larryhaskell
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2002
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- Nevada
I've had the opportunity to discuss the current housing problem with a few people recently regarding the role of appraisrs and their contribution to the problem. Invariably, our negatively perceived role generally comes down to a matter of ethics or competence on the part of the appraiser.
As I see it, a case could be made that there can be four categories of appraisers as follows:
An ethical, competent appraiser.
An ethical, incompetent appraiser.
An unethical, competent appraiser.
An unethical, incompetent appraiser.
Based on the reviews I have completed over the last few years and the fact that I know some of the appraisers, I feel that ethics is a greater problem than competence. By no means do I want to diminish the role of competence, but I believe that an incompetent but ethical appraiser would work to become competent while an unethical appraiser would never concern themselves with their competence.
I was just wondering how some of you feel about these two characteristics. Is one more important than the other or are they equal in importance?
As I see it, a case could be made that there can be four categories of appraisers as follows:
An ethical, competent appraiser.
An ethical, incompetent appraiser.
An unethical, competent appraiser.
An unethical, incompetent appraiser.
Based on the reviews I have completed over the last few years and the fact that I know some of the appraisers, I feel that ethics is a greater problem than competence. By no means do I want to diminish the role of competence, but I believe that an incompetent but ethical appraiser would work to become competent while an unethical appraiser would never concern themselves with their competence.
I was just wondering how some of you feel about these two characteristics. Is one more important than the other or are they equal in importance?