Defund TAF

[djd09]

Mej must have hurt peoples feelings. Or maybe it was too many pictures of the all white middle aged male breakfast club?

That picture was a thing of beauty. I haven’t seen that much corruption sitting at one table in a long time.

maybe it was when he posted the clear capital fees gouging the appraisers and home owners

 

[chad hampton]

maybe it was when he posted the clear capital fees gouging the appraisers and home owners

Yes, definitely could’ve been that. Anytime, immoral and unethical activities are brought into the sunlight, that could get you in trouble here.

CC is one of the GSE‘s 5 favorite AMC‘s. I can only imagine what that relationship is like. Definitely not a smart move, Mej should be banned for such behavior.

 

[djd09]

Yes, definitely could’ve been that. Anytime, immoral and unethical activities are brought into the sunlight, that could get you in trouble here.

CC is one of the GSE‘s 5 favorite AMC‘s. I can only imagine what that relationship is like. Definitely not a smart move, Mej should be banned for such behavior.

lets see...clear capital, revaa, partners, taf, mej...one of those things aint like the others

 

[George Hatch]

You're suggesting Mejappz has been banned on this forum for what, again? That Wayne is a shill for the suits?

You guys need to calm yourselves. We don't even know if Mej was banned or if there is some other reason for withdrawal.

 

[djd09]

how many times have you been banned....

 

[djd09]

and how did you know jg got banned...savejg, right?

 

[Dale Floyd]

One problem there is that it's easier for an appraiser to lie about their qualifications and competency than it is for them to come up with a state-issued license. For example, if that CG wasn't competent to appraise that property you mentioned then they shouldn't have countersigned that report. Now I don't know the specifics of that CG so I'm using a big hypothetical there WRT competency, but I'm sure you can see the possibility - if the only reason for the countersignature was for the license itself then that doesn't necessarily address the competency issue.

Conversely, the license issue isn't everything but it also isn't nothing. The failure rates for the courses are a thing, and so are the failure rates for the licensing exams. I saw lots of SLs and CRs who had SFR training and experience fail at the coursework and of those who passed the courses some of them have failed the testing. Same as occurs with the CR-licensing. Not just anyone can pass the CR-coursework, and not everyone who passed the coursework can pass the test. I think the majority of our CRs on this forum could upgrade to a CG if they wanted to (which most have no such desire) but it's also obvious that some of them can't do it within the structure of the QE programs.

FYI I have never once seen an unsupervised/untrained CR perform a non-res assignment (under the deminimus) the same way the assignment-competent CGs do, and it is the peers' actions which set the benchmark for how that assignment is supposed to be done. The same holds in the other direction - just because a CG holds an unrestricted license and the training therein covers the basics of appraising SFRs - that doesn't mean the CG can be assumed competent to perform that SFR assignment the same way the SFR specialists do them. Many CGs have no experience appraising 1-4s even though the process is covered in their QE.

You and I don’t disagree on those specifics, but it doesn’t work quite that way in rural Tennessee most of the time. I find most CGs to be grossly underwhelming at their craft, which can also be said about a few CRs too. There’s a few who we recommend for commercial assignments, but it has everything to do with competency and nothing to do with education. (We still have many who got a CG when there was no college requirements, and the testing in the 1990’s was identical for the CG as it was for the CR back then.) We get calls all the time asking for guidance, even from some who are the CGs.

It’s just a sacred cow. We ought to do this like attorney’s and CPAs. Licensing is the same, but there are some who have more credentials and abilities than others in those professions because they were trained and became accomplished.. That would stop all the nonsense about who has bigger or smaller licenses, shortages, signatures of who inspected and who did not, and would rely upon competent appraisers. Liars would be prosecuted, but their work reviews would likely weed them out through the process.

My opinion anyway, but I’ve been doing this longer than most.

 

[George Hatch]

Agreed. And the circumstances you describe are common in the urban/suburban areas, too.

One aspect we don't tend to discuss much is the disconnect between an individual's actual competency vs their performance.

If a CR or CG is not working to their competency that isn't necessarily proof that the lack the competency. It more commonly means they took shortcuts. Lazy and acting in expedience rather than working hard but failing.

 

[BRCJR]

Agreed. And the circumstances you describe are common in the urban/suburban areas, too.

One aspect we don't tend to discuss much is the disconnect between an individual's actual competency vs their performance.

If a CR or CG is not working to their competency that isn't necessarily proof that the lack the competency. It more commonly means they took shortcuts. Lazy and acting in expedience rather than working hard but failing.

a lot of the issue in rural areas is competition. many do not have to get any better than they are or have been. it shows in their work product. can you believe I have been telling an Appraiser he should consider removing his HVCC comment and should have never included it on his land form. yet to this day it is still there.

 

[George Hatch]

IMO the minimum level of quality is primarily affected by what the client will and won't accept and use.

Tell him he's suspended for a month for repeated violations of this appraisal policy and he'll probably find religion on it real quick. I know I would; except I try not to need to be told twice about a problem like this.