Where Do You Think "geographic Competency" Begins And Ends?

[George Hatch]

The two of us didn't conspire to do anything. We were talking about a topic offline and I decided to follow up on it online and take it in directions that we had not discussed. I didn't ask him if I could do it, I didn't tell him I would do it and he didn't know I would do it.

The topic of what technology is enabling us all to do has been on the table many times before. This particular tangent is just another chapter in a theme that's been the frequent topic of discussion on this forum since I joined it. It's not a new topic of discussion on this forum. I'm not doing anything different than has been done dozens of times before by dozens of other Forum participants.

30 years ago a non-local reviewer would have had no way to see what other sales data occurred in proximity to your subject. Now they can access the same public records and zoning info you can, they can read the same MLS listings you can, and they can see same interior and exterior pics that you can see. They can readily database and call up a dozen other appraisals that have been performed by different appraisers in the same neighborhood to compare what each appraiser said about the neighborhood, the market segment they were dealing with, the adjustments they used to account for the variances and so forth. Technology has enabled EVERYONE to do more than they could before. Not just the local appraiser.

If you think nobody else on the user side will recognize these factors and attempt to make use of them then you're high. Or retarded.

These questions of what it does and doesn't takes to render the competent service exist whether we discuss them or not. They exist regardless of who broaches the subject, how they broach the subject or why they broach the subject. Whether I'm a Russian bot or not these issue exist and will continue to exist for the duration. Your choices are to either consider the issue on its merits or invoke the Swedish Argument that it's okay to blow the discussion of the issue off if the person who initiates it has evil intent and is acting with anti-social motivations. In other words, even if you want to attribute evil intentions to me it doesn't change a thing about the fundamentals of the discussion.

 

[George Hatch]

Our respective business interests are all dependent on our ability to identify and exploit our respective opportunities as they occur within the environment we work in - the same as applies in any other sector of commerce. It's always been that way and will always continue to be that way. Our users do not exist to provide us with an occupation, a business opportunity, a minimum amount of assignments or a minimum income. They don't owe us anything, and we are in no position to dictate terms to them.

If the primary limitation to the types of goods and services (what we sell is a service) that prevails in the market is established in the market then you're going to approach the question of what's appropriate differently than if you think the primary limitation is established by the state. And before any of you go whinging about clients wanting biased appraisals let me cut you off right there and tell you that a biased appraisal isn't an appraisal, a deliberate lie isn't the truth, and there's no overlap between a service we provide within the specifications our peers set vs a service that is based on falsehoods.

Banking is a heavily regulated business, and so are we. But those regulations are in place to protect the public's interests, not our business interests. It doesn't pay to get the two twisted.

And IMO the conflation of professional standards with your personal business interests is where the paranoia kicks in.

I aspire to act consistently with the principles that support our professional standards, meaning that it is the user who decides what's meaningful to them, it is our job to identify what it does and doesn't take to answer those questions in a professional manner and the foundation of the public trust rests with that appraiser/client relationship.

I believe in appraisers, I believe our profession is capable of adapting to a changing environment, finding more comprehensive and more efficient means of doing what we do, and scaling our work to suit the intended use. I think your clients have already had their alternatives to doing business with you and that the reason you get picked for the assignments you perform is because they think your work meets their needs - not because they are required to use you instead of your competitor down the street who has the same license and software you have.

No matter what it takes to render the professional service I am confident that there are plenty of appraisers who will figure out how to make a living from that - so long as they don't breed themselves out of existence with running the puppy mills.

I don't believe and have long advocated against the fire-n-forget widget approach towards development and reporting that many of you persist in selling. I have always told you guys we don't do widgets, we do custom.

So a discussion about what elements of the SOW can be scaled for certain users is in NO WAY inconsistent with anything I've ever said on this forum. Anyone who thinks otherwise is sorely mistaken. A discussion where I am telling you to do what you do better than the mindless drone down the street is in NO WAY inconsistent with acknowledging that different users have different needs, and there is usually a point of diminishing returns.

So if any of you want to accuse me of being a liar, a shill for the suits or acting unprofessionally then suit yourself. Not only can I not tell you what to think, I wouldn't even consider making that attempt. All I can do is explain how I came by my opinions. You will either believe me or you won't, same as applies to every one of my users in my day job.

 

[PL1957]

I think too many of us are afraid to think deeply and critically about these things because we really don't want to know the answers. "Competence", whether geographic or otherwise, is a term which defies description, other than "I know it when I see it", or more often, when I don't see it.

Developing any legitimate kind of training to help people acquire competence requires defining it first. This is an area in which our profession has long struggled. The apprenticeship system that many of us came up in had a lot of benefits, but it had the drawback of only being as good as the master. Today's environment isn't well suited for this system, especially on the residential side, but commercial as well.

We need to be asking these questions and discussing them without probing for ulterior motives or hidden agendas.

 

[Eli]

Our respective business interests are all dependent on our ability to identify and exploit our respective opportunities as they occur within the environment we work in - the same as applies in any other sector of commerce. It's always been that way and will always continue to be that way. Our users do not exist to provide us with an occupation, a business opportunity, a minimum amount of assignments or a minimum income. They don't owe us anything, and we are in no position to dictate terms to them.

If the primary limitation to the types of goods and services (what we sell is a service) that prevails in the market is established in the market then you're going to approach the question of what's appropriate differently than if you think the primary limitation is established by the state. And before any of you go whinging about clients wanting biased appraisals let me cut you off right there and tell you that a biased appraisal isn't an appraisal, a deliberate lie isn't the truth, and there's no overlap between a service we provide within the specifications our peers set vs a service that is based on falsehoods.

Banking is a heavily regulated business, and so are we. But those regulations are in place to protect the public's interests, not our business interests. It doesn't pay to get the two twisted.

And IMO the conflation of professional standards with your personal business interests is where the paranoia kicks in.

I aspire to act consistently with the principles that support our professional standards, meaning that it is the user who decides what's meaningful to them, it is our job to identify what it does and doesn't take to answer those questions in a professional manner and the foundation of the public trust rests with that appraiser/client relationship.

I believe in appraisers, I believe our profession is capable of adapting to a changing environment, finding more comprehensive and more efficient means of doing what we do, and scaling our work to suit the intended use. I think your clients have already had their alternatives to doing business with you and that the reason you get picked for the assignments you perform is because they think your work meets their needs - not because they are required to use you instead of your competitor down the street who has the same license and software you have.

No matter what it takes to render the professional service I am confident that there are plenty of appraisers who will figure out how to make a living from that - so long as they don't breed themselves out of existence with running the puppy mills.

I don't believe and have long advocated against the fire-n-forget widget approach towards development and reporting that many of you persist in selling. I have always told you guys we don't do widgets, we do custom.

So a discussion about what elements of the SOW can be scaled for certain users is in NO WAY inconsistent with anything I've ever said on this forum. Anyone who thinks otherwise is sorely mistaken. A discussion where I am telling you to do what you do better than the mindless drone down the street is in NO WAY inconsistent with acknowledging that different users have different needs, and there is usually a point of diminishing returns.

So if any of you want to accuse me of being a liar, a shill for the suits or acting unprofessionally then suit yourself. Not only can I not tell you what to think, I wouldn't even consider making that attempt. All I can do is explain how I came by my opinions. You will either believe me or you won't, same as applies to every one of my users in my day job.

Your showing paranoia. Some of our clients should be in jail. You hammer intended use and user. Like it is an excuse. When somebody should be in jail and they rule your roost?

Your naive GH. We have all lied at some point in our lives. Get over it. Public trust is not limited to your intended use/user and appraiser/client relationship.

Your dreaming. The appraisal profession limits far more risk to the public than your intended user, whom might should be in jail.

 

[Meandering]

These questions of what it does and doesn't takes to render the competent service exist whether we discuss them or not.

Come, come now,

Haven't the AMCs already decided this, in that they assign work within X miles of the appraiser's office? And isn't that one of their selling points about how "valuable" they are to the lending industry?

I know there are several quotes on the internet from AMC reps spouting how they "limit" the service area of appraisers. Might even be in some Congressional testimony too.

Oh man, I just thought of something,

Does Danny's company limit the areas appraisers can service? Or does he send them assignments from all over their states?

.

 

[J Grant]

It would have been more transparent then, given the content of these last two posts ( which is what I suspected was behind this poll), is that this poll was not just a casual or intellectual debate about geo competence, it is an exploration to explore removing geo competence as a work standard or requirement in appraisal, just as it has been done for a segment of reviewing- We see national level out of area reviewers asking for idiot stips and another comp for no valid reason from local appraisers , or else doing mindless rote compliance QC checks.

I could tell from the way it was struct ed this poll was not just a theoretical debate, it is a groundwork for what is expressed in post #271 and 272, about what clients want, now that technology allows it - appraising across wide areas, as out of area as reviewers do now. The last 2 posts mention efficiency ,how clients do not owe us anything and we have to adapt to what they want etc. It would have been forth coming if all this had been stated when poll was put forth. .

A credibility for making a change to convince regulators and agencies that it is low risk, they need an assurance from appraisers for at least window dressing .. A poll with appraisers stating no geo competence needed provides that. .

Not every appraisers responded no geo competence needed and among those did, perhaps some were over confident about their abilities. But that won't matter, the answers are in.

Appraisers also answered based on a set of assumptions about personal inspection and plenty of time/resources, it is naive to think that will be the case for fast paced lender work/ cheap AMC work.

Bifurcated appraisals allows appraisers to work from a desk with a local RE agent/other doing the inspection, that and desktop no inspect appraisals would greatly expand what any one appraiser, particularity a staff appraiser could do if possible to do so in much wider areas or across states. appraiser do it from desk while a local RE agent does the inspection for them. And then there is sending the cheap fee bid winder 100 miles away ...I can't see dropping geo competence leading to better practice, just cheaper or faster practice ( their favorite buzzword for it is efficiency.

 

[Eli]

I like GH. GH, grow some balls like Marion and JGrant. Lol

You just ain’t right dog. Your slipping.

Remember some Appraiser’s clients likely need to be in jail.

intended use/user and appraiser/client relationship.

 

[djd09]

They think the technology is good. Technology also predicted a blowout Clinton win. In Ohio most Trump voters weren't participating in election surveys. Local knowledge.

 

[Meandering]

It would have been more transparent then, given the content of these last two posts ( which is what I suspected was behind this poll), is that this poll was not just a casual or intellectual debate about geo competence, it is an exploration to explore removing geo competence as a work standard or requirement in appraisal, just as it has been done for a segment of reviewing- We see national level out of area reviewers asking for idiot stips and another comp for no valid reason from local appraisers , or else doing mindless rote compliance QC checks.

I could tell from the way it was struct ed this poll was not just a theoretical debate, it is a groundwork for what is expressed in post #271 and 272, about what clients want, now that technology allows it - appraising across wide areas, as out of area as reviewers do now. The last 2 posts mention efficiency ,how clients do not owe us anything and we have to adapt to what they want etc. It would have been forth coming if all this had been stated when poll was put forth. .

A credibility for making a change to convince regulators and agencies that it is low risk, they need an assurance from appraisers for if nothing else some window dressing for it. A poll with appraisers stating I can appraise anywhere, no geo competence needed provides that. .

Not every appraisers responded no geo competence needed and among those who think they can appraise anywhere in any market; perhaps some were over confident about their abilities. But that won't matter, the answers are in. Appraisers also answered based on a set of assumptions, which one would have to naive to think those assumptions will be in place for fast paced lender work and cheap bid AMC work. Bifurcated appraisals allows appraisers to work from a desk with a local inspection, for client side of efficiency that syncs with wide expansion of any appraiser able to appraise nationwide.

But J, don't see the trees and miss the Forests.

Where are those "free market" people.

Maybe they can jump in here and explain about Supply and Demand, when interest raises raise,

Oh and you better believe interest rates are going up, and they are going up more than a quarter of a percent.

So, back to the "free market" BS.

When the rates go up, if lending isn't loosened, appraisal volume goes down.

We all know it and lived through it.

But,

How can AMCs survive if volume goes down? They've been stealing money from the lemmings for a decade now, and miraculously there is an appraiser shortage. No clue how that happened.

But,

If you can just "be competent" as a given, that you have all day to search the internet and make phone calls, or back date the effective date of value, to the day before the sink hole happened, why do we need fee appraisers all over the country?

OMG,
Think of their unemployment insurance payments when they have to lay off staff, because of a volume slow down, if their staff, can't be "competent" across the nation.

Think of those poor appraisers in COW states, they'll never get another appraisal, because somebody at a desk in Florida will just appraise those Colorado, Washington and Oregon properties. Heck they have the internet what's the difference?

Oh I know,

Only only a few meaningless dog box cookie cutters, in subdivisions, nobody really cares about that kind of work anyway.


.

 

[Renee Healion]

Come, come now,

Haven't the AMCs already decided this, in that they assign work within X miles of the appraiser's office? And isn't that one of their selling points about how "valuable" they are to the lending industry?

I know there are several quotes on the internet from AMC reps spouting how they "limit" the service area of appraisers. Might even be in some Congressional testimony too.

...
.

Btw, one appraiser I mentioned who relocated had to wait 6 months before lending clients would send him work on his own, even his own long-time national clients. So he worked for one of those large sweatshops which are always churning appraisers and then a local company with a supervisor signature, iirc. Hated it. Served his sentence and went back to being a lone ranger, just somewhere new.