When Customary Fees Become Unreasonable

[Eli]

Get ready for more lies, like AMC's are holding down costs to the public. I love that one. Prove it.

If they tried to prove that say through better disclosure of fees, it would prove the exact opposite when comparing AMC vs non AMC, imnsho.

In fact, it would prove worse than that in regards to other consumer protection issues like the FTC or other govt agencies deal with.

And that holding down costs to the public has more to do than with appraisal fees. Ask the government how much more it has to do with relative to appraisal quality. Or ask a low income little old lady who needs a competent appraiser when she is buying a house for her and her grandchildren and she has never missed a bank payment in her life. I know the answer. She needs to go get her own appraiser. Well is that really the all inclusive answer? She is a taxpayer and paying interests to the bank and part of the public, and paying for the appraisal.

 

[Fritz in NY]

I base my fee on; proximity, complexity, turn time, and weather I LIKE working with the requestor or not. A simple fee won't work,
a simple BASE fee is workable. I can't stay in Biz doing $ 275. jobs. VA rate here is $ 425, that is C&R.
Now we add, additional Pendings/listings as part of the SOW, or 2-3X stips, one reviewer, 2nd reviewer, 3rd reviewer, over 2 weeks
after delivery when you can't remember the file. Unions, no, G'ment Reg No, we are in for a not so nice future. I'm lucky that most
of you will die or retire.......I'm 57. Just kidding.

 

[Eli]

Ya know I loves ya BUT!

I have to call BS here.

Fees to borrowers are lower when AMCs accept less. Enter our buddy baby Brian.
AND,
Banks can take a toke for themselves. Really,

Title 12: Banks and Banking
PART 226—TRUTH IN LENDING (REGULATION Z)
Subpart A—General

§226.4 Finance charge.
(a) Definition. The finance charge is the cost of consumer credit as a dollar amount. It includes any charge payable directly or indirectly by the consumer and imposed directly or indirectly by the creditor as an incident to or a condition of the extension of credit. It does not include any charge of a type payable in a comparable cash transaction.

(1) Charges by third parties. The finance charge includes fees and amounts charged by someone other than the creditor, unless otherwise excluded under this section, if the creditor:

(i) Requires the use of a third party as a condition of or an incident to the extension of credit, even if the consumer can choose the third party; or

(ii) Retains a portion of the third-party charge, to the extent of the portion retained.

(2) Special rule; closing agent charges. Fees charged by a third party that conducts the loan closing (such as a settlement agent, attorney, or escrow or title company) are finance charges only if the creditor—

(i) Requires the particular services for which the consumer is charged;

(ii) Requires the imposition of the charge; or

(iii) Retains a portion of the third-party charge, to the extent of the portion retained.

(b) Examples of finance charges. The finance charge includes the following types of charges, except for charges specifically excluded by paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section:

(1) Interest, time price differential, and any amount payable under an add-on or discount system of additional charges.

(2) Service, transaction, activity, and carrying charges, including any charge imposed on a checking or other transaction account to the extent that the charge exceeds the charge for a similar account without a credit feature.

(3) Points, loan fees, assumption fees, finder's fees, and similar charges.

(4) Appraisal, investigation, and credit report fees.

(c) Charges excluded from the finance charge. The following charges are not finance charges:

(iv) Property appraisal fees or fees for inspections to assess the value or condition of the property if the service is performed prior to closing, including fees related to pest-infestation or flood-hazard determinations.

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...ede5e2c46&mc=true&node=se12.3.226_14&rgn=div8



RIGHT!
IT'S CLASS ACTION TIME!


.

Are these actually laws and regulations already on the books? Wow, I guess some law enforcers and industry leaders are finally finding out they are not just suggestions.

 

[Eli]

All of this could have been solved by splitting the "Appraisal Fee" line on the HUD-1 form into AMC and what was actually paid to the appraiser. Then there are the ****ers who charge an upload fee to YOUR credit card.

Some of the best and most respected appraisers I know believe this. If it were not for the oligopsony market structure, I would agree, but it sure can't hurt things and I could be wrong in thinking how much it would help.

Forget all that. It is the right thing to do from a proper disclosure standpoint to the consumer. Separation of fees would be transparent and RIGHT.

 

[Eli]

For the same reasons they did not go after them in
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015?

Because they know which side of their bread is buttered, and the retirement plan that keeps on giving is the revolving door to the other side of the table, with, I might add, taking with them a nice government pension and benefits to boot.

.

No more regs for a little while, lol,

But how would what is considered a finance charge be impacted IF fees were separated?

And if separating fees had an impact on what is considered a finance charge, would it have enough impact on the APR to make a difference in competition between AMC vs non AMC lenders?

 

[hastalavista]

Some of the best and most respected appraisers I know believe this. If it were not for the oligopsony market structure, I would agree, but it sure can't hurt things and I could be wrong in thinking how much it would help.

Forget all that. It is the right thing to do from a proper disclosure standpoint to the consumer. Separation of fees would be transparent and RIGHT.

I think full disclosure and a breakout of fees would be fine.
But what exactly does it accomplish (I'm not being sarcastic)?

What is the outcome (other than transparency and disclosure which is a good thing) that will be achieved?

 

[Eli]

Separation of fees would help prevent fee gouging, but only from a regulator standpoint most likely.

The AMC , due to market power from an oligopsony, is already fee gouging both the appraiser and the borrower, but the regulators are the only ones who can stop it.

Monopsonies and oligopsonies, just like monopolies and oligopolies have market power which results in power moves against the public's best interest in many if not most cases. Just go to china, Russia, or n Korea if you don't believe me.

 

[Michigan CG]

I think full disclosure and a breakout of fees would be fine.
But what exactly does it accomplish (I'm not being sarcastic)?..................

It accomplishes nothing as the general public really has no idea what we do or the AMC does. For all they know the work of the AMC is a lot more than what we do.

 

[Eli]

I think full disclosure and a breakout of fees would be fine.
But what exactly does it accomplish (I'm not being sarcastic)?

What is the outcome (other than transparency and disclosure which is a good thing) that will be achieved?

Non separation is against both a free market and truth in lending.

And transparency,

And in some very real ways, employee/independent contactor classifications in my mind.

 

[Eli]

To me, non transparency to the borrower is the worst infraction to me. However, these employee/IC issues are heating up.

Don't call an appraisal fee an appraisal fee if it is not an appraisal fee. That's not right to the borrower. Call it an AMC fee. AMC's have licenses too.