Intimidation....I Will Not Be Silenced

[Zoe]

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.

I am not arguing that. It changed the market structure when they allowed commingling of fees. I majored in marketing and probably could have had double major in economics. It put appraisers in a totally different market structure. It shifted the market from more of a free or pure market structure to an oligopsony market structure due to how much of the market many of the big online single family residential control and many of them use AMCs.

An oligopsony market structure allows the big lenders to have control on price which is a violation of the Sherman Anti trust act.

Some of them also have part ownership in the AMC and get kickbacks from the AMC.

 

[Zoe]

The way to beat them is use the borrower as the victim. The very reason the law was changed at last minute is because it would be too confusing to the borrower. The borrower is also key to getting fees separated on truth in lending disclosures. If borrower confusion is why fees got commingled, borrower needs to be the reason fees get separated on truth in lending disclosures.

It would create more of a free market structure. It would pit AMC against AMC on fee.

 

[Artemis Fowl]

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.

Did you not anticipate that when you wrote the book and made all those posts? That "message" should've been self-evident before you made the choices you did. It's like you only now realize that path may cost you some business. There's a few purple-haired former teachers, Office Depot and (most recently) Bethseda employees who'd like to invite you to their support group.

That said...
I got your book and support your efforts. You aren't wrong about your characterization of the AMC business. They are all the reasons I got out as soon as I had the opportunity.

 

[Zoe]

Did you not anticipate that when you wrote the book and made all those posts? That "message" should've been self-evident before you made the choices you did. It's like you only now realize that path may cost you some business. There's a few purple-haired former teachers, Office Depot and (most recently) Bethseda employees who'd like to invite you to their support group.

That said...
I got your book and support your efforts. You aren't wrong about your characterization of the AMC business. They are all the reasons I got out as soon as I had the opportunity.

I guess it tells you one AMC cares about another one and trying to survive together. If fees were separated on Truth in lending disclosures, they would compete against each other.

 

[bluechip]

https://appraisersblogs.com/when-solidifi-tried-to-silence-samnick/

 

[Zoe]

https://appraisersblogs.com/when-solidifi-tried-to-silence-samnick/

That is where some of these lawsuits going on are based. The borrower is way to get fees separated on truth in lending disclosures.

 

[J Grant]

https://appraisersblogs.com/the-appraisal-fee-lawsuit-AMCs-cannot-outrun/

 

[djd09]

AMCs and appraisers aren’t supposed to be competing for ****.

we’re partners. Remember?

Funny how things change when regulation and enforcement goes away.

they are now proud paying partners of taf...lucky us

 

[djd09]

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.

you do know these are federally related transaction backed by the taxpayer...so they are governmental

 

[George Hatch]

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

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.