Intimidation....I Will Not Be Silenced

[chad hampton]

Meh. I completely get the animosity exhibited toward some AMC's out there. They're trash. I just think invoking accusations of slavery on sites like LinkedIn is just inviting retaliation. That's just me tho.

That’s fair enough. It’s not an analogy I would’ve said, not because I don’t think it’s applicable, but because I know it causes people problems. Shock factor type of thing.

But it’s my opinion that the bad behavior from the large AMC‘s is so disgusting that not enough bad things can be said about them.

And it’s a giant slap in the face to the profession that the chief appraisers and executives at these giant AMC‘s get a seat at the table and are somehow brought in for advice and recommendations when the GSE’s come calling.

 

[Mark K]

Please. Anyone can tell the statement was hyperbole and not literal. And thus not true. Imo, it was an over-the-top comparison to make.

And that's exactly the argument he'll be making if CC's lawyers with a lot of time and money on their side decide to sue him for libel. (My error, slander is verbal, libel is written).

They don't have to win, they only have to make his life a living hell for a few years and watch him spend his retirement $$ on attorneys.

He wrote something incredibly unprofessional hoping for reactions and to injure CC's reputation. He got reactions and he's unhappy with the fallout. Exactly what did the OP expect? A Thank You letter from CC for pointing out the error of their ways and promising to clean up their act?

He poked a bear and now is wondering why the other bears are circling getting ready to eat him for lunch.

 

[George Hatch]

If the OP has used a less controversial analogy to express the unbalanced level of power in the AMC/Appraiser relationship then I doubt it would have turned out to be a thing. Akin to using the term "Hitler" or "rapist" in such a context. To some people, anyway.

 

[Flakey]

And that's exactly the argument he'll be making if CC's lawyers with a lot of time and money on their side decide to sue him for libel. (My error, slander is verbal, libel is written).

They don't have to win, they only have to make his life a living hell for a few years and watch him spend his retirement $$ on attorneys.

He wrote something incredibly unprofessional hoping for reactions and to injure CC's reputation. He got reactions and he's unhappy with the fallout. Exactly what did the OP expect? A Thank You letter from CC for pointing out the error of their ways and promising to clean up their act?

He poked a bear and now is wondering why the other bears are circling getting ready to eat him for lunch.

" And that's exactly the argument he'll be making if CC's lawyers with a lot of time and money on their side decide to sue him for libel." Sorta like Stormy Daniels suing Trump over social media posts. Everyone already knew who and what they are.

 

[alebrewer]

That’s fair enough. It’s not an analogy I would’ve said, not because I don’t think it’s applicable, but because I know it causes people problems. Shock factor type of thing.

But it’s my opinion that the bad behavior from the large AMC‘s is so disgusting that not enough bad things can be said about them.

And it’s a giant slap in the face to the profession that the chief appraisers and executives at these giant AMC‘s get a seat at the table and are somehow brought in for advice and recommendations when the GSE’s come calling.

I don't think many on here - or from the appraiser population in general - would say they're happy with the direction the industry took. Aside from government intervention, though, I don't see how it could have gone any other way? So long as a dynamic margin model is legal, the folks who employ that model are naturally motivated to maximize those margins. It's basic market behavior. And, while there are lots of folks who would champion the government stepping in on behalf of the appraisers, that would (potentially) have an adverse impact on the home buyer population. No one cares as much about the demise of an industry as the industry participants. And by that I mean that I doubt many 'non-appraiser' types would be in favor of the government protecting appraisers when said protection would inevitably lead to higher appraisal fees to the borrower.

And you're not wrong about the 'seat at the table' accusation either. Money buys those seats - and there has been LOTS of VC money pumped into AMC's over the past decade or so.

 

[J Grant]

That’s fair enough. It’s not an analogy I would’ve said, not because I don’t think it’s applicable, but because I know it causes people problems. Shock factor type of thing.

But it’s my opinion that the bad behavior from the large AMC‘s is so disgusting that not enough bad things can be said about them.

And it’s a giant slap in the face to the profession that the chief appraisers and executives at these giant AMC‘s get a seat at the table and are somehow brought in for advice and recommendations when the GSE’s come calling.

Agree, enough bad things can not be said about them, but saying stupid or inane bad things just makes the appraiser look bad.

perhaps with more appraisers retriring they will have nothing at stake anymore by coming out and giving articles to the press or putting out on social media the issues hidden for so many years behind a wall of silence that protected the AMC's ( and those who enable their worst behavour inlcuding the lenders of course ) It is legal for a lender to use an AMC and legal for the fee to be b undled, but teh fact that lenders either profited from or stayed silent aobut eh enormous erregous fees the AMCs kept out of the borrower paid apprasial fee as sell as their sleazy, low rent reverse markt styyle bidding an assignment out deserves outing . The GSEs'knew it was going on and chose to remain silent (or benefited from it ). Anyone who says it is not the GSE role to intervene wrt fees - they weighed in on protecting RE agent/broker fees by sending the statement to lenders after the consumer lawsuit wrt buyer broker fees, to lenders that they would not consider the seller paying the buyer agent fee as a covered concession. I am writing this as a layperson so a word of terminology might be off.

BTW I read his book and thought it was rather tame, and I do not recall any specific names of AMCs mentioned in the book

 

[alebrewer]

but teh fact that lenders either profited from or stayed silent aobut eh enormous erregous fees the AMCs kept out of the borrower paid apprasial fee as sell as their sleazy, low rent reverse markt styyle bidding an assignment out deserves outing .

You wanna share how lenders profit from AMC's keeping a bigger portion of the fee? That's a new line of illogic I haven't heard yet.

 

[George Hatch]

You wanna share how lenders profit from AMC's keeping a bigger portion of the fee? That's a new line of illogic I haven't heard yet.

Now you've done it. Didn't you see the movie "Beetlejuice"?

 

[George Hatch]

I would go so far as to suggest that this example might not even come down to the criticism of the company or the evils of the AMC model, but is limited to the politically inflammatory verbiage itself.

 

[J Grant]

I don't think many on here - or from the appraiser population in general - would say they're happy with the direction the industry took. Aside from government intervention, though, I don't see how it could have gone any other way? So long as a dynamic margin model is legal, the folks who employ that model are naturally motivated to maximize those margins. It's basic market behavior. And, while there are lots of folks who would champion the government stepping in on behalf of the appraisers, that would (potentially) have an adverse impact on the home buyer population. No one cares as much about the demise of an industry as the industry participants. And by that I mean that I doubt many 'non-appraiser' types would be in favor of the government protecting appraisers when said protection would inevitably lead to higher appraisal fees to the borrower.

And you're not wrong about the 'seat at the table' accusation either. Money buys those seats - and there has been LOTS of VC money pumped into AMC's over the past decade or so.

what a load of crap.

The govt protected the AMC interest and lender greed by not addressing the egregious splits the AMCs kept from the bundled appraisal fee. The borrowers were affected as well, less by the cost of the appraisal fee than by the sleazy low bid or fee comparison to pick the cheapest, often overlooking a more qualified appraiser for the assignment.

While so-called maximizing margins is market behavior, this is a specialized market that exists because the taxpayer backs the loans greenlit by the GSEs. The taxpayers and borrowers were cheated by the AMC not disclosed and egregious fee splits ( the subject of the borroerw/consumer lawsuits working their way through the courts now)

The harm to the appraisers, of course, was severe and disrupted the profession on the res lender side, with many qualified, experienced appraisers shunning AMC work because of their behavior or leaving the business entirely. It all could have easily been mitigated. I hope all the greedsters get publicly exposed and will have to pay and pay and pay for years to come.