Background checks again.

[Eli]

Maybe a rule for the state to do them every renewal. It just seems One source would be more efficient. Maybe the ASC. Cost, theft. and efficiency should be considered as well as other factors unless your an employee. Idk. I have a feeling this employee/IC thing may be rising to the surface in all this somehow. AMC's wanting w-2s, the definition of employee vs IC as it relates to some engagement letters and other factors.

 

[hastalavista]

Maybe a rule for the state to do them every renewal. It just seems One source would be more efficient.

No argument about the single-depository being most efficient (isn't that part of Clearbox's business model?).

I'm not a bunker-mentality kind of guy , but I'm not so sure I trust the state with my personal information anymore than a private company.
Indeed, I can sue a private company and have a chance of winning if they violate the non-disclosure rules.
I don't think I can sue the state.

:new_smile-l:

 

[Eli]

No argument about the single-depository being most efficient (isn't that part of Clearbox's business model?).

I'm not a bunker-mentality kind of guy , but I'm not so sure I trust the state with my personal information anymore than a private company.
Indeed, I can sue a private company and have a chance of winning if they violate the non-disclosure rules.
I don't think I can sue the state.

:new_smile-l:

Some lenders don't like this fastest and cheapest mentality and commingled fees that some unclear box people demonstrate so I don't think that would be the best source for them. The State seems to be the most logical and efficient source for monitoring. Aren't there some regs in place or in the works to that effect?

 

[Noreen]

No argument about the single-depository being most efficient (isn't that part of Clearbox's business model?).

I'm not a bunker-mentality kind of guy , but I'm not so sure I trust the state with my personal information anymore than a private company.
Indeed, I can sue a private company and have a chance of winning if they violate the non-disclosure rules.
I don't think I can sue the state.

:new_smile-l:

Okay, I see what you are saying and of course, you have very valid points ( as usual, one of my favorite posters). So is it then reasonable to expect a modicum of protection from the state & federal level and as you point out a good client? BUT NOT the AMC clerks, the Clearbox clerks, the goofs that do not know what it is we do but want us to comply with their checklist when it does not apply. I too would, on a one-on-one basis, GRANT PERMISSION to a good client if they requested it, I just think it's WAY OUT OF LINE for these other entities that REQUIRE us to dance to their tune when it's only another mechanism for them to generate another income stream. If they want them let them pay for them. When we want data sources, we pay for them. It's infuriating to have them treat us as if we are their trained monkeys....

 

[Evincere]

I don't think I can sue the state.

:new_smile-l:

If all that's needed is to satisfy a state that there are no felon convictions, the state should do them. And the criminal convictions should be applicable to the agency appraisal guidelines as defined as they relate to financial services offenses, moral turpitude, etc.

They are going to be doing them on new appraiser applications anyway. What choice would you have if you were just going for a new license? None.

To entrust bc data to a privateer who is protected by TOS agreements, who is not accountable or governed by state sanctions with regard to sale or misuse of information would be even more dangerous than anything you outlined.

 

[Adios]

California has had background checks since it started licensing in 1991.
But I have no clue if they have ever re-run my background since 1991.

Background checks for licensing make sense.
But, why shouldn't individual entities, who are considering engaging 3rd party vendors, have the ability to require a background check?

If I wanted to do contract work with the FDIC, I'd have to go through a pretty extensive background check.
I'd have no problem with that because they'd pay for it.
It seems to me that an entity that is regulated by the FDIC might want to emulate their regulator's practice and require a background check on vendors who would be doing the same kind of work for them as they would be doing if engaged by the FDIC.
The only problem I have is if they want me to pay for it.
And even then, if it were one of my very good clients, I would pay for it if I thought the alternative was to lose the client.

I think fighting the ability of a FRI to obtain background checks on its appraiser-contractors is a losing battle.
I do think advocating that the FRI pay for the background check has legs and might be something that could be worked into AMC legislation (sort of a bank shot; states can't tell FRIs what to do, but they can tell AMCs what to do).

But with rare exception, other than via AMC regulation (which I detest anyway), I don't see how the states can enforce something on federally regulated institutions.
And, I don't see it as a realistic endeavor to try to get this pushed at the federal level.

It is a requirement of the AQB in 2017. But that has no effect on what lenders and AMCs must do. Lenders and their agents are required to perform due diligence. A background check run by the State is not shared with your clients. In fact it isn't shared across State agencies. So if an appraiser applies for reciprocity I would assume they will have to have multiple background checks run. You cannot assume States properly screen appraisers. I have more than enough cases where the appraiser has been convicted of a felony and they maintain their license. We have one whose address is Leavenworth.

 

[Eli]

I don't know where the misconception that states can't enforce state laws came up. Many state laws protecting consumers as well as other laws actually mirror federal laws and states can enforce them against anybody who violates them within their jurisdiction. That is what state attorney generals do, I think. I'm not a lawyer though so don't take that as legal advice please.

 

[Delta85]

An many more didn't.

The "quality" of the reports I was seeing by the newly licensed, fresh-out-of-proprietary school crowd was truly frightening.

Who trained them?

 

[Eli]

It is a requirement of the AQB in 2017. But that has no effect on what lenders and AMCs must do. Lenders and their agents are required to perform due diligence. A background check run by the State is not shared with your clients. In fact it isn't shared across State agencies. So if an appraiser applies for reciprocity I would assume they will have to have multiple background checks run. You cannot assume States properly screen appraisers. I have more than enough cases where the appraiser has been convicted of a felony and they maintain their license. We have one whose address is Leavenworth.

Doesn't your scenario happen in all jobs? Imho, you are biting off more than you can chew. The only entity that could or should be able to do what you are trying to do is the government imo. Why? Because they are there to represent the people. "We the people..."

 

[Evincere]

It is a requirement of the AQB in 2017. But that has no effect on what lenders and AMCs must do. Lenders and their agents are required to perform due diligence. A background check run by the State is not shared with your clients. In fact it isn't shared across State agencies. So if an appraiser applies for reciprocity I would assume they will have to have multiple background checks run. You cannot assume States properly screen appraisers. .

There you go, "assuming" again.

So for just this one time, I will humor you with the same -

With the new laws coming into effect in 2017, and the states now just being granted the power of oversight and responsibility we have yet to know after they organize, whether they will change their policy and come to some sort of reciprocity and allow the bc's to be made available to the Appraiser...for sharing with Lenders and other states.

As far as states screening, I have no doubt they will have to consider the new agency guidelines regarding what constitutes a crime serious enough to preclude licensing vs arbitrarily deciding using their own standards.

It took time, but DL information was eventually nationalized. If a persons license was suspended or revoked in another state for whatever reason, every state now has that information.

What the states will or will not do, remains to be seen. You are just trying to beat them to the bank. Stop sounding so desperate.