Pat,
thanks for the straightforward commentary. It is appreciated.
As a fellow SRA, I understand the consternation about the seemingly equal footing that inexperienced and poorly educated appraisers have with me. However, I don't think that the appraisal community could have prevented or could change the faster, cheaper, "give us what we need" mentality of the residential mortgage lender. Their regulatory agencies are the only ones that can correct those business practices.
The strong resistance you have observed to a "Vault" concept is that the same parties supporting that program are the parties who suggested an IVPI concept. Under that concept, a rotational assignment system would go even further to undermine those with experience and education. They say it isn't so, but how could it not? They say that assignments will be awarded only to certified appraisers with no allowance for those with trainees. So what is the incentive to take on the responsibility to act as a mentor for those trainees? The IVPI concept, as envisioned by some, would destroy the residential appraisal profession in a matter of years.
I, personally, see no hope of turning back the clock to a time when a residential appraiser with experience, education, and a designation meant anything at all to the residential mortgage client. I, personally, no longer do any residential work at all and, if I should start doing so in the future, I don't see any possibility that it will be for mortgage lending purposes. There is no incentive in it for me any longer. I have had non-designated residential appraisers ask me if they should pursue a residential designation. I have advised them that if their business model was to primarily perform appraisals for residential lenders, there was absolutely no need for a designation. Sad, I agree. But factual.
I started hearing at least 10-12 years ago that the one-man residential fee shop was a concept which would eventually no longer be feasible unless that appraiser specialized in something other than residential lending work. When the bottom fell out of the market in late 2005, I think we saw the beginning of the end for that business model.
So, with that, I wish all good luck and the foresight to plan for the future.
Best regards to all.
Ken, your statement above that I highlighted in red is wrong, just to point that out. But I agree with the new tone that seems to have been developed today with many of the posts.
I think the best course of action is to sit back and listen to all the proposals on how best to improve the profession. Then we can pick the best ideas out of each proposal and maybe come up with something that can work. Yes, the vault idea was taken from the Dodd/Crowley IVPI proposal, but that is because that was the best portion within that proposal. It doesn't mean we have to accept everything within the IVPI, it is not an all or nothing choice. It would be totally wrong to ignore the good ideas of any proposal, just because one does not agree with it in totality.
Some of the good ideas I have heard so far...
1- National Order Form, just like all the other standard forms that exist, there should be a national order form, with proper communication between client and appraiser, which will become an attachment to the final report. I beleive Marcia was one of the originators of this idea.
2- National type of "SOW" / Engagement letter, that leaves plenty of room for narrative comments, which also will become an attachment to the final report, so that it is clear what the assignment was all about. Communications between client/appraiser should be documented on this form. Lastly, maybe there could be a signature section at the end of this form for both the client and appraiser to sign stating there were no value checks done prior to accepting assignment (meeting a target value) and no staged assignments set up based on value, etc. Just a thought, who knows how this will fly. (If anyone has the power, pass a dam*ed law to make it illegal to ask for predetermined values before assigning work, don't put all of it on the appraiser, it needs to be addressed at both ends).
3- Digital Signatures. Yes, I like that idea, and Mr. Wiley, I hope you do come up with information on how us non techies can set this up for ourselves.
4- A vault, yes, so that every user of any appraisal report can be sure that the actual appraiser signing the report, did in fact do the report. That there has been no alterations involved from the original. And lastly, to allow what Ken keeps stating what he wants, better enforcement and accountability to the laws already in place by the added transparency the vault allows to the proper enforcement entities. With the added transparency, the Skippies will get religion rather quickly, or else get flushed.
Yes, the data mining is an issue that needs addressed, still looking for good ideas on that one.
AMCs-Most here agree, for the most part, they have been bad for the profession due to the time demands, and fee demands (awarding work to the lowest bidder). Ideas are needed how to address this issue, my guess would be for those in charge to start holding the AMC accountable just as an appraiser is, as they are acting as much more than just a middleman.
Anyway, lets all put our heads together to see what things we can come up with that will impact the profession in a positive manner, and with those heavy hitters involved with this thread, maybe it can make a difference, because they do have the power to make changes.
Most systems don't keep a copy - they keep an encrypted file that allows detection of any change to the original, and they are extremely effective.