Intimidation....I Will Not Be Silenced

[Zoe]

No offense, but this is more of the academically presented material of what you often post, and it is not just dry or academic the points made excuse the behavior of lenders and AMC's and thus throw the appraiser under the bus,

The protection of lack of dislsore and the huge amounts kept by an AMC was a govt perk given - who else gave it, the tooth fair ?? the perk was exploited further and further by the AMC/lender alliance to the point where consumer lawsuits wre filed ( see below ) The appraisers have been more severely harmed than consumers, but consumers are the public so they got the class action suit.

The original intent of a bundled fee was meant to not have to separate cover add-on misc services such as notary or messenger (back in the day). Back then, there was also a regulatory statement that the amount of the secondary fee whether for title or appraisal in the covered fee, that the amount of a secondary service ( admin, notary, messenger ) be a charge or fee proportionate to their contribution to the primary service ( the title in title fee, the appraisal in appraisal fee)

That part of the regulations magically disappeared at some point - not sure when it happened. But it clearly spelled out the intention of the govt allowing a covered bunded fee. .
In the consumer lawsuits making their way through the courts, it is not just that the lender failed to disclose to the consumer that their appraisal fee covered a third-party AMC service; it was the AMOUNT of the appraisal fee the AMC keeps - the lawsuits describe it as unjust enrichment and one lawsuit compares it to usury.

It would have been a different tale had the lenders and AMCs ensured by self-regulation that the fee the AMC kept was a reasonable proportionate amount; 10-20% is what most management or third-party fees look like in the rest of the business world. But in appraisals, it is hte wild west - the AMC can keep 30%, 40%, 60%, whatever they can since their amount is not disclosed. I hope if these suits get settled in favor of Breakout/dislsore that it be done upfront,m the day the consumer commits to the loan and pays for the appraisal fee, and not on the back end buried in the appraisal

It slaps the intent of truth in lending disclosures to the borrower. It slaps good faith estimate and all truth in lending disclosures to the borrower in the face.

 

[J Grant]

It slaps the intent of truth in lending disclosures to the borrower. It slaps good faith estimate and all truth in lending disclosures to the borrower in the face.

While it does that, and I hope the borrowers prevail in the suits, the appraisers have been far more severely harmed than a consumer borrower. A borrower may feel they overpaid since their appraisal fee covered an unjust enrichment portion to the AMC . But who paid more over a year due to that unjust enrichment to the AMC via the covered fee abuses?

The appraisers. A consumer borrower did not so much lose money, as they lost an element of truth and disclosure - HOW was their appraiser selected by the AMC when profit motive is first, last, and center to an AMC in selecting among competitive bids the AMC enacts in a perverse reverse auction to award an appraisal order? THAT is what should be disclosed and disclosed up front, not later after it occurred

A consumer might have overpaid by a few hundred dollars regarding the covered not disclosed AMC portion of an appraisal fee. But an avg res appraiser who did AMC work can lose $40,000 a year ( being conservative here ) in income due to it, which is $400,000 over 10 years. That $400,000 could have bought a house, been invested for retirement, or secured a future for a family.

 

[sputnam]

Are you for free speech, or against it?

The 1st amendment does not grant us free speech. It prohibits the government from censoring our speech. You absolutely can say, or write, pretty much anything you want to. However, there can be consequences... including having a company decide they no longer want to do business with you. Actions have consequences.

I agree that the AMC's actions were unecessary and heavy handed. They were not a violation of the OPs right to freedom of speech.

 

[Non Sequitur]

They don't like the cut of his jib.



End of story IMO

I agree their feelings are hurt. But if it was only that, why not just deactivate his profile? IMO they wanted to send a message.

I agree with the OP, intimidation is the reason the letter was sent. If it was as simple as severing a business relationship, there are several ways to do that in AMC land; Ghost him, continue to not send him work (per the OP he hasn't completed a lending assignment in over two years), put his profile on permanent vacation, deactivate his profile, put a nasty "do not engage" note in his profile, lower his rating/score to zero, etc. But they didn't do any of that, they sent a message: "We monitor social media posts about our industry. If you post something we don't like we will take action."

 

[DTB]

If it was as simple as severing a business relationship, there's several ways to do that in AMC land; Ghost him, continue to not send him work (per the OP he hasn't completed a lending assignment in over two years), put his profile on permanent vacation, deactivate his profile, etc.

How many 100s of posts on the forum have had appraisers complaining about an AMC or direct lender doing just that? "We are owed an explanation!" was the flavor of the day then.

Now that there is a clear and direct reason given, some don't like it.

Same effect, different feelings hurt.

We ALL have feelings, I don't bring them into business with me and yes some do not like the cut of my jib either-LOL

 

[Non Sequitur]

How many 100s of posts on the forum have had appraisers complaining about an AMC or direct lender doing just that? "We are owed an explanation!" was the flavor of the day then.

Now that there is a clear and direct reason given, some don't like it.

Same effect, different feelings hurt.

We ALL have feelings, I don't bring them into business with me and yes some do not like the cut of my jib either-LOL

Fair enough, but context matters. How many AMCs sent letters stating "You missed the contract price" or "A lender we work with doesn't like you?" We know the game, and that's why so many appraisers were upset by being ghosted with no explanation. This is different, the AMC got involved in social media drama about another AMC that had nothing to do with an appraisal or the appraiser's work product.

The letter could have simply stated "Your profile has been inactive for two years. We are permanently removing your profile from our panel. If you have any questions feel free to contact us at........."

The letter sent was more than a simple explanation, it was a message of intimidation.

 

[bluechip]

Fair enough, but context matters. How many AMCs sent letters stating "You missed the contract price" or "A lender we work with doesn't like you?" We know the game, and that's why so many appraisers were upset by being ghosted with no explanation. This is different, the AMC got involved in social media drama about another AMC that had nothing to do with an appraisal or the appraiser's work product.

The letter could have simply stated "Your profile has been inactive for two years. We are permanently removing your profile from our panel. If you have any questions feel free to contact us at........."

The letter sent was more than a simple explanation, it was a message of intimidation.

Exactly. THAT is the distinction I’ve been trying to make. They were free to remove me from their panel for any legitimate business reason. But reaching into a social media discussion about ANOTHER AMC, then putting that in writing as justification, wasn’t necessary. That wasn’t a business decision. That was a message: watch what you say or there may be consequences. And THAT is the problem.

 

[DTB]

Fair enough, but context matters. How many AMCs sent letters stating "You missed the contract price" or "A lender we work with doesn't like you?" We know the game, and that's why so many appraisers were upset by being ghosted with no explanation. This is different, the AMC got involved in social media drama about another AMC that had nothing to do with an appraisal or the appraiser's work product.

The letter could have simply stated "Your profile has been inactive for two years. We are permanently removing your profile from our panel. If you have any questions feel free to contact us at........."

The letter sent was more than a simple explanation, it was a message of intimidation.

If a non client sends a message to an appraiser who doesn't do ANY lender work result in that appraiser being intimidated? It's a power play sent by an entity that has no power over the recipient.

They knew or expected this vocal appraiser to get the word out to others it seems, and he did.

 

[Non Sequitur]

They knew or expected this vocal appraiser to get the word out to others it seems, and he did.

That's intimidation.

 

[chad hampton]

The big five AMCs are not at all worried about any regulation or oversight.

Between revaa and the GSE‘s, they know they’re untouchable with those two groups supporting them, regardless of their behavior.

The last time a state board tried to enforce a law on a large AMC , a year later they had the FTC knocking at their door. How’s that for intimidation? State boards got the message. Now all the revaa rep has to do is threaten to sue, like they did at the NC board.