• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

Intimidation....I Will Not Be Silenced

bluechip said:
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.
Click to expand...
The first line in their reasoning - before the other reason - references your use of some hyperbole that could become a problem for them in the event of an allegation of racial bias.

I doubt anyone here disagrees with the underlying sentiment behind the comment, but the semantics could become a problem for a lender if they engaged an appraiser for one of their assignments who had been using such language in their social media.

"the appraiser is comparing the terms of their engagement or employment with the horrors of chattel slavery as if there's any parallel"​

In an election year, all the social justice types would jump on that. Even if all your appraisal reports are squeaky clean.

What they didn't say was that they were on you because of your aversion to all AMCs or the AMC model itself.
 
Last edited:
it is really a shame they bailed out losers like the gse's...
 
George Hatch said:
The first line in their reasoning - before the other reason - references your use of some hyperbole that could become a problem for them in the event of an allegation of racial bias.

I doubt anyone here disagrees with the underlying sentiment behind the comment, but the semantics could become a problem for a lender if they engaged an appraiser for one of their assignments who had been using such language in their social media.

"the appraiser is comparing the terms of their engagement or employment with the horrors of chattel slavery as if there's any parallel"​

In an election year, all the social justice types would jump on that. Even if all your appraisal reports are squeaky clean.

What they didn't say was that they were on you because of your aversion to all AMCs or the AMC model itself.
Click to expand...
Maybe. If they are concerned about risk, the way to handle it is to not get involved with a competitor's drama (which is risky) and just remove him from their panel. But they called together a committee and wrote a letter because they wanted to send a message. They don't care about social justice or risk, they care about the AMC industry and are hoping to discredit a vocal critic.
 
George Hatch said:
Every time you repeat that "dry and academic" my read of it becomes "and completely beyond my ability to find a factual error".

The emotional tone policing is not a mode of rational discourse.

What the HVCC did was to add more limitations to GSE conduct as to which loan packages they would and would not accept. It didn't "create" anything, including the reasoning for those limitations (loan sales has no business even talking to an appraiser), as those limitations had already been established on the FRT side 15 years earlier.

The GSEs entered into the HVCC voluntarily, and arguably within the perception of their agreement being in their own best interests. From there, each of the lenders doing business with the GSEs made their own decisions WRT building loan packages the GSEs would buy. Again in what they perceived to be their own best interests.

Then Congress agreed.
Click to expand...
Clearly, the radical change in the lending environment for appraisers, which changed practically overnight following the HVCC , means it did profoundly create a difference. It prohibited individual loan officers from selecting appraisers, which prior to HVCC was allowed. Its additional regulations and scrutiny made lending more receptive to using an AMC as a middleman to avoid liability as well as save money, which became exploited ( the egregious fees to the AMC and non-disclosure is, very late in the game, the subject of consumer lawsuits in the courts now)

Calling it emotional tone policing is indicative of the gaslighting done to appraisers. As a group that suffered massive harm, appraisers are mocked. Emotional tone policing is simply recognizing that many appraisers had their lives and careers ruined, while the bad guys used the HVCC and Dodd Frank to enrich themselves at the expense of appraisers.

Some of your posts on the topic are valuable; the rest are repetitive, citing facts we already know.
 
You telling me "dry and academic" is emotionally-based tone policing because I don't write at that level. I write at a 12th Grade reading level. You don't misunderstand anything I write except when it suits your purpose to attempt to mischaracterize. So "understanding" has never been the issue between us - we simply disagree.

And if you don't want to see the repetition then stop repeating the same stupidity that prompts for the same response.
 
Dublin ohio said:
So, what do you think would happen if an independent subcontractor on a project publicly "bad mouthed" the general contractor
Click to expand...

There's a difference in "bad mouthed" and simply stating what happened.
 
Why? For pandering to the social justice and political exposure?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top