Restraint of Trade
The term restraint of trade can be defined as: “Contracts or combinations that tend, or are designed, to eliminate or stifle competition, create a Monopoly, artificially maintain prices, or otherwise hamper or obstruct the course of trade as it would be carried on if it were left to the control of natural economic forces.” And “As used in the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq.), unreasonable restraints of trade are illegal per se and interfere with free competition in business and commercial transactions. Such restraint tends to restrict production, affect prices, or otherwise control the market to the detriment of purchasers or consumers of goods and services. A restraint of trade that is ordinarily reasonable can be rendered unreasonable if it is accompanied by a Specific Intent to achieve the equivalent of a forbidden restraint.”
 

Here it is in plain English, from a veteran appraiser who, like most these days, wishes to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal. “This AMC is complaining about a fee for a rural appraisal in Creek County outside the Tulsa (OK) Metro area. Before AMCs dominated the Tulsa market, lenders were widely accepting $350 to $425 for this type of appraisal in this area. I know because I did many such appraisals in this market since 1989, before AMCs monopolized the market. AMCs scoff at a $275 fee for an appraisal in this area. Where fees of $350 to $400 were widely accepted, I have been told by AMCs that my greatly discounted fee of $275 is not ‘competitive.’ The fees I am being forced to accept are 25-35 percent of what they were before the AMCs controlled this market, without exception. I have been forced to either lower my fees (that were customary and accepted as reasonable by lenders before the AMCs dominated this market) or face the prospect of being forced out of the appraisal business. HVCC was so concerned about the lender interfering with the appraiser’s objective process of the appraisal, but the AMC ‘bidding war’ practice is becoming just as dangerous to the appraisal industry, in my opinion. I have never seen anything as threatening in the 34 years of my appraisal profession.”   

Three Options
Appraisers who are fighting back are doing one or more of the following: refusing to work for less than customary and reasonable fees; challenging the low fees (click to read More "How to" Challenging Low Fees) and bending the ear of their elected representatives. Some or all of these responses are gaining traction. Unfortunately, some appraisers report being “blacklisted” for speaking out publically against AMCs and in a few cases, for challenging low fees. One tells WRE that while the complaint process is anonymous, it requires the property address which leads back to the appraiser.

Transfer of Power, Fresh Ideas
Enforcement authority for Dodd-Frank transfers from the Federal Reserve Board back to the Inter Agencies (OCC, FDIC, etc.) July 21, 2011.  This means we may not hear anything new until the transition is complete.  It is becoming clear to all parties involved that the current state of affairs is not working and that the status quo will not hold. Regulators will either have to send a message to AMCs by enforcing the stiff fines in Dodd-Frank for not paying customary and reasonable fees or they’ll have to clarify the Interim Final Rule to permit the status quo: Dodd Frank either intends that appraisers be paid customary and reasonable fees or it does not.  And there are more ways to skin the cat.

Here are a couple ideas submitted by an appraiser this week. This appraiser, like so many others, speaks anonymously for fear of losing work as a consequence of speaking out against his AMC clients. He writes, “I believe that there are only two things that can be done that will actually realize substantial change in the current scenario: 1) Help Fannie/Freddie realize that they need to allow loan officers to place the appraisal orders with any federally licensed AMC of their choosing.  This will break up the monopoly that is currently being held by a small handful of AMCs, to the detriment of the industry. 2) Require that AMC fees be itemized and billed separately from the appraisal company’s fees on the HUD1 closing documents. This will completely remove the downward fee pressure from appraisers because AMCs won’t be increasing their profits by lowering the appraisal fees. In my opinion, one or both of the above items are absolutely necessary to see any type of change. If we just tell AMCs to pay more, that won’t fix the root of the problem. That’s like ordering a handicapped person to walk without first healing their illness. Fees can't be regulated successfully for the long run in the open market. The only way to bring fees up is to remove the downward pressure from companies that now enjoy the advantage of massive appraisal ordering consolidation as a result of the HVCC mandate.”

Good Reads
Find a recent statement from the National Association of Realtors (click to view) on appraiser independence and how current market conditions threaten the housing recovery, and a story published in Mortgage Banking, written by an a la mode executive, The Mystery of the Missing Appraiser, which debunks the notion that lenders face longer turn times, lower quality and higher costs due to a shortage of appraisers.

The Working RE/OREP.org Customary and Reasonable Fee Survey is approaching 14,000. AMCs and others have used the data to study compliance issues under Dodd-Frank; appraisers also are viewing the results (for free) in large numbers. Click here to view results.

About the Author
David Brauner is Editor of Working RE magazine and Senior Broker at OREP.org, a leading provider of E&O Insurance for appraisers, inspectors and other real estate professionals in 49 states (OREP.org). He has covered the appraisal profession for over 16 years. He can be contacted at dbrauner@orep.org or (888) 347-5273. Calif. Insurance Lic. #0C89873.