When Solidifi Tried to Silence Samnick
David Samnick has spent years warning that the AMC model would eventually expose its own contradictions. He is a Georgia appraiser, a long time critic of AMC practices, and the author of Mein Comp: The Last Appraiser, a book that traces how independence in the profession was eroded year after year by expanding corporate control. Samnick walked away from mortgage work two years ago, stopped accepting AMC assignments entirely, and now works only for private clients. He has never completed an assignment for Clear Capital. Yet despite having no active relationship with Solidifi and no reliance on their panel, he still received a compliance letter demanding that he explain why he criticized Clear Capital on social media. The moment you read it, you realize it belongs in a category all its own.
Solidifi informed him that he was being placed on hold and insisted he had violated confidentiality by referencing an appraisal order in his post. They warned that he could be removed from their panel if his explanation did not satisfy their compliance committee or if he failed to respond within thirty days. This came from an AMC he has not worked with in roughly two years. It reads less like a professional inquiry and more like an attempt to muzzle an appraiser who dared to speak plainly about the way AMCs treat independent professionals. Solidifi objected to his criticism of Clear Capital while simultaneously proving the very point he was making about AMC overreach, creating a situation so contradictory that it practically explains itself.
The economics behind the AMC model make the situation even more absurd. Consumers often believe they are paying for the appraisal itself, but a significant portion of that fee never reaches the appraiser. The AMC fee exists solely to serve the lender’s administrative needs. It is a cost of doing business for the lender, not part of the appraisal itself, and it should never be carved out of the consumer’s payment for valuation work. Yet in one case the consumer paid $695, the appraiser received $301, and Solidifi kept $394 for its management fee. The consumer believed they were paying for an appraisal. Instead, they unknowingly funded a middleman who took more than the licensed professional performing the valuation.
The Appraisal Regulation Compliance Council (ARCC) has documented cases where Clear Capital kept 69% of the total fee and Solidifi kept 60%. These findings were not speculation. They were documented violations showing how deeply the fee siphoning problem runs and how little of the consumer’s payment actually reaches the person responsible for the accuracy of the report. The appraiser carries the license, the liability, the insurance, the continuing education, and the responsibility for the valuation. The AMC carries the administrative paperwork. Yet the AMC often earns more from the appraisal than the person who actually performs it.
Against that backdrop, Solidifi’s letter becomes not just a misstep but a symbol of how far the AMC model has drifted from its intended purpose. When an AMC attempts to discipline an appraiser who has not completed an assignment for them in years, it reveals a desire for control that has nothing to do with compliance and everything to do with protecting its own image. It shows that the AMC structure has become so accustomed to monitoring appraisers that it no longer recognizes where its authority ends. They are not the appraiser’s employer. They are not the consumer’s advocate. They are a vendor hired by the lender, yet they behave as though they have jurisdiction over the speech of independent professionals.
Samnick responded by reminding appraisers that independence is not something granted by an AMC. It is inherent in the profession. He pointed out that he does not need an AMC committee to validate his work or his voice, and he made it clear that he will not ask permission to speak about the state of an industry he spent decades contributing to. His stance highlights a truth that many appraisers know but often hesitate to say. Independence does not disappear simply because an AMC finds it inconvenient.
Solidifi’s attempt to silence someone who has already walked away from the AMC world does not simply reveal fragility. It reveals corruption. It reveals a willingness to muzzle an appraiser who has not completed an assignment for them in years yet remains sitting on their panel like an unused name in a filing cabinet. And given the nature of the letter, the accusations it contains, and the fact that it was sent to an appraiser who has not worked for them in years, one can only hope Samnick files a complaint with the Georgia board and discovers whether he has grounds for a lawsuit.
- When Solidifi Tried to Silence Samnick - August 11, 2026
- Honoring Jan Bellas, Our Greatest Advocate - July 13, 2026
- Systemic Failures in FHA Appraisal and Loan Review - May 18, 2026
So many stories, still no change….
https://appraisersblogs.com/systemic-failures-in-fha-appraisal-n-loan-review/
Good luck, David! It is absolutely pathetic that an AMC you haven’t worked with in years is trying to police your private social media accounts, completely proving your exact point regarding corporate overreach. Thank you for standing your ground, but let’s face the ugly reality: most of these state boards are completely toothless, corrupt, and bought out by AMC money. Now let’s see if The Appraisal Foundation actually demonstrates an ounce of backbone and strips Solidifi from their “partners” list. If they fail to dump them immediately after this blatant attack on an independent appraiser’s professional independence, then whatever microscopic shred of credibility the Foundation has left is officially dead and buried. You cannot pretend to safeguard valuation integrity while coddling the very corporate cartels destroying it—stay strong!
I’ve attempted a couple of times to comment and it is immediately deleted. What’s up with that?
Could anyone make this absurdity up??
The experience of Georgia appraiser David Samnick demonstrates how far the AMC model has drifted from its original purpose as a neutral clearinghouse for appraiser selection. Samnick, a long‑time critic of AMC practices and author of Mein Comp: The Last Appraiser, left mortgage lending two years ago and no longer accepts AMC assignments. He has never completed an order for Clear Capital and has no active relationship with Solidifi. Despite this, Solidifi issued a compliance letter placing him “on hold” and demanding an explanation for comments he made on social media criticizing Clear Capital’s treatment of independent appraisers.
Solidifi alleged that Samnick violated confidentiality by referencing an appraisal order, even though he has not worked for them in years. They warned that he could be removed from their panel if his explanation did not satisfy their compliance committee. The letter reads less like a professional inquiry and more like an attempt to silence a critic. Solidifi objected to his criticism of Clear Capital while simultaneously proving the very point he was making: AMCs have expanded their authority far beyond their intended role and now behave as though they have jurisdiction over the speech of independent professionals.
The economic structure behind the AMC model makes this dynamic even more concerning. Borrowers often believe they are paying for the appraisal itself, yet a significant portion of that fee is retained by the AMC. In one documented case, a consumer paid $695, the appraiser received $301, and Solidifi kept $394 as its management fee. The Appraisal Regulation Compliance Council (ARCC) has reported cases where Clear Capital retained 69% of the total fee and Solidifi retained 60%. These findings show that AMCs frequently earn more from an appraisal than the licensed professional who performs the valuation, despite carrying none of the liability, licensing requirements, or professional risk.
Against this backdrop, Solidifi’s letter becomes a symbol of systemic overreach. An AMC attempted to discipline an appraiser who had not worked for them in years, revealing a level of control that has no basis in statute or regulation. AMCs are vendors hired by lenders, not employers, regulators, or compliance authorities. Yet the letter demonstrates that some AMCs now monitor appraisers’ public speech and attempt to enforce compliance standards on individuals who are not under contract and not performing work for them.
Samnick responded by reminding appraisers that independence is inherent to the profession and does not depend on AMC approval. His case highlights a structural problem: the AMC model has evolved into an unregulated authority structure capable of exerting pressure, monitoring speech, and retaining the majority of consumer‑paid fees while treating independent professionals as subordinate labor. This incident underscores the need for legislative review of AMC practices, including fee transparency, limits on AMC authority, and protections for independent contractor status.
Anna
Thanks for your insight!!
Spot on!
Pat
Hacking email accounts, scolding appraisers, over charging borrowers, finding the cheapest appraiser, creating staff appraisers to compete with independent appraisers, charging tech and upload fees to appraisers, not paying appraisers…. The whole purpose of an AMC was manage the order and select an appraiser, yet they have morphed into everything and anything but what they were supposed to do.
AMCS are not Appraisal Management Companies managing the process they are APPRAISER management companies managing appraisers.
Tech fees should be illegal, what an insane practice. AMCs are scammers as are lenders that pass down so called “tech fees” (which would not be tolerated by any other industry).
Anyone who has been around this business knows AMCs stick together. The moment one decides an appraiser is a problem, the others suddenly stop sending work too, like there is some quiet little network passing names around. Nobody ever admits it, but every appraiser has seen it happen. So watching Solidifi jump in to scold someone for saying something about Clear Capital is not surprising at all. They act like they are defending professionalism, but everyone in the field knows they are really protecting their own circle. It’s wild that an AMC you have not worked with in years thinks it has any place telling you what you can say about another AMC. They talk nonstop about independence, yet they behave like they are running a private club where appraisers are supposed to stay in line and keep their opinions to themselves. It is the same tired routine where they pretend to manage the process while spending most of their time managing appraisers. The hypocrisy is unbelievable, and the fact that they all seem to move in lockstep makes you wonder how any of this is allowed.
If this is true, we need to find some honest and ethical insiders (those will be folks without MBA’s, btw) to spill the beans (with evidence). That would be a huge step in the right direction.
‘some quiet little network passing names around’
REVVA’s influence has spread to the appraisal trade groups. They’re in charge of almost everything now.
https://revaa.org/membership/#members
Let’s play the associations game and examine the degree of separation. This is so easy I did not even need to open up paint and accomplished this task with the standard image snipping tool. Image.
___________________________________
Solidifi was known for contacting disgruntled appraisers whom posted on online networks and social media as early as 2010. They’ve been keeping track of appraisers commentary this entire time. Anyone whom goes public whistleblower against these companies gets buried.
Check out the amazing philanthropic and charity work Solidifi engages in. Looks like really excellent benefits!
https://www.solidifi.com/solidifi-in-the-community/
They’re really big on pride! Appraisers should learn to qualify the companies they work with better and ask themselves if their values are even remotely aligned with the values of the companies they provide service to. When you work with thieves and moral degenerates don’t be surprised if you get burned.
The notion of “compliance” coming from the individuals that employ them and complete “reviews’ of appraiser’s work, on-line chatter, forcing appraiser’s to include information that: a. was not necessary, or b. to lower their risk assessment score, but do not aid in the understanding or completeness of an appraisal report is a violation of appraiser independence. I take this from my own Solidifi love letter. The continually attempted to lower my fee and had clients that included never ending scope creep. While I would like to take their money at my fee, I do not miss them. Sure the think they are in control, but when they cut people out because they want the entire industry to flush the old guard and in with the new that do not have experience; they can force lower fees and higher scope creep. Refuse to work for crap fees and turd clients, of which, includes Solidifi. Refuse to play their games. And if they take the ball and go home because they don’t like the words you use, or the simple fact you stuck up for yourself and/or the appraiser’s as a whole on social media without degrading individual personal, they can go pound salt.
Spencer you’re spot on with all of this. The whole compliance routine they push is nothing but a way to control appraisers & dress it up like they’re protecting someone. Forcing extra commentary, pointless add‑ons, & forcing anything that keeps their scorecard happy but does nothing for the actual report is exactly the kind of garbage that keeps breaking appraiser independence. I haven’t done the AMC gig myself, but I’ve watched enough of their behavior from the outside to see the same pattern over & over. They squeeze fees, pile on scope creep, then act shocked when appraisers finally walk away. They want the old guard gone so they can bring in people who won’t push back & will accept whatever fee they throw out. Refusing the crap fees & the turd clients is the only thing that actually shifts the power back where it belongs.
The amc hassles are purposefully applied, sort of a sifting through the masses, qualification identification efforts. Most amc’s only want compliant appraisers who play ball and are not all that well informed on ethical principal or actual legal matters.
Let’s check out Trust Pilot for this company. That’s always fun. It’s where the people whom get really screwed over by companies go to complain.
https://www.trustpilot.com/review/solidifi.com
Never ending spam solicitations, no opt outs, adjusting charges higher on the fly, double charging. Borrowing consumers talking a lot of trash about their appraisers and process. Why does this company need five different BBB profiles?
Here is a good one, even an appraiser chimed in. / As a former appraiser, I can tell you that they are all about the dollar at Solidifi. THEIR dollar. The pressured me to overlook problems, asked me to fill out forms that weren’t appropriate, argued with me constantly, told me to be available holidays, weekends, etc. WORST AMC OUT THERE. AVOID AT ALL OPPORTUNITY
Solidifi
37 reviews – 1.6 (Bad) Star Rating with over 95% ratings of one star. Kind of explains it all
Thank you. Not necessarily a fair sampling but is indicative of some issues.
Trust Pilot is often where people turn when their reviews are censored elsewhere. That’s how it works with review sites like yelp and others. The big companies buy into additional profile capability, make donations, make calls, fill out objection forms and entire segments and age ranges of reviews disappear.
Lets check in on yelp for good measure.
Could not find an amc specific for solidifi, odd. The name shows up in a hundred other different company yelp reviews as associated but not directly. That’s what I’m talking about with burying the record.
How about reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/appraisal/comments/1hczisz/solidifi_good_or_bad/
Oh, if you ask for a higher fee you get a lower profile score. Awesome. Penalize appraisers whom try and hold the amc to DF Reg Z C&R billing regulations. Appraiser independence at it’s finest. The pressure is built into the software platform itself.
Spot on Desiree! A lot of folks have no idea how much of this stuff would stay buried if it wasn’t being dragged into the light here. I’ve watched you call out borrower issues, AMC nonsense, and the mess they’ve tried to pin on appraisers like Mark, David, Shane, Ken, and now Steve with that ridiculous bias claim that finally collapsed. And honestly, Mark and David deserve a shout because those two Georgia boys seem to have more backbone than half the industry. Maybe there’s something in the southern water because they sure aren’t afraid to call out AMC corruption and fight back when most people stay quiet.
Most older appraisers are not on social media, so without this blog they would never see any of it. This place has become the one spot where the truth actually gets aired out, and it’s out there for the public and legislators to see the circus the GSEs and AMCs have created. They keep pretending they’re protecting consumers while doing the exact opposite, and if it wasn’t for you putting all of this out there, nobody would know what’s really going on behind the curtain.
Coach, seriously, thank you. I just throw the info out there, but it’s people like you who keep it alive & make sure it doesn’t get buried. And you’re right about those Georgia boys. I know both Mark & David, and I can absolutely vouch for the fact that they’ve got more backbone than most in this industry. Whatever they’re drinking down there must build courage because those two don’t hesitate to call out AMC nonsense when everyone else stays quiet. I really appreciate you following all this over the years.
Peter Christianen, the AMC ambulance-chasing attorney, is attempting to salvage Solidfi from this predicament on Appraisers Forum. The money these individuals are amassing is too substantial for them to relinquish without a fight.
I saw Peter’s comment on the forum where he dropped the Georgia statute, and while I get what he’s trying to argue, I don’t agree with the way he’s framing it. Listing the law doesn’t change the motive behind Solidifi’s timing. Georgia’s AMC rules require notice & an explanation, sure, but that doesn’t give an AMC a free pass to use “compliance” as cover when the real issue is retaliation over a public post.
There are a few angles here that don’t line up with his narrative. Appraiser independence rules don’t allow punitive action tied to an appraiser’s opinions. Bad‑faith use of the statute can still be challenged. And with Solidifi already wrapped up in that federal discrimination case, they’re hypersensitive to anything that touches their panel management, which actually makes their reaction look even more like PR damage control than routine compliance.
So yeah, I read what he wrote, but I’m not buying the spin.
Peter has also aligned himself with other companies and is very Good friends with those that run the expo and trade shows and those that are higher ups in AMCS. While I like Peter and respect him, he needs to choose a lane and stick with it. He seems to go where he is needed.
Never ending conflicts of interests. Under shared umbrella policies none the less. OREP and all the others should divest and choose only one party they will provide insurances for, the appraisers, or the amc’s. Providing coverage for both is clearly a conflict of interest issue.
But it’s nice to know a portion of our professional insurance fees goes to sustain the lawyers defending the amc companies whom actively drive independent appraisal businesses under. Imagine having EO insurance and filing a claim for a false complaint, for an amc company insured by the same insurer. You think there might be some imbalance there in the way they choose to represent a billion dollar CORPORATION vs a sole proprietor? With the same star lawyer…. These people actively destroy their own credibility.
What’s this AF reference all about?
Please note to all appraisers: Kindly refrain from posting solely here. To maximize your reach, please share your comments on LinkedIn, Facebook, and other platforms that target a broader audience. Commenting in the echo chamber does nothing to expose the threat. If you continue to do business with any AMC that is a member of REVAA then you get exactly what you deserve!
I’ve done that for years and will continue to take these posts and stories and let them all see it !
Sure that can be important and may be a worthy effort. But the way the site admin allows bot crawlers and such, this website gets top hits with associated name searching. First page results is a pretty big deal too. What’s different is that we’re not participating within the big tech ecosphere with all their rules and controls. I tried to share so much of this on reddit, they nuked my entire account and deleted everything I’d ever posted over years worth of time. That’s big tech for you. This place is not an echo chamber per se. Sure there is a lot of lurkers and such. Comments here have substantially more searchability and indexed reference relation than if you post on linked in. Give and take, the complicated nature of the internet these days.
You know what happened on the Appraisers Forum right? These companies getting all the exposure from the good bad ugly forum threatened to sue that sites owner and the increased traffic drove his monthly connection costs up to the point of non sustainability, so he put all the GBU negative client exposure behind the login wall so that general internet researchers and quite a few bot content crawlers could no longer access the site. And just like that, when one searched specific amc or lenders, there was no longer first page hits of appraisers complaining and bringing the receipts on the AF. Linked in, facebook, they’re all similarly susceptible to the lender pressure, all it takes is a phone call. Meanwhile this site is by appraisers for appraisers and does not respond to pressure campaigns. The site is not monetized for someone elses benefit. If anyone wants to support the site, click on the appraisers directory up top and buy a little elevated listing deal. Thanks.
Sorry to bring this up, kids, but what we’re currently seeing IS the original purpose of AMC’s … to destroy individual appraisers and the appraisal industry. How obvious does it need to be? Show me even one appraiser who needs “managing”. Give me a break. The whole AMC game is nothing but a scam and a mafia-like shakedown of tens of thousands of guys and gals who work their a**es off daily to provide professional service, but also made enough money at one time to trigger the intense greed of outliers who couldn’t stand us making any money at all without stealing a large portion of it from us.
Back to the very beginning. The amc industry is doing a great job at protecting predatory lending, and making sure real independent appraisers are driven out or do not have a voice. Separation from loan production rule is a failure.
What would be so hard about doling out appraisal requests in a standard rotational manner so all panel appraisers got a fair share, and a customary and reasonable compensation rate? Why don’t they do that?
And if people argue against such simple principals of fairness and transparency, they’re part of the corruption. Makes you kind of wonder why FNMA gave CU direct proprietary access to the big amc’s….
That’s insane! They just proved his point. I can’t believe no one told Solidifi what a horrible move it would be to send such a letter. Of course it’ll be made public. He no longer works with them so they hold no sway over him.
I’ve filed complaints against Solidifi, Clear Capital, PCV Murcor, JVI, TSI/QL/Rocket, Nationwide, and others—they’re nothing but money machines with no business controlling the appraisal profession. Solidifi is by far the worst AMC; they toy with you and rotate regional managers like pit bosses at a casino to ensure the Irish mafia running the company through a Canadian outlet, with Buffalo and Toronto as hubs, gets their cut. Hopefully, more exposure, complaints, and federal filings will cause these criminals to collapse, while lenders could easily use a simple rotation platform or portal like the VAs to put an end to these clowns.
Johnny
What happened in those cases?
I told you it was only a matter of time before more people dealing with these companies naked corruption would come forward with their stories.
Johnny Appraiser, write a real article on the matter, publish it here anonymously. Inquiring minds want to know. Thanks.
Many Appraisal Mismanagement Companies are evil, corrupt, money-grubbing thieves!
I remember a day when appraisers received assignments directly from lenders for the most part. Ya, there were a handful of AMCs back then, but they weren’t as bad back then.
According to the Appraisal Regulation Compliance Council (ARCC), today’s corrupt AMCs have bilked over $12 Billion from hard working borrowers. Borrowers that THOUGHT that $12 Billion was going to appraisers!
The cheapest and less experienced model has to go! There was a day when the appraiser had to have at least 5 years’ experience to even be picked up by a bank or lender. Now there are AMCs with new appraisers fresh from the farm working for them. They are accustomed to taking $300 to $350 for an assignment, producing a pile of manure for a report, and moving on to the next regurgitation. And… the AMCs, responsible to ensure the report is legit, pass these substandard reports to the lender anyway! And why wouldn’t they. It’s the substandard appraisal gravy train that keep their pockets lined to the tune of $12 Billion and growing!
Someone needs to step in and do something! Hopefully some of these class action lawsuits will finally raise an eyebrow.
Clear Capital threatened me like this years ago! We should get a class action suit for how they troll appraisers
Amc’s are intended to facilitate compliance with the separation from mortgage loan production rule. So lenders could no longer pressure appraisers for value results, or be able to continue the practice of blacklisting appraisers whom did not rubber stamp yes on everything and play ball.
Amc’s instead took on the role of being a part of mortgage loan production themselves. Amc’s have become loan production, they openly advocate for lenders interests and goals. They routinely blacklist and remove appraisers from active rotation for a variety of reasons, most certainly if appraisers upset anyone at all, the realty agent, the mortgage lender, a borrower, a seller, stalls out a deal in progress, identifies predatory pricing or asks people to renegotiate the price or pay cash differences. If the appraiser inconveniences people, especially those within the amc world who’s very job depends on satisfying and appeasing the desires of their lender clients demands, the ability to remove that appraiser from service is now a part of the automation, built into their assignment platforms. They set up meaningless performance grading metrics as a cover for blatant discrimination and routine blacklisting. Amc’s, the long arm of predatory lending.
Some quick stats; fifty thousand out of the previously one hundred and twenty thousand appraisers left this industry due to corrupt amc practices. Of the seventy thousand appraisers whom are left, the proportional share of certified generals has grown, meaning add another five to ten thousand or more to the number of appraisers the amc industry has driven out (as amc’s typically have no influence in commercial work which is why CG licensees continue to expand, while residential licenses continue to retract.) Of the remaining body of licensed appraisers whom focus on residential work, roughly three quarters of these appraisers have left mortgage lending and are no longer in service to consumer protection principals or participating in safeguarding GSE lending systems and the hundreds of millions of citizens whom rely on federally regulated mortgage access.
Because of the lack of service availability of appraisers, and the near impossible task of attracting new people to this god forsaken unforgivably corrupt industry where conflicts of interest are more common than not, the next big move to exploit consumers has arrived. Appraisal modernization. Automation of valuation results without using full service human appraisers. The data cancer is evident everywhere now. Bifurcated markets are the new normal. Events and market trends that were previously in isolation from each other, now happen simultaneously. We look at the MLS data, see excessive days on market, weak buyer acceptance, severely imbalanced supply vs demand, clearly declining and crashing price and value benchmarks. Yet there is always still a presence of highest and best sales that sailed through they system in a logical contradiction. Anyone with good credit no longer gets the benefit of full service appraisal and instead goes through the value acceptance, waiver, hybrid, and pdc programs, they get approved every time at peak price and peak value. Despite the fact there were lines of sellers desperately price slashing and negotiating at the time.
The automation imposed by amc’s and lenders whom support them, often coming from the very top of the GSE ladder has rendered the traditional Blacks law of fair market value to be nullified and meaningless. Any citizen going through the value acceptance, avm automation or watered down hybrid valuation programs is at extreme financial risk without adequate checks and balances or consumer safeguards. Not to mention the wholesale exploitation of overly granular data harvesting and monetized resale by the myriad of third fourth and fifth party companies all taking part and earning a kings share in the exploitative process of ‘modernized appraisals and automated appraisal’ activity.
Now these corrupted interests are actively promoting the franchise model. Where appraisers can magically maintain independence despite all evidence and pressure to the contrary, while operating in an employee model. Further rendering the concept of valuation independence as also nullified and inert. What made the appraisal industry robust and reliable in the past, was that all the appraisers were 1099 small business owners and nobody got to push us around or tell us we had to play ball or we’d get fired or blacklisted. But now that is the new expected business model for faux-independent appraisers. The people whom accept this are either stone cold stupid low IQ bozos, or they are part of the insider track making a fortune promoting the automation. The amc model is a total failure and even the very rare few decent amc’s are set at a severe market disadvantage by the predatory ones. What few lenders are left not utilizing amc’s have in turn adopted amc like methods themselves in order to stay competitive in the market. One can hardly tell the difference between any of the companies these days. In this industry you play ball and pay gratuity fees or you ride the bench.
Half the appraisal trade group leaders, most of the technical software companies, and most of the continuing education providers have substantial financial interests in amc’s and use their positions to promote the amc industry. Now we have companies like Regorra offering free appraisal software to data harvest intellectual property and exploit protected private consumer data in outright defiance of GLB privacy rules. We have RestB(dot)AI selling and transferring private home photos and invasive 3d scanning of peoples interior home spaces to overseas companies and their AI systems. We have companies like TrueTracts and their competitors operating exactly like amc’s and doing everything that amc’s are required to hold licenses for, without even bothering to hold an amc license themselves. GSE’s themselves promoted and developed the automation to facilitate the predatory lending activity. They give special privileges and CU systems access to the amc’s now. The amc’s have become mortgage loan production. There is no such thing as separation from mortgage loan production by way of an amc management company. There is no saving any of it. The irony of this supposedly being an industry who’s primary allegiance is to ethical principals.
Missing the IVPI Proposal yet? Someone mentioned an appraisal clearinghouse…
https://www.workingre.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IVPI-Proposalfinal.pdf
What a great deal that appraisers are no longer able to fill out a form like this, as was prescribed by the HVCC with it’s clause that lenders could not remove appraisers from standard rotation. Gave way to a new era of predation and fictitious instantly abused appraiser performance grading.
https://www.workingre.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IVPI-HVCC-SampleComplaintForm1.pdf
This is sad. They fired a deaf lady on her second day for not being able to hear from the back of the room or read lips because everyone was wearing masks in 2020. Looks like she won. And they’re using staffing services. For the life of me I can not find yelp reviews for this company, I’m sure I found those in the past.
https://archive.org/details/gov.uscourts.rid.52438
I have been arguing against the AMC business model since Dudd-Fwank was enacted in 2009. LSI filed a complaint against me 15 yeasr ago for comments I made on AF – thrown out. I was removed from a local lender panel by VMG for pushing back on their practices over a decade ago. (they later sold out to DART), they neglected to inform me of the removal as required but the lender did so I filed a complaint with the state and won. State board investigated for a year and gave them a “warning” but I lost a client that at one point provided $30K a year in income before DF. No other recourse for me, I was put back on the panel so I at least get to “bid” now…whoopee! I am also aware that Flagstar and Citibank have me on a “do not use” list but I have found zero recourse to fight this or even know why?? Jan with the AGA was making calls for me before she fell ill but was getting nowhere after weeks of calls. At least 2 lenders have requested I be added to their panels in recent years and I was denied because of Flagstar and Citibank. I will bet $1,000 I’m on a REVAA member do not use list, would bet more but I’m low on cash. I have survived anyway but should be thriving instead of being forced out due to this corrupt AMC industry that has pocketed $15Billion in “Appraisal fees” since Dudd-Fwank handed them a golden ticket to steal from the consumer and appraiser without even disclosing they exist in the transaction!! Truth in Lending??? I think not. Good luck to us all, we need it. Would be nice to just get a break instead of being face punched every damn day since 2009. Yay 3.6!! Thanks for the rant 😉 Peace Out Ya’ll
Racketeering. Restriction of trade. Theft of intellectual property. Discrimination against disabled and elderly. You know, everyday activity appraisers deal with that would be prosecutable offenses we could take to the doj, sba, and a great many other organizations in any other profession.
Thank goodness so many top people in appraisal trade groups, our own insurers, just about every single tech company we are required to pay into in this pay to play industry, all the way to the top of the executive fhfa and gse ladders, have an ownership stake in the appraisal management industry and keep a lid on all of this. ‘Stakeholder interests.’
Just be thankful the phone company hasn’t caught on yet. If they were smart they would be demanding a cut of all fees placed over their phone / fax / internet lines rather than charging a fixed fee for services.
Oh, and FNMA filed a complaint against me 2 years ago for using the word “demographics” in my neighborhood description.. also thrown out by state board thank goodness due to no basis. Who wants to bet this “complaint” was initiated by REVAA attorneys?? If anyone is owed Reparations in the lending world it is the Independent Fee Appraiser. We are “Licensed to Steal from” apparently.
Remarks from the former manager of Solidifi:
What “violation” was committed by the AMC for the fee split? Is there some law that I’m not aware of that states what the fee split should be? No, I’m not an AMC, I am an appraiser, I just don’t like misinformation
Well, let’s ponder on that for a second. The law says an AMC must pay Customary and Reasonable fees to the independent fee appraiser (see Dodd-Frank). Extracts:
Reasonable: The fee reflects the scope, complexity, and requirements of the appraisal, adjusted for factors like:
Location of the property, Timeframe for completion, Appraiser’s qualifications, and Nature of the valuation (e.g., field review, full appraisal)
Customary: The fee is reasonably related to recent market rates for similar services in the same geographic area, based on surveys of actual fees paid by entities like the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) or other market participants.
In practice, this means appraisers should not be paid less than what is typical for their work in that market, and AMCs or lenders cannot arbitrarily set fees below established market benchmarks.
The Federal Reserve Board (FRB) released an Interim Final Rule (IFR) regarding implementation of Dodd-Frank many years ago. A Senior Attorney on the board stated that AMCs and others would have to have some basis for not accepting an appraiser’s fee other than the fact that someone is willing to take something lower. There are two parts to the equation, she said: first is the customary and reasonable component as defined above, which takes into consideration the type of appraisal, location, appraiser’s experience, etc. The second part is the use of fee studies, fee studies that exclude AMC appraisals and studies!
There is also a thing called the consumer protection act. In Item 42(c) – Valuation for consumers principal dwelling, section 1 states: (1) Coercion. In connection with a covered transaction, no covered person shall or shall attempt to directly or indirectly cause the value assigned to the consumer’s principal dwelling to be based on any factor other than the independent judgment of a person that prepares valuations, through coercion, extortion, inducement, bribery, or intimidation of, COMPENSATION or instruction to, or collusion with a person that prepares valuations or performs valuation management functions.
Section 42(f) provides the Requirement to provide reasonable compensation to the appraiser. Section (i) states: The creditor or its agents compensate the fee appraiser in an amount that is reasonably related to recent rates paid for comparable appraisal services performed in the geographic market of the property being appraised. In determining this amount, a creditor or its agents shall review the factors below and make any adjustments to recent rates paid in the relevant geographic market necessary to ensure that the amount of compensation is reasonable.
Section (iii) discusses appraisal management companies and states: The term “appraisal management company” means any person authorized to perform one or more of the following actions on behalf of the creditor:
(A) Recruit, select, and retain fee appraisers;(B) Contract with fee appraisers to perform appraisal services;
(C) Manage the process of having an appraisal performed, including providing administrative services such as receiving appraisal orders and appraisal reports, submitting completed appraisal reports to creditors and underwriters, collecting fees from “CREDITORS” and underwriters for services provided, and compensating fee appraisers for services performed; or
(D) Review and verify the work of fee appraisers.
So… AMC’s have a duty to provide a customary and reasonable fee. The fee CANNOT be based on the appraisals they receive. But, most AMCs consistently state: “The fee we offer is based on what we are paying other appraisers in your area”, which actually violates the law. Additionally, many AMCs charge the borrower several hundred more than they pay the appraiser. Point in fact; Nations Valuation received 81% of the fee charged to the borrower. Clear Capital has received as much as 84% of the fee charged to the borrower and consistently receives 65% to 70%. Class Valuation consistently receives between 60% and 65% of the fee paid by the borrower. Solidifi consistently received 60% to 66%. And the list goes on. And… when the borrower goes to closing the ONLY thing they see in the closing document is an appraisal fee of $750, $800, $900, $1,000 and more. Yet the appraiser made $275, $300, $350, and typically not more than $450 (pre covid standard pricing for typical reports in many areas).
Something to ponder: If the closing statement, a legal financial document, states the appraisal was $800, would that not indicate a standard fee the appraisal. And should that be the consideration of what’s a customary and reasonable fee? And how is it AMCs are collecting fees from borrowers and skimming as much as 84% of the fee when Dodd-Frank explicitly states they collect fees from CREDITORS and underwriters? Thus, realistically, AMCs may very well be in violation with regard to fee splits.
Unfortunately for appraisers, AMCs have large pockets and fat wallets. They have infiltrated the appraiser regulatory system. So those that should be fixing the system are turning a blind eye. AMC Money talks and the appraisal profession suffers.
Excellent, thank you.
ACS (America’s Criminal Syndicate) is a far better acronym than AMC.