Suspended: The AMC That Turned “Review” Into a Value Demand
The Virginia Coalition of Appraiser Professionals recently highlighted a case that should make every appraiser pause. Financial Asset Services (FAS) was hired to manage a reverse mortgage appraisal, a product where the pressure often runs in the opposite direction. Instead of pushing for a higher value, the lender benefits from a lower one. The case files make that dynamic unmistakable.
The assignment went to a certified residential appraiser who delivered a well supported value of $385,000. FAS requested multiple revisions, none of which changed the value. Then came the lender supplied comparable sale from June 2023, well outside the twelve month window stated in the engagement letter. The appraiser agreed to analyze it, and ultimately included it in a later revision, but still found no basis to alter the value.
That is when the communication shifted. On March 21, 2025, FAS relayed that FHA and the lender considered the appraisal “high risk for overvaluation” and wanted the appraiser to revisit his reconciliation. The message insisted that the dated comparable was the best indicator of value and encouraged him to reconsider his conclusion.
Five days later, FAS sent a detailed set of weighted average calculations that conveniently produced lower value indications. The email warned that if the appraiser did not respond by the end of the day, the matter would be forwarded to Risk Management and possibly to the state board. The message framed this as a fiduciary obligation, but the intent was clear enough.
The appraiser’s response was direct. He explained that his valuation was supported by all relevant data, that the suggested value was inappropriate, and that the pattern of questioning had become harassing. He stated that the attempts to influence his conclusions were unethical and possibly illegal. He also requested removal from the FAS panel.
The Board reviewed the full record, including the emails, the revision history, the weighted average calculations, and the threats of referral. They found that FAS attempted to influence the development, reporting, result, or review of the appraisal. The Board suspended the company’s license for six months and imposed eighteen months of probation. The same sanctions were issued to chief appraiser Brandon Sison. The order was entered on March 16, 2026.
VaCAP’s commentary captured the core issue. An appraisal management company exists to protect appraiser independence, not to erode it. The statutes in Virginia and across the country are designed to prevent exactly the type of conduct documented in this file. When an AMC pressures an appraiser toward a predetermined outcome, whether higher or lower, it undermines the entire system.
Virginia also requires licensees to report disciplinary actions from other states within thirty days. Many jurisdictions have similar rules. Given the seriousness of the violations and the clarity of the documentation, it would not be surprising if other regulators take notice.
For appraisers, the takeaway is simple. Independence is not theoretical. It is enforceable. When an AMC crosses the line, the proper response is to document it and report it. This case demonstrates that when the evidence is clear, the Board will act.
- Suspended: The AMC That Turned “Review” Into a Value Demand - March 19, 2026
- The Trainee Inside the Fast and Cheap Model - February 6, 2026
- The AMCs: Coming Soon to a Lawsuit Near You - January 20, 2026
Well done! Huge thank yous to the appraiser who stood their ground ethically, and to Virginia for taking this action. Hopefully ALL other states will take notice, and start handling these issues the way the laws, rules and regulations require. STOP AMC abuses!
Thanks for posting this!
Wow. The entire reason AMC’s became prevalent was to reduce pressures regarding value. It’s so far past time to rid AMC’s from the entire process! At least Virginia cares. I hope other states follow suit. Kudos to Virginia and the professional appraiser.
“The entire reason AMC’s became prevalent was to reduce pressures regarding value.”
Yeah, that’s what they said. Guess what? They lied. LMAO!
It is a shame that Virginia is the only state that ever seems to give a rat’s patootie about fraud and coercion that harms appraisers. They are generally the only state to take care of rotten business against appraisers, like this. Kudos to VaCap for setting a good example.
(Arnold’s voice;) They’ll be back. Next time they’ll have learned their lesson and will simply blacklist the appraiser like all the other amc’s, rather than go through all this. Just about the only thing that can stop this sort of the abuse of the process is forcing round robin distribution to all appraisers approved on panel. Faster you turn one in, faster you get back in line for the next assignment. Equitable distribution. Then they can’t pick and choose favorites, prefer and de prefer people in their system of preferential assignment games, grading becomes unnecessary for everything except full panel removal.
However, in such a system, they could not opportunistically fee rake the same way, or entice appraisers to compete against each other in a race to the bottom, promising elevated workload if the appraisers reduce their fee. aka; offering a thing of value to be the preferred selectee. When appraisers discount for amc volume, and cost savings are not returned to the borrowing consumer, that discount becomes a bribe. A violation of the uspap management rule as originally intended to mean. Something that is not possible to happen in rotational assignment with C&R fees. As DF Reg Z AIR was originally intended to be implemented, as was the HVCC policy which the IVPI institute was to be based on.
Amc appraisers love the current system because they can captures the lions share not based on merit, but rather based on appeasement and pandering. If they’d have to compete on merit the other fifty thousand appraisers that have long since boycotted the amc’s would flood back in and displace these weak valuation methods and automated outsource heavy strategies these people have been using. We are now witnessing the end stages of systemic valuation training deficiency which has been brought on by disproportionately applied assignment activity over the long term.
Regardless if they’re pushing high or low, the consumer ends up being the most harmed. Found an old silly meme on that one the other day. At the time when amc’s first disrupted the system in a way all had to deal with, appraisers were furious at the disproportionate preferential assignment the amc’s were using. Because previously the staple of nearly the entire industry was fairly distributed orders. It was value shopping which amc’s were supposed to prevent, to return the industry to fair and balanced assignment patterns, to protect all the individual 1009 appraisers small businesses whom relied on steady consistent working volume. Volume which was not overwhelming and was fairly balanced in terms of simple vs complex assignment, for the application of competent apprentice training. Amc’s ruined the entire industry by allowing cherry picking firms to get all the easy stuff for steep discounts, most other appraisers struggled to compete even if they were the better appraisers whom could handle complex work. Unnecessary middle managers are antithetical to both independence, as well as small business viability and growth. What amc’s have been most successful at is destroying small businesses and creating an industry wide racket to defraud consumers and appraisers alike.
I’m always here to find Baggins comments ! Outstanding as always
Any idea that removes competition will lead to a sorry state of affairs. Look no further than the VA appraisal system. By far the highest fees and lowest quality reports in the industry.
Am I the only appraiser that FIRED the VA as a client for exactly the reason you stated. Their quality of reports due to their reviewers was and continues to be disastrous.
And, that’s exactly why they were created. That is, whatever you see actually happening it why whatever it is was created. It wasn’t a mistake or an unintended consequence or whatever the excuse is. It was planned.
except it was an FHA appraisal with an FHA number assigned to it, so not, they could not go to another appraiser for a different valuation, they were stuck with the FHA appraiser’s valuation and report, so they doubled down and got caught
Hats off to Mr. Leonard. Sounds like a nightmare.
This reads as if the appraiser was honest and well intentioned. Simply did not understand the amc industry has long since intimidated who’s left into providing preferred outcomes, and most everybody has been playing along for at least the past decade. They’re all accustomed to the agreeable outcome, as it’s common knowledge appraisers whom don’t capitulate end up on the phone marketing again. I went through the entire TAVMA list of amc’s, they’re all the same except for a few select amc companies, whom are only able to push low volume for risk adverse lenders. The big lenders don’t care, they count the volume and a note buy back does not represent a fraction of the additional income they take in by having all their appraisers in their back pocket.
The last remaining strong hold for valuation independence for all these deals that everyone else relies on via MLS, especially the non gse appraisers, that lies with the few lenders whom still do not use amc’s. Many of them are actively switching over now in order to simply stay above water and compete with the volume players. It’s a miracle there is even any of them left at all. Most appraisers learn by the fourth or fifth amc blacklisting event how this works. Then they say if you can’t beat them, join them. Enter outsourced services, unlicensed inspection runners, report typing services, automatic process, all of that. ‘Appraisal modernization’.
On the bright side If I’m interpreting this correctly, this may be the first time ever an amc controlling appraiser has ever suffered even a minor penalty, for being part of the amc pressure game.
While Pat Turner may be taking what he perceives as a victory lap, the bigger picture of these kinds of practices is so prevalent within the lending / appraiser industry, it will unfortunately not make a significant difference to most AMC’s.
Mrs Potts
I wasn’t even in the room
You’ve been absent from ‘the room’ for a long time.
Look in the mirror lately? Mr. Turner has done more for appraisers than most. Do you even have a clue what he is actively doing now? No? Well, maybe do some research prior to spewing false information and proving you are ungrateful as well as ignorant (in the true sense of the word).
Appraisers face similar situations like this one all the time. Ethical appraisers walk away. However, there are plenty of appraisers will to do them because they have a family to support or they are just stupid. Glad I planned my exit strategy a decade ago because I knew it was not going to end well.
Glad to see it, but in the bigger picture, we now have one instance where an AMC was sanctioned. Anyone think this is the only instance where this has happened? Anyone think their Board would take the same stance, and actually punish an AMC. I expect mine would find a way to get paid for ignoring the infraction(s).
Joyce, correct. This is literally every day activity from nearly every amc in the country. The smarter amc’s write it off, order another appraisal, then simply silently downrank appraisers whom don’t give them results they want, put them in lower tiers or lower rating ‘performance’ categories. The automatic systems they use take care of the rest, the appraiser is no longer ‘preferred’ and gets no work. In the amc realm, you play ball or you ride the bench.
This is totally a way better and more honest system than using required rotational assignment and all appraisers on panel are guaranteed a fair share of work at a customary and reasonable fee for the locale. Way better.
Missing the IVPI proposal yet? (mirrored the va panel today.)
https://www.workingre.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IVPI-Proposalfinal.pdf
The process is the punishment. One does not need to provide all this proof work, except when the client wants something different, then threatens the appraiser with the extra working requirement if their lending needs are not met. All the while, not considering such a request was also not part of the scope of work and assignment agreement. To threaten to make the appraiser show their data driven reasoning to support a gla adjustment (assuming net/gross adjustments created a situation of comprehensive streamlined adjusted value indicators), well, this demonstrates an ignorance of sound valuation process and adjustment theory. All too common now that amc’s have caused systemic training deficiency through the better half of the industry for decades. As GSE policy has followed the incompetent methodology. No wonder they never did anything effective with the CU system to root out incompetent service, the majority of data input there is derived from off the wall random data extrapolation which has no bearing on local markets. Please allow me to help.
The real challenge of competent adjustment happens before you ever hit the grid, with honest straight forward MLS research to capture the relevant market segment. That’s really the only challenging part and is the most time consuming as well. To automate this development is where everything else goes downhill from there.
The grid is the paired sales analysis itself. If you’ve selected good comparables which sold under similar market conditions and are closely aligned with the subject homes size, age, type, and condition, then there is less to adjust for. One analyzes the high of the market segment, and the low, and at most that margin of price and value difference between high and low is the maximum possible adjustment, distributed proportional allotment of adjustments down the line in the functional one page 1004 or gp form appraisal grid. (which is why splitting up the grid into multiple sections on the 3.6 form is such an incompetent development approach, so is decoupling net/gross together as I’ll describe below.)
If your market segment has a maximum $100k variance from peak sale to bottom dollar sale (excluding skewed indicators), then your maximum distributed allotment of adjustable amount is $100k, which is only applied if you’re comparing absolutely best to absolutely worst. When you’re in the middle of the segment and compare to the peak, that maximum adjust is $50k or less. When you’re even closer aligned, you deal with much smaller margins, generally 5-25% or so of a maximum applied adjustment from that clearly indicated margin. The MLS research tells you the market response total adjustable amount from any given market segment. This is where the theory of maximum 15% net & maximum 25% gross allowable adjustment strategy originates from. Although that standard is retired, the mechanism for logical rational adjustments is still relevant and considered a better practice than data driven extrapolation from dis similar market segments using mass data and advanced software to supposedly increase efficiency.
So if you’ve cut a reasonable amount of line item adjustments for specifics like land, deck, pool, condition, room count, ac vs no ac, things that are easy to adjust for. Then you can discover a reasonable market reaction for applied gla adjusts by reviewing net/gross indicators and examining if your adjustments brought about a reasonably streamlined adjusted value indicator for all comps across the board. Why you never skip land adjustments or you’re not getting a pure extrapolation from your own grid. By cutting gla adjusts last you’ve just used the process of logical adjustments for real world costs of many line items, to give yourself a pure paired sale, and you have six of them in the grid if you’ve used six comps. Otherwise one is throwing darts extrapolating subjective data from entirely too large of data sets, then deals with mis aligned adjusted value indicators and the subsequent need to ‘weight comps’. Weighting comps should be a really rare event. If you’re actually picking close to home and using a sensible distributed allotment adjust strategy from the available margin at hand as indicated by your filtered down narrowed down MLS research (market segment), you don’t need weighting and can call the final value opinion as a straight average of all the adjusted value indicators for all the comps selected.
You know, if we were still doing substantial volumes of appraisal review from actual appraisers, not the faux administrative review process, far more appraisers would have been instructed on these methods from the now mostly absent senior appraisers. I do believe I drew up meme on how destructive the efficiency based programs would be, on a previous occasion.
Well said, and the MEME’s are fantastic 🙂
Thank you. Catch several of us routine blog posters on Reddit r/appraisal lately as well. The pro amc people there are not very happy about continued disclosure. Admin of this site is quite busy lately. The action never stops though, get a free reddit account.
https://www.reddit.com/r/appraisal/new/
It appears we knew each other in a prior life–IVPI would have been a better alternative. The appraisal profession / trade is now in a sustained, drawn out memorial service.
Rocket Close is next. Their chief appraisal Maryann Houmani has been doing this for years. She will threaten to withhold payment over the phone, and report you to the state board if you do not change your value. I’m not quite sure how they have gotten away with it for so long. AMCs are like the fox guarding the hen house! Their job is supposedly to prevent people from influencing appraisers!
Make it so number one.
https://omgundercover.com/
Everyone whom has actually worked for amc’s knows the truth. Happens literally every day of the week.
And every hour of the day.
The best solution is to remove AMCs from the problem – it would correct so many injuries to appraisers, and give our profession the respect it deserves. Great comments as always, Baggins. The gravestone is so appropriate!!
Thank you as well. So many years pushing this issue, I hope others have become as well informed about the details. When I started posting routinely, trying to figure out what’s going on, so many good people here have been the reason I was able to become better educated and subsequently put forth a better argument. Thank you everyone again.
Glad to see the action of the Virginia Board and very sincerely hope that other boards take note. I am now retired after 55 years in the business. And all those years I fought the same actions of AMCs, lenders, loan officers, real estate agents, home owners. Many times without this type of support some fightin more clients than accepting new cliets. But I survived with a clear conscience.
So surprising that an AMC would pressure an appraiser. Not.
Me: You’re pressuring me to come up with a higher value based on an appraisal done a year ago by a different appraiser.
AMC: No, we’re not pressuring you, but don’t you think, blah, blah, blah …
Me: No, what some appraiser appraised it for a year ago is utterly irrelevant currently.
AMC: Well, don’t you think, blah, blah, blah …
And so it goes …
All I can say is that it’s not “appraising” any longer. It’s just political nonsense.
Meanwhile we celebrate such microscopic victories while AMCs continue to pick millions, if not billions, from our pockets year after year.
Got a new “score card” thingy from Valuelink today. Treating us like grade schoolers is another thing I really enjoy about doing appraisals for AMC’s. I think the last time I cared about report cards was some time in the Spring of 1968. Well, maybe I cared a little bit while in college.