Residential Appraisals
Opportunities to Enhance Oversight of an Evolving Industry
Gao ID: GAO-11-783T July 13, 2011
In Process
Available data and interviews with lenders and other mortgage industry participants indicate that appraisals are the most frequently used valuation method for home purchase and refinance mortgage originations. Appraisals provide an opinion of market value at a point in time and reflect prevailing economic and housing market conditions. Data provided to us by the five largest lenders (measured by dollar volume of mortgage originations in 2010) show that, for the first-lien residential mortgages for which data were available, these lenders obtained appraisals for about 90 percent of the mortgages they made in 2009 and 2010, including 98 percent of home purchase mortgages. The data we obtained from lenders include mortgages sold to the enterprises and mortgages insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), which together accounted for the bulk of the mortgages originated in 2009 and 2010. The enterprises and FHA require appraisals to be performed for a large majority of the mortgages they purchase or insure. For mortgages for which an appraisal was not done, the lenders we spoke with reported that they generally relied on validation of the sales price (or loan amount in the case of a refinance) against a value generated by an automated valuation model (AVM), in accordance with enterprise policies that permit this practice for some mortgages with characteristics associated with a lower default risk. Factors such as the location and complexity of the property affect consumer costs for appraisals. For example, a property may have unique characteristics that are more difficult to value, such as being much larger than nearby properties or being an oceanfront property, which may require the appraiser to take more time to gather and analyze data to produce a credible appraisal. Mortgage industry participants we spoke with told us that the amount a consumer pays for an appraisal is generally not affected by whether the lender engages an appraiser directly or uses an appraisal management company (AMC)--which manages the appraisal process on lenders' behalf--to select an appraiser. They said that AMCs typically charge lenders about the same amount that independent fee appraisers would charge lenders directly, and lenders generally pass on these charges to consumers. In general, lenders, AMC officials, appraisers, and other industry participants noted that consumer costs for appraisals have remained relatively stable in the past several years. However, appraisers have reported receiving lower fees when working with AMCs compared with working directly with lenders because AMCs keep a portion of the total fee. Recently issued policies reinforce long-standing requirements and guidance designed to address conflicts of interest that may arise when direct or indirect personal interests bias appraisers from exercising their independent professional judgment. In order to prevent appraisers from being pressured, the federal banking regulators, the enterprises, FHA, and other agencies have regulations and policies governing the selection of, communications with, and coercion of appraisers. Examples of recently issued policies that address appraiser independence include HVCC, which took effect in May 2009; the enterprises' new appraiser independence requirements that replaced HVCC in October 2010; and revised Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines from the federal banking regulators, which were issued in December 2010. Provisions of these and other policies address (1) prohibitions against loan production staff involvement in appraiser selection and supervision; (2) prohibitions against third parties with an interest in the mortgage transaction, such as real estate agents or mortgage brokers, selecting appraisers; (3) limits on communications with appraisers; and (4) prohibitions against coercive behaviors.
GAO-11-783T, Residential Appraisals: Opportunities to Enhance Oversight of an Evolving Industry
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-783T
entitled 'Residential Appraisals:
Opportunities to Enhance Oversight of an Evolving Industry' which was
released on July 13, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community
Opportunity, Committee on Financial Services, House of Representatives:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT:
Wednesday, July 13, 2011:
Residential Appraisals:
Opportunities to Enhance Oversight of an Evolving Industry:
Statement of William B. Shear, Director: Financial Markets and
Community Investment:
GAO-11-783T:
Chairman Biggert, Ranking Member Gutierrez, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss our work on residential real
estate valuations. Real estate valuations, which encompass appraisals
and other value estimation methods, play a critical role in mortgage
underwriting by providing evidence that the market value of a property
is sufficient to help mitigate losses if the borrower is unable to
repay the loan. However, recent turmoil in the mortgage market has
raised questions about mortgage underwriting practices, including the
quality and credibility of some valuations. An investigation into
industry appraisal practices by the New York State Attorney General
led to an agreement in 2008 between the Attorney General; Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac (the enterprises); and the Federal Housing Finance
Agency (FHFA), which regulates the enterprises. This agreement
included the Home Valuation Code of Conduct (HVCC), which set forth
certain appraiser independence requirements for loans sold to the
enterprises and took effect in 2009. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. No. 111-203) (the Dodd-Frank Act)
directed us to study the effectiveness and impact of various valuation
methods and the options available for selecting appraisers, as well as
the impact of HVCC.[Footnote 1]
My statement summarizes the report we are releasing today, which
responds to the mandate in the Dodd-Frank Act.[Footnote 2] Our work
focused on valuations of single-family residential properties for
first-lien purchase and refinance mortgages. The report discusses (1)
the use of different valuation methods and their advantages and
disadvantages, (2) policies and other factors that affect consumer
appraisal costs and requirements for lenders to disclose appraisal
costs and valuation reports to consumers, and (3) conflict-of-interest
and appraiser selection policies and views on the impact of these
policies on industry stakeholders and appraisal quality. We consider
the impact of HVCC throughout the report. To do this work, we analyzed
proprietary data we obtained from the enterprises, lenders, and a
mortgage technology company on the use of different valuation methods
and appraisal approaches.[Footnote 3] We reviewed academic and
industry literature and examined federal regulations and policies, as
well as internal policies and procedures of lenders. Finally, we
interviewed a broad range of appraisal and mortgage industry
participants and observers and discussed these issues with officials
from the enterprises, FHFA, the federal banking regulatory agencies,
and other federal agencies. The work that this statement is based on
was performed from July 2010 to July 2011 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that
we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate
evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
The Widespread Use of Appraisals for Mortgage Originations Reflects
Their Advantages Relative to Other Valuation Methods:
Available data and interviews with lenders and other mortgage industry
participants indicate that appraisals are the most frequently used
valuation method for home purchase and refinance mortgage
originations. Appraisals provide an opinion of market value at a point
in time and reflect prevailing economic and housing market conditions.
[Footnote 4] Data provided to us by the five largest lenders (measured
by dollar volume of mortgage originations in 2010) show that, for the
first-lien residential mortgages for which data were available, these
lenders obtained appraisals for about 90 percent of the mortgages they
made in 2009 and 2010, including 98 percent of home purchase
mortgages. The data we obtained from lenders include mortgages sold to
the enterprises and mortgages insured by the Federal Housing
Administration (FHA), which together accounted for the bulk of the
mortgages originated in 2009 and 2010. The enterprises and FHA require
appraisals to be performed for a large majority of the mortgages they
purchase or insure. For mortgages for which an appraisal was not done,
the lenders we spoke with reported that they generally relied on
validation of the sales price (or loan amount in the case of a
refinance) against a value generated by an automated valuation model
(AVM), in accordance with enterprise policies that permit this
practice for some mortgages with characteristics associated with a
lower default risk.[Footnote 5]
The enterprises, FHA, and lenders require and obtain appraisals for
most mortgages because appraising is considered by mortgage industry
participants to be the most credible and reliable valuation method for
a number of reasons. Most notably, appraisals and appraisers are
subject to specific requirements and standards. In particular, the
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) outlines
the steps appraisers must take in developing appraisals and the
information appraisal reports must contain.[Footnote 6] USPAP also
requires that appraisers follow standards for ethical conduct and have
the competence needed for a particular assignment. Furthermore, state
licensing and certification requirements for appraisers include
minimum education and experience criteria, and standardized report
forms provide a way to report relevant appraisal information in a
consistent format.
In contrast, other valuation methods, such as broker price opinions
(BPO) and AVMs, are not permitted for most purchase and refinance
mortgage originations.[Footnote 7] The enterprises do not permit
lenders to use BPOs for mortgage originations and only permit lenders
to use AVMs for a modest percentage of mortgages they purchase.
Additionally, the federal banking regulators' guidelines state that
BPOs and AVMs cannot be used as the primary basis for determining
property values for mortgages originated by regulated institutions.
However, the enterprises and lenders use BPOs and AVMs in a number of
circumstances other than purchase and refinance mortgage originations
because these methods can provide quicker, less expensive means of
valuing properties in active markets.
When performing appraisals, appraisers can use one or more of three
approaches to value--sales comparison, cost, and income. The sales
comparison approach compares and contrasts the property under
appraisal with recent offerings and sales of similar properties. The
cost approach is based on an estimate of the value of the land plus
what it would cost to replace or reproduce the improvements minus
depreciation. The income approach is an estimate of what a prudent
investor would pay based upon the net income the property produces.
USPAP requires appraisers to consider which approaches to value are
applicable and necessary to perform a credible appraisal and provide
an opinion of the market value of a particular property. Appraisers
must then reconcile values produced by the different approaches they
use to reach a value conclusion.
The enterprises and FHA require that, at a minimum, appraisers use the
sales comparison approach for all appraisals because it is considered
most applicable for estimating market value in typical mortgage
transactions. Consistent with these policies, our review of valuation
data that we obtained from a mortgage technology company--representing
about 20 percent of mortgage originations in 2010--indicates that
appraisers used the sales comparison approach for nearly all (more
than 99 percent) of the mortgages covered by these data. The cost
approach, which was generally used in conjunction with the sales
comparison approach, was used somewhat less often--in approximately
two-thirds of the transactions in 2009 and 2010, according to these
data. The income approach was rarely used. Some mortgage industry
stakeholders have argued that wider use of the cost approach in
particular could help mitigate what they view as a limitation of the
sales comparison approach. They told us that reliance on the sales
comparison approach alone can lead to market values rising to
unsustainable levels and that using the cost approach as a check on
the sales comparison approach could help lenders and appraisers
identify when this is happening. For example, these stakeholders
pointed to a growing gap between average market values and average
replacement costs of properties as the housing bubble developed in the
early to mid-2000s. However, other mortgage industry participants
noted that a rigorous application of the cost approach may not
generate values much different from those generated using the sales
comparison approach. They indicated, for example, that components of
the cost approach--such as land value or profit margins of real estate
developers--can grow rapidly in housing markets where sales prices are
increasing. The data we obtained did not allow us to analyze the
differences between the values appraisers generated using the
different approaches.
Recent Policy Changes May Affect Consumer Costs for Appraisals, while
Other Policy Changes Have Enhanced Disclosures to Consumers:
Factors such as the location and complexity of the property affect
consumer costs for appraisals. For example, a property may have unique
characteristics that are more difficult to value, such as being much
larger than nearby properties or being an oceanfront property, which
may require the appraiser to take more time to gather and analyze data
to produce a credible appraisal. Mortgage industry participants we
spoke with told us that the amount a consumer pays for an appraisal is
generally not affected by whether the lender engages an appraiser
directly or uses an appraisal management company (AMC)--which manages
the appraisal process on lenders' behalf--to select an appraiser.
[Footnote 8] They said that AMCs typically charge lenders about the
same amount that independent fee appraisers would charge lenders
directly, and lenders generally pass on these charges to consumers. In
general, lenders, AMC officials, appraisers, and other industry
participants noted that consumer costs for appraisals have remained
relatively stable in the past several years. However, appraisers have
reported receiving lower fees when working with AMCs compared with
working directly with lenders because AMCs keep a portion of the total
fee.
A provision in the Dodd-Frank Act that requires lenders to pay
appraisers a customary and reasonable fee could affect consumer costs
and appraisal quality, depending on interpretation and implementation
of federal rules.[Footnote 9] The effect of this change on consumer
costs may depend on the approach lenders and AMCs take in order to
demonstrate compliance. For example, some lenders and industry groups
are having fee studies done to determine what constitutes customary
and reasonable fees. According to the Dodd-Frank Act, these studies
cannot include the fees AMCs pay to appraisers. As a result, some
industry participants, including some AMC officials, expect these
studies to demonstrate that appraiser fees should be higher than what
AMCs are currently paying. If that is the case, these lenders would
require AMCs to increase the fees they pay to appraisers to a rate
consistent with the findings of those studies, which in turn could
increase appraisal costs for consumers. However, some lenders are
evaluating the possibility of no longer using AMCs and engaging
appraisers directly, which would eliminate the AMC administration fee
from the appraisal fee that consumers pay.
Other recent policy changes that took effect in 2010 aim to provide
lenders with a greater incentive to estimate costs accurately when
providing consumers with an estimated price for third-party settlement
services, including appraisals. If actual costs exceed estimated costs
by more than 10 percent, the lender is responsible for making up the
difference. The Dodd-Frank Act permits, but does not require, lenders
to separately disclose to consumers the fee paid to the appraiser by
an AMC and the administration fee charged by the AMC.[Footnote 10]
Another policy change enhances disclosures by requiring lenders to
provide consumers with a copy of the valuation report prior to closing.
Conflict-of-Interest Policies Have Changed Appraiser Selection
Processes, with Implications for Appraisal Oversight:
Recently issued policies reinforce long-standing requirements and
guidance designed to address conflicts of interest that may arise when
direct or indirect personal interests bias appraisers from exercising
their independent professional judgment. In order to prevent
appraisers from being pressured, the federal banking regulators, the
enterprises, FHA, and other agencies have regulations and policies
governing the selection of, communications with, and coercion of
appraisers. Examples of recently issued policies that address
appraiser independence include HVCC, which took effect in May 2009;
the enterprises' new appraiser independence requirements that replaced
HVCC in October 2010; and revised Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation
Guidelines from the federal banking regulators, which were issued in
December 2010. Provisions of these and other policies address (1)
prohibitions against loan production staff involvement in appraiser
selection and supervision; (2) prohibitions against third parties with
an interest in the mortgage transaction, such as real estate agents or
mortgage brokers, selecting appraisers; (3) limits on communications
with appraisers; and (4) prohibitions against coercive behaviors.
According to mortgage industry participants, HVCC and other factors
have contributed to changes in appraiser selection processes--in
particular, lenders' more frequent use of AMCs to select
appraisers.[Footnote 11] Some appraisal industry participants said
that HVCC, which required additional layers of separation between loan
production staff and appraisers for mortgages sold to the enterprises,
led some lenders to outsource appraisal functions to AMCs because they
thought using AMCs would allow them to easily demonstrate compliance
with these requirements. In addition, lenders and other mortgage
industry participants told us that market conditions, including an
increase in the number of mortgages originated during the mid-2000s,
and lenders' geographic expansion over the years, put pressure on
lenders' capacity to manage appraisers and led to their reliance on
AMCs.
Greater use of AMCs has raised questions about oversight of these
firms and their impact on appraisal quality. Direct federal oversight
of AMCs is limited. Federal banking regulators' guidelines for
lenders' own appraisal functions list standards for appraiser
selection, appraisal review, and reviewer qualifications. The
guidelines also require lenders to establish processes to help ensure
these standards are met when lenders outsource appraisal functions to
third parties, such as AMCs. Officials from the federal banking
regulators told us they review lenders' policies and controls for
overseeing AMCs, including the due diligence they perform when
selecting AMCs. However, they told us they generally do not review an
AMC's operations directly unless they have serious concerns about the
AMC and the lender is unable to address those concerns. In addition, a
number of states began regulating AMCs in 2009, but the regulatory
requirements vary and provide somewhat differing levels of oversight,
according to officials from several state appraiser regulatory boards.
Some appraiser groups and other appraisal industry participants have
expressed concern that existing oversight may not provide adequate
assurance that AMCs are complying with industry standards. These
participants suggested that the practices of some AMCs for selecting
appraisers, reviewing appraisal reports, and establishing
qualifications for appraisal reviewers--key areas addressed in federal
guidelines for lenders' appraisal functions--may have led to a decline
in appraisal quality. For example, appraiser groups said that some
AMCs select appraisers based on who will accept the lowest fee and
complete the appraisal report the fastest rather than on who is the
most qualified, has the appropriate experience, and is familiar with
the relevant neighborhood. AMC officials we spoke with said that they
have processes that address these areas of concern--for example, using
an automated system that identifies the most qualified appraiser based
on the requirements for the assignment, the appraiser's proximity to
the subject property, and performance metrics such as the timeliness
and quality of the appraiser's work.
While the impact of the increased use of AMCs on appraisal quality is
unclear, Congress recognized the importance of additional AMC
oversight in enacting the Dodd-Frank Act by placing the supervision of
AMCs with state appraiser regulatory boards. The Dodd-Frank Act
requires the federal banking regulators, FHFA, and the Bureau of
Consumer Financial Protection to establish minimum standards for
states to apply in registering AMCs, including requirements that
appraisals coordinated by an AMC comply with USPAP and be conducted
independently and free from inappropriate influence and coercion.
[Footnote 12] This rulemaking provides a potential avenue for
reinforcing existing federal requirements for key functions that may
impact appraisal quality, such as selecting appraisers, reviewing
appraisals, and establishing qualifications for appraisal reviewers.
Such reinforcement could help to provide greater assurance to lenders,
the enterprises, and federal agencies of the quality of the appraisals
provided by AMCs.
To help ensure more consistent and effective oversight of the
appraisal industry, the report we are issuing today recommends that
the heads of the federal banking regulators (FDIC, the Federal
Reserve, NCUA, and OCC), FHFA, and the Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection--as part of their joint rulemaking required under the Dodd-
Frank Act--consider including criteria for the selection of appraisers
for appraisal orders, review of completed appraisals, and
qualifications for appraisal reviewers when developing minimum
standards for state registration of AMCs. In written comments on a
draft of our report, the federal banking regulators and FHFA agreed
with or indicated they will consider this recommendation. The Bureau
of Consumer Financial Protection did not receive the draft report in
time to provide comments.
Chairman Biggert, Ranking Member Gutierrez, and Members of the
Subcommittee, this concludes my prepared statement. I am happy to
respond to any questions you may have at this time.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
For further information on this testimony, please contact me at (202)
512-8678 or shearw@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this statement. Key contributors to this testimony include
Steve Westley, Assistant Director; Don Brown; Marquita Campbell; Anar
Ladhani; John McGrail; Erika Navarro; Jennifer Schwartz; and Andrew
Stavisky.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Dodd-Frank Act § 1476.
[2] GAO, Residential Appraisals: Opportunities to Enhance Oversight of
an Evolving Industry, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-653] (Washington, D.C.: July 13,
2011).
[3] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-653] for more
information about the data we obtained for this study.
[4] The enterprises and federal banking regulators define market value
as the most probable price that a property should bring in a
competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair
sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably,
and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus.
[5] An AVM is a computerized model that estimates property values
using public record data, such as tax records and information kept by
county recorders, multiple listing services, and other real estate
records.
[6] The Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation
develops, interprets, and amends USPAP. The Appraisal Foundation is a
not-for-profit organization established by the appraisal profession in
1987.
[7] A BPO is an estimate of the probable selling price of a particular
property prepared by a real estate broker, agent, or sales person
rather than by an appraiser.
[8] AMCs perform a number of specific functions for lenders, including
recruiting, selecting, and contracting with appraisers.
[9] Dodd-Frank Act § 1472(a) (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1639e(i)).
[10] Dodd-Frank Act § 1475 (codified at 12 U.S.C. § 2603).
[11] Although industry-wide data on lenders' use of AMCs over time are
unavailable, appraisal industry participants told us that between 60
and 80 percent of appraisals are currently ordered through AMCs. They
provided varying estimates of AMC use prior to HVCC, ranging from 15
percent to 50 percent of mortgage originations.
[12] Dodd-Frank Act § 1473(f)(2) (codified at 12 U.S.C. § 3353(a)).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: