkemeyer and Ranking Member Cleaver: 

On behalf of the Appraisal Management Companies (AMCs) represented by the Real Estate Valuation Advocacy 

Association (REVAA) an association of industry leading AMC's offering residential real estate valuations and 

services to lenders and secondary market investors including appraisals, Broker Price Opinions (BPO), and Automated 

Valuation Models (A VM)- please accept the following testimony tor inclusion into the record of the November 16, 

2016 House Financial Services: Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance hearing "Modernizing Appraisals: A 

Regulatmy Review and the Future of the Industry. " 

AMCs play an integral role in helping to ensure the integrity, independence and efficiency of the residential mortgage 

process to meet the needs of consumers, lenders, appraisers and secondary market investors. They are required to 

strictly adhere to federal and state regulation and law in accordance with the Wall Street Reform (Dodd-Frank) and 

Consumer Protection Act, the Truth in Lending Act and federal Interagency Guidelines. 

Decisions made by Congress and federal regulators to modernize residential appraisals are of tremendous impact to 

AMCs and the work they do for America's lenders. 

Please find a detailed summary of AMCs positions on the following enclosed: 

AMC role in safeguarding appraisal independence 

AMC role in protecting consumers 

AMCs critical to mortgage lending and secondary markets 

Impact of Dodd Frank Act 

Nationwide state regulation of AMCs 

National AMC Registry and Fee 

AMC Perspective on the Appraiser Shortage 

Role of the Appraisal Subcommittee 

REV AA welcomes participation in this, and future, discussions on appraisal related matters with the House Financial 

Services Committee. 

REVAA • 734 15th Street NW, Suite 900 • Washington, D.C. • 20005 

(612) 716-1812 • www.revaa.org 
197 


26005.158

AMCs Safeguard Appraisal Independence Requirements 

AMCs have existed since the 1960s as valuable business partners for lenders and appraisers to meet consumer 

valuation needs by managing the ordering, tracking, quality control and delivery of valuation reports. In the wake of 

the global economic downturn of 2008 and the advent of Dodd-Frank, the role of AMCs grew to become even more 

critical for ensuring federally mandated appraisal independence to eliminate undue influence by separating parties 

with a financial interest in a mortgage loan transaction from appraiser selection and retention. AMCs deliver on DoddFrank's mandate every day so that no party "shall influence or attempt to influence the development, reporting, result, 

or review of an appraisal through coercion, extortion, collusion, compensation, inducement, intimidation, bribery, or 

in any other manner." 

AMCs are Critical to America's Mortgage Lending and Secondary Markets. 

The important role of AMCs has grown exponentially since 20!0 to improve efficiency, ensure appraisal quality, 

eliminate fraud, reduce costs, achieve regulatory compliance, protect public safety, and provide support for a smooth, 

timely and responsive mortgage process for consumers and lenders. Among AMC responsibilities: 

• Ensuring federally mandated Appraisal Independence Rules (AIR) by safeguarding against undue influence and 

fraud in the valuation process. 

• Maintaining a qualified panel oflicensed appraisers ready to execute lender valuation assignments. 

• Providing quality assurance processes in the delivery of final appraisal and valuation products. 

• Complying with federal and state laws governing valuation products and services. 

• Developing future appraisal trainees. 

• Supporting the obligations that states have in regulating appraisers (i.e., by reporting on appraiser violations of the 

OSP AP and other relevant professional licensing standards). 

Today, an estimated 66% of lenders now use AMCs exclusively for their facilitation of residential appraisals. The 

remaining one-third of! enders (primarily smaller lenders) manage their own in-house appraiser panels, many of which 

use their own panels which often include the use of AMCs. Among the value AMCs provide to lenders: 

• Act as a Compliance Partner for AMC Regulations - Serve as invaluable partners for ensuring efficiency and 

compliance with state and federal AMC regulations. 

• Ensure Lender Compliance with Banking and Mortgage Regulations- Support lender compliance with federal 

banking regulations (e.g., Fed, FDIC, OCC, CFPB) governing mortgage lending (i.e., appraisal review). 

• Help Reduce Costs & Ensure Appraiser Independence - Help lending institutions reduce the costs of 

establishing and maintaining compliance programs to ensure federally mandated appraiser independence. 

Protects Against Marketplace Disruption - Ensures that lenders who use AMCs get their valuation work 

completed. If AMCs were not regulated in a state (per Dodd-Frank and AMC rules), lenders would be forced to 

create elaborate internal controls and firewalls that they would not have to create in other states to obtain their 

appraisal procurement functions on FRTs. with the least disruption to mortgage lending in the state. 

AMCs Play a Vital Role in Protecting Consumers. 

• Safeguard Appraiser Independence and Protect Against Fraud AMCs help ensure that appraisals are 

completed in compliance with federal and state law and that the opinion of value was achieved by the appraiser 

independently, without undue influence. Prevention of coercion is critical to avoiding collusion within the valuation 

process and therefore potential fraud. 

» A lack of appraiser independence led to previous housing bubbles and predatory lending. Long before the 

HVCC (Home Valuation Code of Conduct) and Dodd-Frank the nation had been adversely affected by prior 

REVAA • 734 15th Street NW, Suite 900 • Washington, D.C .. • 20005 

(612) 716-1812 • www.revaa.org 

5 
198 


26005.159

valuation crises in the 1930s and 1980s. The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 

1989 (FIRREA) 'vas part of an effort to rein in abuse but was inadequate. The same independence protects 

consumers and lenders by providing assurance that real estate assets are correctly valued as there are reams of 

federal/state reports estimating the losses to the economy from valuation fraud. 

» Most AMCs have systems and processes in place to: 

o Investigate appraiser concerns regarding attempts to influence valuation 

o Investigate consumer complaints regarding unprofessional conduct 

o Communicate with consumers to help educate them regarding misunderstandings of appraisal practices 

and/or principles 

• Help Lower Costs Associated with Borrowing- While compliance with state and fedcrallaws and rules is a big 

reason for lender use of AMCs, another is that lenders have high overhead and must compete in a competitive 

marketplace and the use of AMCs helps them provide the service efficiently and cost effectively to benefit the 

consumer while ensuring payment of Customary and Reasonable Fees to appraisers. 

• Provide Quality Controls - AMCs employ quality control measures to ensure the integrity of a supportable, 

dependable and credible appraisal, which can identity mistakes and fraud in appraisal reports that protect consumers 

from faulty opinions of value. 

• Reduce Turnaround Times- AMCs employ valuation experts to screen appraisal reports to identity issues early, 

and have a much larger success rate in resolving valuation issues without causing unnecessary delays and mitigate 

consumer dissatisfaction. 

• Assure that a Competent Appraiser is Selected -Ensure only the most qualified and geographically competent 

appraisers are sent to a consumer~s home. 

• Protect Public Safety Consumers are provided an extra layer of safety and protection as AMCs complete 

background checks of appraisers before they can be employed or empaneled. Further, AMCs continue to monitor 

their appraisers while they are employed or empaneled to ensure that unqualified appraisers or those that may pose 

a threat to public trust or safety are removed. 

• Assist Appraisers with Consumer Questions - AMCs work with appraisers to resolve borrower questions and 

provide the borrower/lender an ability to submit value appeals while complying with appraiser independence. 

• Provide Customer Service Issue Resolutions ~ AMCs resolve customer service escalations that are not directly 

related to the appraisal process through their access to lenders that the consumer may not otherwise have 

The Impact of Dodd Frank 

Passage of Dodd-Frank and codified in the August 2015 Final AMC Rules mandated the creation of federal rules to 

provide a framework for stale regulation of AMCs and creation of a National AMC Registry. Federal regulation of 

AMCs and state regulatory programs are the responsibility of the Appraisal Subcommittee, which is governed by the 

Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (CFPB, Fed Reserve, FDIC, OCC, NCUA, FHFA). 

Per the now final federal interagency AMC rules, a state must adopt a compliant AMC registration and regulation 

program by no later than August 10. 2018. However, the final rule does not compel a state to establish an AMC 

registration and supervision program. and no penalty is imposed on a state that does not establish a regulatory structure 

for AMCs. But, failure to do so will result in AMCs being prohibited by section 1124 from providing services to 

lenders on Federally Regulated Transactions (FRTs). 

This would cause significant disruption to lenders and consumers in a state that chose not to regulate AMCs. 

Furthermore, if lenders are unable to use AMCs in a state to facilitate FRTs and fulfill underwriting criteria, their 

available options dwindle and operational costs will dramatically increase operational costs to lenders in slates that 

choose to "opt-out" of regulating AMCs: 

• Lenders could choose to no longer offer consumers financing on FRTs that require an appraisal. 

• Lenders would need to recreate internal operating and compliance infrastructure they previously shed to engage 

REVAA • 734 15th Street NW, Suite 900 • Washington, D,C, • 20005 

(612) 716-1812 • www.revaa.org 

5 
199 


26005.160

appraisers directly, while maintaining federally mandated appraisal independence requirements. 

Lenders could use small unregulated AMCs, but it will be challenging (i.e., size, tech, data security constraints). 

• Lenders could use the only federally owned and controlled AMC to facilitate FRTs, but it seems unlikely since it 

is owned by a federally insured bank and lenders won't want to do business with a direct competitor. 

REV AA Members are Now Trying to Become Regulated Nationwide 

REV AA has made it a priority to ensure regulation of AMCs in each of the 50 states and five recognized territories so 

they comply with the mandated August 2018 deadline. 

Generally, REV AA members share the sentiment in support of less state government regulation. However, DoddFrank has created the scenario whereby lenders and AMCs are in the precarious situation of having to advocate for at 

least minimal AMC regulation- despite the integral role AMCs play to safeguard appraiser independence and protect 

consumer safety and the investments made in mortgage transactions - to avoid what would without question be a 

massive disruption in the residential mortgage market that would result in negative consequences to consumers and 

lenders in Federally Related Transactions. 

As a regulated entity, our simple request is that AMCs be treated fairly and respectfully as a co-licensee by their 

regulator in each jurisdiction. AMC regulation does not need not be burdensome, especially if the regulation is 

implemented using the minimum standards set out in the Final Rule. 

We've been actively working with the states in concert with stakeholder groups to achieve consensus on the 

introduction and passage of legislation that complies with the minimum standards set out in the final rule. As of 

November 16,2016,40 states have passed AMC licensing programs (three of which are still working on promulgating 

required administrative rules). For states with existing AMC regulatory schemes, nominal legislative changes are 

typically required to become compliant with the federal AMC rules. 

REVAA continues to push ahead on passing AMC legislation in the remaining 10 states and five U.S.jurisdictions by 

the August 2018 deadline. The overall effort to have to advocate for our own state regulation has been exceedingly 

costly, burdensome and resource intensive, which could have been avoided had the regulation of AMCs been made 

mandatory, not voluntary to ensure national consistency and efficiency. 

National AMC Registry and Fee/Rising Compliance Costs 

Post Dodd-Frank, the cost of compliance for individual AMCs has grown exponentially to accommodate state 

regulatory schemes, audits, staff and other resources needed to comply. Generally, most A MCs have a business model 

based on a high volume of transactions and operate within a highly competitive marketplace, which strains operating 

margins. Like independent fee appraisers and most regulated businesses, continually increasing financial strain is 

being applied by ever growing compliance requirements as well as state licensing and administrative fees across all 

jurjsdictions. In addition, a lack of consistency in Ai\1C regulation between states further complicates matters and 

increases cost. On average, for each mid to large AMC, this cost annually is now near $300,000 - $400,000. 

Additionally, the implementation ofthe Dodd-Frank mandated AMC National Registry is estimated to cost each AMC 

anywhere from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars each year. For a mid-large size AMC, these fees 

will likely be an additional $150,000-$250,000 each/per year. AMCs do appreciate the deliberate attempt to minimize 

the impacts by pursuing the minimum requirements as outlined in statute. 

However, AMCs are typically small businesses with razor thin operating margins. Without question, the AMC 

National Registry Fee will have a substantial financial effect on AMCs regardless of their size or legal entity, including 

forcing some out of business and hindering the likelihood of new AMCs entering the marketplace due to the high cost 

of regulation and fees. 

Many industries are regulated and assessed fees, and despite those regulations and fees, industries adapt to survive. 

AMCs will continue to evolve to meet the needs of America's home buyers, lenders and appraisers, but the way the 

AMC industry operates may be different tomorrow, shaped in part by the decisions made and the regulations 

implemented today. 

REVAA • 734 15th Street_NW, _S~ite 900 • Washington, D.C. • 20005 5 
200 


26005.161

AMC Perspective on the "Appraiser Shortage"- An Even Bigger Concern Looms 

REV AA members share concern about current appraisal turn times and the associated rising costs. 

Based on our analysis of available demographic and industry data, AMCs fear the current shortage of appraisers does 

exist and may be worse than forecasted. For example, often excluded from consideration is the number of Certified 

Appraisers who maintain an active credential but do not actively practice in the field. While on paper there may be an 

estimated 80,000-90,000 active residential appraisers, a significant percentage may work for lenders, AMCs, appraisal 

firms, government and others but are not actually appraising residential properties in the field. The shortage of 

appraisers may also be exacerbated by other factors such as accounting for full vs. part -time appraisers and the 

retirement wave of the nation's Baby Boomers, as has long been forecasted. 

While reasonable people may disagree as to whether there is or is not indeed a current shortage of residential real 

estate appraisers or just short-term supply and demand anomalies at play, demographic data makes it disturbingly 

clear that there is currently no ·'next generation" of residential real estate appraiser in the pipeline to replace retiring 

workers. 

The lack of a next generation of appraiser is of critical concern for REV AA members who are passionate about the 

future of the industry. AMCs have chosen to take an active role in helping to recruit, train and work with traineesthe first step in becoming an appraiser. Irrespective of the coming changes to be made by the AQB, and possibly 

adopted by the states, the critical mandate to maintain the public's trust in appraisers is absolute. REV AA supports 

creativity and modernization, but only so long as these changes do not diminish the integrity, professionalism and 

public trust in appraisers. 

In its October 2015, white paper "Building the Future: Ideas for Attracting the Next Generation of Residential 

Property Appraisers." and multiple submissions to the Appraiser Qualifications Board in its current review process, 

REV AA has identified ideas for public and private sector industry stakeholders (lenders, regulators, appraisers) to 

identify solutions for the recruitment and training of future appraiser trainees, including: 

• AMCs to Provide New Appraiser Training and Relieve the Training Burden on Supervisory Appraisers- To 

help address individual appraiser concerns about the burden of being a supervisory appraiser to train trainees, 

REV AA members plan to broaden their role as a supervisory appraiser. We are seeking to create a uniform AMC 

trainee program to help connect aspiring appraisers with a greater variety of business that can provide them with 

high-quality field experience. Al\1Cs can expose trainees to a higher volume of assignments, greater diversity in 

assignments, and the full breadth of current industry challenges and responses. 

• Lessen Restrictions on Trainee Inspections- The AQB Criteria already allow supervisors to decide when a trainee 

has the competency to perform inspections on their own. But some states and many lenders put limitations on that, 

requiring supervisors to inspect all properties with the trainees for extended time frames or for the entire time until 

the new appraiser becomes Certified. A defined program that begins with the supervisor inspecting all properties 

with the trainee, but then progresses to further stages as competency is developed would be beneficial. That would 

allow the trainee, once competency has been developed, to inspect properties on their own while still completing 

the appraisal under the supervision of their mentor. 

• Offer a Testing Option as an Experience Alternative Allow aspiring appraisers to pass a comprehensive 

technical examination in lieu of satisfying all or part of the current professional experience requirement. Many 

professions (e.g., accountants. lawyers) utilize a demanding and highly specialized exam to gauge entrants' 

readiness and level of training, and this model could be successfully leveraged with prospective appraisers. After a 

student graduates from college with a four-year degree, or after he or she graduates and completes a specified 

minimum time in a professional internship, an "Appraisal Exam" could be used to streamline the path to becoming 

a credentialed appraiser. 

• Offer a Testing Option as an Education Alternative - Create a non-degree path that will allow prospective 

appraisers to pass a comprehensive technical examination in lieu of satisfying the college degree requirement for 

an appraiser license or certification. This will ensure that competent individuals without the means to attain a twoyear or four~year college degree still could become an appraiser via hard work, comprehensive training and rigorous 

testing. 

REVAA • 73415th Street NW, Suite 900 • Washington, D.C. • 20005 

(612) 716-1812 • www.revaa.org 

5 
201 


26005.162

• Create a Program for America's Honorably Discharged Veterans- As of20l5, there were more than 21.2 

million veterans of which about 12.3 million served in the period ranging from the Gulf War (1990- 2001) to about 

2015. What this means. conservatively, is that there is a pool of at least 12.3 million veterans who could consider 

becoming appraisers, the clear majority of whom bravely served their country and would in most instances likely 

be well suited to become an appraiser. 

Create incentives tOr encouraging honorably discharged veterans to enter the appraiser profession. One idea would 

be to amend the Criteria to include the acceptance of military coursework and experience on a veteran's Joint 

Services Transcript (JST) to meet the appraiser educational content and potentially experience requirements; again, 

we would propose allowing 50 percent of those hours earned relativ·e to educational content area to be applied 

toward experience hours. The JST is an academically accepted document approved by the American Council on 

Education (ACE) to validate a service member's military occupational experience and training along with the 

corresponding ACE college credit recommendations. 

Most states provide varying degrees of accommodation to honorably discharged veterans ranging from expedited 

licensing, to reduced or waived fees and stipends in a wide array of professions. We encouraged the AQB to 

recommend that states enact laws and rules to provide for expedited licensing and reduced or waived fees for 

veterans, as well as AMCs that can provide proof they employ or have a certain number or percentage of veterans 

on their appraiser panels. 

The Role ofthe Appraisal Suhcommittee 

REV AA members are not regulated by the ASC, we are regulated in the states by designated appraisal agencies 

who are regulated by the ASC. With the rapidly approaching final AMC Registry rules and the August 2018 deadline 

to have federally compliant AMC rules in place, the nature of the relationship between ASC and AMCs is going to 

change exponentially, as will the AMCs new oversight of state AMC regulatory programs. Over the years, REV AA 

and its members have had a positive working relationship with the ASC and its staff in the contemplation of rules 

and policies that impact AMCs. 

Thank you for considering our comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions. 

Respectfully, 

Mark Schiffman 

Executive Director 

REVAA Member Conwanies: 

Accurate Group 

Appraiservendor.com 

Asset Valuation & Nfarketing 

Assurant Specially Property 

Axios 

Clear Capital 

Core Logic 

eMortgage Logic 

Fideli(v Residential Solutions 

Independent Set1/ement Services 

LRES 

}.4CS Valuations 

Nations Valuation Services 

PCV Afurcor 

Pro Teck 

ServiceLink 

Single Source 

STARS 

Steu1art Lender Services 

StreetLink5 

SWBC Lending Solutions 

TitleSource 

The William Fall Group 

XOME 

REVAA • 734 15th Street NW, Suite 900 • Washington, D.C. • 20005 

{612) 716-1812 • www.revaa.org 

5 
202 


26005.163

House Committee on Financial Services 

Hearing: "Modernizing Appraisals: A Regulatory Review and the Future of the Industry" 

November 16, 2016 

Questions for the Record from U.S. Representative Ed Royce (R-Ca/if.) 

Mr. Ed Brady, Chairman of the Board, National Association of Home Builders 

Under the FHA's recent guidance on PACE loans, an appraiser must analyze the impact of PACErelated improvements on the value of a home if the obligation is staying with the property. 

What's your assessment of the current ability of appraisers to value PACE home modifications? 

What's the impact of this development on appraisal costs and ability of sellers to enter the 

market? 

NAHB Response: 

NAHB is a long-standing proponent of energy efficient new homes and energy efficient retrofits in 

existing homes that offer home owners the benefit of lower utility payments and contribute to efforts to 

reduce energy consumption. 

NAHB believes that substantial efforts should be made to obtain an accurate assessment of the subject 

home's value and to ensure that the liens on the property do not exceed that value. PACE assessments 

should be carefully calibrated to the value of the property but it would be imprudent for programs to 

allow assessments that, when combined with other liens, exceed the estimated value of the property. 

NAHB continues to work with the appraisal industry to improve the ability of appraisers to value energy 

efficient upgrades. However, there remains confusion about accounting for energy efficient and other 

"green" features in new and existing properties. To address these impediments, the Appraisal Institute 

developed the Residential Green and Energy Efficient Addendum to help capture the data for these 

features and incorporate the information into their analysis. Additionally, the Appraisal Foundation has 

taken steps to improve appraisers understanding of valuing green features by developing Valuation 

Advisories to provide appraisers information on how to identify green features, how to determine their 

relevancy, how to effectively utilize research and analysis, and how to account for green features in the 

three approaches to value (sales comparison, cost and income). 

NAHB will continue working with the Appraisal Institute and the Appraisal Foundation to update the 

information and keep these documents relevant for a market segment that is growing and constantly 

changing. 

NAHB believes it is important to support initiatives, such as PACE, that seek to finance energy efficient 

and renewable retrofits for residential and commercial properties. However, NAHB is concerned about 

the potential negative impact of first-lien PACE programs on the functioning of the housing finance 

system. 

NAHB believes that in order to expand the use of PACE financing to fund energy improvements, PACE 

programs should waive the superior lien position granted them through the treatment of PACE 

assessments as tax liens. Unless wavier of first-lien status is established as a best practice for PACE 

1 
203 


26005.164

programs, this form of funding will fail to fulfill its potential role in the financing of energy 

improvements. 

Detailed information on outstanding PACE liens must be readily available throughout the mortgage 

lending community in order to achieve broader use of PACE financing. Similarly, thorough and accurate 

data on energy improvements must be available and utilized by appraisers in order to accurately 

determine the value of energy improvements. 

2 
204 


26005.165

January 11, 2017 

The Honorable Ed Royce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2310 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congressman Royce: 

This is in response to a question you raised regarding my testimony before the Subcommittee on Housing and 

Insurance of the House Committee on Financial Services at its November 16, 2016 hearing entitled 

"Modernizing Appraisals: A Regulatory Review and the Future of the Industry." 

Specifically, you asked: 

You testified that "output is only as good os its input" when it comes to automated valuation models 

{AVMs). How can Congress improve the input? What are the main hurdles in this arena? 

As far as how Congress can improve the quality of AVMs, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act of 2010 contained a provision directing the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 

the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union 

Administration Board, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to 

promulgate regulations to implement quality control standards for AVMs (attachment Ill). Unfortunately, we 

are unaware of any action taken to date in this regard. 

There are many issues with the accuracy of AVMs. Before examining the veracity of comparable market data, 

the first concern is the accuracy of the information for the subject property itself. Homes are constantly being 

updated, renovated, enlarged, etc. Obviously, the best comparable market data in the world is meaningless if it 

is being considered in light of a property whose physical characteristics are not accurately identified in public 

records. Assuming the information about the subject property is accurate, questions regarding the available 

comparable data remain: How relevant are the properties selected to the subject property? How "fresh" is the 

data, particularly in dynamic real estate markets? Of what use are AVMs in non-homogenous housing 

markets? There are markets where the value of properties on the same street may differ dramatically because 

of the varying views they afford. Properties may be worth more or less based on which side of the street and 

how far up or down the block they are located. 
205 


26005.166

The Honorable Ed Royce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

January 11, 2017 

Page Two 

I have taken the liberty of attaching an article about this issue from the Toronto Globe and Mail that illustrates 

the potential shortcomings of AVMs (attachment 112) 

I hope you find the above information to be responsive to your inquiry. If you have any questions or need 

additional information, please feel free to contact me at 202-624-3040 or via e-mail at david@valuation.org. 

Sincerely, 

David S. Bunton 

President 

Attachments 
206 


26005.167

At!achmcot Ill 

SECTION 1473: 

Automated valuation models 

Title X! of the Financial Institutions and Enforcement Act of 1989 (12 

U.S.C. 3331 et seq.), as amended by this section. is amended by adding at the end the following 

new section (and amending the table of contents accordingly): 

1125. 

Automated valuation models nscd to estimate collateral value for mortgage lending 

purposes 

(a) ln general 

Automated valuation models shall adhere to quality control standards designed 

( l) ensure high level of confidence in the estimates produced hy automated valuation 

models: 

(2) protect against the manipulation 

(3) seek to avoid conflicts of interest; 

(5) account for any other such factor that the agencies listed in subsection (b) determine to be 

appropriate. 

(b) Adoption of regulations 

The Board. the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the 

National Credit Union Administration Board, the Federal !lousing Finance Agency, and the 

Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, in consultation with the staff of the Appraisal 

Subcommittee and the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation, shall promulgate 

regulations to implement the quality control standards required under this section. 

(c) Enforcement 

Compliance with regulations issued under this subsection shall be cnf(Jrccu by-
207 


26005.168

( l) with respect to a financial institution, or subsidiary owned and controlled by a financial 

institution and by a Federal financial institution regulatory agency\ the Federal 

linancial regulatory agency that acts as the primary Federal supervisor of such 

financial institution or subsidiary: and 

(2) with respect to other participants in the market for appraisals of l-to-4 unit single family 

residential real estate, the Fcdl'ral Trade Commission. the Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection, and a Stale attomey general. 

(d) Automated valuation model defined 

For purposes of this section. the tcnn automated valuation model means any computerized model 

used by mortgage originators and secondary market issuers to determine the collateral worth of a 

mortgage secured by a consumer's principal dwelling. 
208 


26005.169

1/10f2017 Potentially flawed data u..'led by banks and lenders bump up house prices The Globe and Mal! 

up 

A house for s<Jie m !omnto. {Galit Rodan/Ttte Globe and Ma1!) 

f '!I g+ in !9 

a national databank that helps have 

fuel putting 

key players in the housing sector have warned. 

Documents obtained Globe and Mail detailing confidential statements from banks, 

appraisers mortgage insurers show 

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation 

flawed and help push home up. 

over the use of a database operated by the 

The documents suggest the data 

hltps·ffsec.theg!obeandmai!.com/rea!-estatetthe-marketlpotentia!ly-ftawed-data-u.sed-by-b<lnks-and-!enders-bump-LqYhouse-prices/article4603237t?service=amp 1/5 
209 


26005.170

1110!2017 

Introduced 

Potential!y !tawed df!ta used by b,rts and lenders bump up house pr1ces- The Globe and Mail 

banks and other lenders to quickly and 

he 

documents suggest. 

is not worth as much as 

Because the database does not 

the risk level of a mortgage, 

account the market value," 

altering housing market data." 

is the mortgage 

a process by the federal han king regulator, 

Institutions (OSFI), to determine whether 

tightened. 

Though it not to know who responsible for each comment, the 

redacted to comply laws, numerous parties flagged 

of 

of 

https·!fsec,theg!obeanctmaH.com/real-estatelthe-markctfpo!:entially-ftawed·dala-used-by-banks-afl:d...lenders-bump-tJP--house-priceslartlde4603237!?service'-"amp 2/5 
210 


26005.171

1/10!20f1 Potentially f!&'l!ed data used by bank-s and lenders bump up house pnces- The GJobe and Mall 

concerns about the of Emili in gauging home values. Groups who responded to 

the call for comments include the country's major banks, real estate associations, 

rPJ>rr:sPntcll·i,rr:s of the and brokers. 

advised banks summer closer look at bow they housing values, 

to make more effort to do more in-person 

guidelines 

private by 

automated value model (AVl'vi}, Emili 

value fits within 

property is worth that much. 

allows to pay too much for property," Sieb, 

Ltd. in Vancouver, said in an interview. "If the property is worth S300, and somebody comes 

through and the realtor has convinced to pay S;330, per cent out, and they 

through or fine area," 

the whole is the person 

cool the housing 

sales have been falling 

money, the guy still buys it, and the person hurt 

much of the past decade but is now 

cons;nners took on record-high levels of 

latest market data suggest house 

During a hot housing ''ider margin of error on estimated values was less of a 

concern, since there smalter likelihood will up under 

But ifthe market to of appraisals 

becomes paramount. 

could incur a loss. In the 

Automated systems such they are a fast and inexpensive 

for an appraiser. When CMHC 

times from days to 

payment over 20 

ht!ps://sec,theglobeandmai!.comJreal-es!atelthe-markeUpotential!y-flawed-data-us~by-banks-arx!-!enders-bump-up-h(){_JSf}.prices/artide4603237/?servi~amp 315 
211 


26005.172

111012017 Potentially flawed data used by banks and lenders bump up house pnces- The Globe and Ma1l 

Asked abont the documents, a spokesperson for the CMHC said in an c-mailed statement on 

appraisals appropriate." spokesperson 

"relies on of different models beyond home resale 

data" to determine risk, hut did not elaborate. 

Your interest in this newsletfur may be used by the Globe fo dellver more relevant confenf, advertisin{l and email promotions. You can unsubscribe at any time. By 

signing up, you will be sub jed to our Tetrns and Conditions. See also our Privacy Policy and FAQs. 

https:f/soc.lheglobeandmai!.comkeaJ.estatelthe-market!potentiaJiy-flawed-data-..used-by-bBnks~and-1enders~burnp.·up .. house-prices/artide46032371?servlOO"'amp 4/5 
212 


26005.173

Questions for the Record 

Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-CA) 

FSC Housing and Insurance Subcommittee Hearing Entitled: '·Modernizing Appraisals: A 

Regulatory Review and the Future of the Industry"' 

Date ofHearing: November 16, 2016 

Questions for Jennifer Wagner, Mountain State Justice, lnc. 

l. Please elaborate on your observation that inflated appraisals significantly contributed to 

the financial crisis. How did inflated play a role in the explosion of 

foreclosures? 

Response: As set forth more extensively in my written testimony, it is we,lhrecogm2:ea 

financial crisis was caused largely by a market that trapped in 

home-secured loans that they could not and that exceeded the true market value of the 

homes. The related housing bubble was in large part artificially created through inflated 

obtained from appraisers who were pressured by lenders to return extremely high 

on their Based on these falsely inflated appraisals, unscrupulous m<>rt<>~<'e 

lenders and were able to make large home-secured loans-which m 

fees for them. Often these loans were transactions, in which the broker or 

consolidated unsecured debts or provided cash out of the transaction without the 

borrower's knowledge or solely to increase the loan amount up to the inflated 

value, and thus increase the paid to the originator. Many of these loans were nuirKett:u 

subprime and borrowers, and had features that would cause payments to 

after a few years. bmTowers began to struggle with their payments, they were tra;ppc:a--

they could not refinance or sell because the loans so exceeded the market value of the 

The only option lett was foreclosure, and millions resulted. ln this scheme, only the 

lender and broker won, while homeowners, communities, and downstream investors all 

ultimately bore the cost of unnecessary foreclosures. 

The inl1ated appraisals resulted from substantial pressure from mortgage lenders across the 

country to increase values to enable them to make loans. The market forces 

resulted in some across the nation actively engaging fraudulent schemes. Some of 

ultimately were convicted of crimes. but many were not. These appraisers 

kickbacks or payotTs to inflate home values to enable nipping and other rm,.13ttm·v 

lending schemes. Many more appraisers, however, were subject to subtle and to 

increase home values on their to meet high target values or otherwise by 

the mortgage companies. faced the choice of either providing the value 

that their customer--the or lose livelihood and career. For this reason, 

thousands petitioned Congress to intervene and protect appraiser independence in 

the years the market collapse. as referenced in my vvritten testimony. As the number of 

signatories to this petition demonstrates, this was endemic to the market 

nationwide. and not just the result of a few actors in limited locales. And as result of 

these and the resulting trap for homeowners, millions of homes were ultimately lost to 

destabilizing the entire financial marketplace. 
213 


26005.174

2. Please elaborate on your comments regarding whether an appeal process could ever be 

appropriate, and if so. what factors should be taken under consideration in developing 

such a process. 

Response: While an appeal process be reasonable under extremely limited circumstances, 

this can be addressed through intema! and processes for lenders and investors. As I've 

heard from many appraisers, appeals creates a risk that the 

process would be subverted to allow buyers, sellers, and to pressure amJraJseJ:s 

to increase the appraised values in order to satisfy an and meet a target value. is 

exactly the type of conduct that led to the inflated and valuations that preceded the 

foreclosure crisis. However, it may potentially be under very limited circumstances 

to permit a lender to seek a second opinion, to request com parables, or to correct a 

typographical error if a defect is noted in the original appraisal by a qualified reviewer-and this 

is typically already pennitted. Substantial safeguards are necessary, however, to protect 

appraisers from retribution or pressure in relationship to this process. However, such a process 

need not be legislatively fom1alized and is appropriately managed through the existing appraiser 

independence structure. 

3. Should appraisers be provided any f1exibility in making their decisions? Can we trust 

aP!JrRISCJ·s to make and well-formed decisions? 

Response: l have the utmost respect for who through rigorous training and 

apjJrcntJ,~esh!p to become qualified in their The existing structure of appraisal 

mrl<'n'"nrtP.11f"' promotes by allowing appraisers to make their own 

independent judgments regarding the true market value of properties insulated from pressure 

from outside forces. Similarly. the use licensed appraisers, rather than automated 

valuation methods, permits appropriate the true condition, 

and ultimate value of a home. Appraisers are trained and knowledgeable who 

consider and weigh a multitude of factors to their independent judgment of market value. 

All of this involves considerable discretion and flexibility. By supporting appraiser 

independence, appraisers are provided the flexibility that they need to make qualified and wellformed decisions. 

0