Ethics or Competence

[xmmcsmielr]

Which deity would that be, larryroscoe1?

larryroscoe1 said, "This kind of thinking totally discounts the presence of deity..."

Which deity is present? Zeus? Thor? Krishna? Mohammed? Neptune? Ra? Wandjina?

Or, do you have another mythology you subscribe to, larryroscoe1?

The proof of the pudding in Arizona is that there has been no effective enforcement of USPAP, and there is a high level of corruption among appraisers. Arizona is 4th in the U.S. for rate of SFR foreclosures, largely due to ready availability of lying appraisers.

Some of Arizona' appraisers wear their superstitions on their sleeves, touting religious morality, as if that excuses the lies in their appraisal reports. Their harping about how much faith in certain deities they have is what actually discounts the presence of their particular deities, since those appraisers perform immorally in their businesses.

Again: Mike Phillips nailed it. No consequences = unethical appraising.

Or, should the Arizona Board of Appraisal rely on punishment for those lousy appraisers in some version of an after life, instead of revoking their license now or, if the AZ BoA had the legal authority to: fining them now?

 

[Bama Bayou]

It's very hard to change unethical into ethical. Not too hard to change incompetence into competence if someone is ethical.

The most dangerous is the competent but unethical. They cause the greatest harm to the appraisal "profession" and the general public.

 

[Vernon Martin]

Most of the appraisals I review are MAI appraisals ordered by mortgage brokers or property owners, so I find it hard to believe that they are incompetent when every error of commission or omission has the effect of inflating the appraised value. I'm not saying MAIs are unethical, far from it, just that those parties who try to scam my client seek out MAIs from known firms to make the appraisal report more credible. I'm sure a lot of MAIs turn down this type of work, but all it takes is one to do the fraudulent report.

 

[Mztk1]

larryroscoe1 said, "This kind of thinking totally discounts the presence of deity..."

Which deity is present? Zeus? Thor? Krishna? Mohammed? Neptune? Ra? Wandjina?

Or, do you have another mythology you subscribe to, larryroscoe1?

The proof of the pudding in Arizona is that there has been no effective enforcement of USPAP, and there is a high level of corruption among appraisers. Arizona is 4th in the U.S. for rate of SFR foreclosures, largely due to ready availability of lying appraisers.

Some of Arizona' appraisers wear their superstitions on their sleeves, touting religious morality, as if that excuses the lies in their appraisal reports. Their harping about how much faith in certain deities they have is what actually discounts the presence of their particular deities, since those appraisers perform immorally in their businesses.

Again: Mike Phillips nailed it. No consequences = unethical appraising.

Or, should the Arizona Board of Appraisal rely on punishment for those lousy appraisers in some version of an after life, instead of revoking their license now or, if the AZ BoA had the legal authority to: fining them now?

Belief in an omniscient diety aside, I don't think law and order is going to solve THAT much.

There are gray areas in appraising that one can effectively use to push a value. I have one today where I can show statistics that the subject market has fallen 12% for the year (and make value), 20% for the year (likely the best choice in my mind, which would hurt the deal) or 28%. If I use the 20%, which I will, and a second appraiser is hired and uses the 12%, I'll look bad to the agents, etc which affects my reputation in the market; on the other hand, if I use the 20% and the review appraiser says it is 28%, which is also supportable, I look bad and it can affect my reputation with the client and/or my peers. The loophole guy goes with the 12%, shows support, and then if anyone questions it he can care less because he figures it cannot be proven wrong one way or the other. The state won't get involved because, frankly, there are no clear and determined ways to estimate the rate of change in the market, and the client will either accept the appraisal or not, and if not, at least it isn't the appraiser who looks like the bad guy to the agents and other professionals he works with daily in his marketplace.

I on the other hand, tried diligently to determine which of the three is the better indicator of market rate change and will spell out my reasons in a narrative. I'll go with the one that is best supported (20%). If the pain and pleasure theory you purport were correct, I would be choosing the 12% and making the deal (there is no pain in that, only pleasure). But I am not, which contradicts your theory.

I once went for a job, back in my late teens or early twenties, to have a vending machine route where I would take out the money and fill up the machines. I sat for a 3 hour psychological test that had all types of questions aimed at determining my integrity. Eighty percent of the people I was told, after I passed the test, failed but not because they were dishonest, but mostly because they didn't know what it means to be ethical. It is the Les Misérables question: Is it okay to steal a loaf of bread if your family is starving? Or, Is it okay to steal medication if you have no money and your child's life depended on having it?

The system one operates in is only one part of the equation as to whether someone will be dishonest or not. I believe evolutionary psychology theory has identified 1. the individual; 2. the situation; and 3. the system.

One person may be okay with making value to keep the market flowing but reject it to make enough money to feed his family; another may find it okay and noble to be dishonest if it helps get his family through hard times, but is against doing it for the sake of keeping the market moving; another may reject both because one is selfish and the other self-centered but may end up bucking the system out of empathy towards the person getting the loan. For instance I appraised one the other day where the owner told me he really needed the loan or his 30 something year old wife wouldn't be able to get an operation and she would die (and I don't think he was kidding). They needed the house worth $100,000 more than it was.

I personally believe that an integrity test like the one I took should be given as a pre-screening test to anyone wanting to become a trainee. If you fail you cannot become an appraiser trainee and you must wait 18 months before attempting the test again. If you pass, now you have no excuse for not behaving ethically. We know you know what it means to be ethical and there is no excuse for breaking the code.

I happen to think you'll have a lot less unethical people in appraising. It is my experience that the unethical people I know (the loophole seekers) do not see themselves that way, but see themselves as being very upright and honest. Ignorance permeates some, rationalizing for themselves while pointing the finger at others is all too often found in others.

 

[c w d]

Something early on bothered me about this discussion of incompetence versus ethical appraisals.

The argument was there are 4 types of appraisers:

Ethical, competent
Ethical, incompetent
Unethical, competent
Unethical, incompetent

I do not believe this to be true. You are either ethical and competent or unethical and incompetent.

The reason for my belief is if you are incompetent you can not conduct an appraisal in an ethical manner. Competence is a matter of ethics. If you represent yourself as being able to conduct a proper appraisal while being incompetent you have unethically represented yourself.

Likewise, if you have unethically performed an appraisal you are not competent no matter your education and qualifications.

What someone wants to be (ethical and competent) does not exclude them from what they are (incompetent and unethical). Granted, a person may not be competent but has a desire to improve one's self to become competent. Until that time they are unethical and incompetent because they are misrepresenting themselves.

 

[Doug Smith SRA]

Learning Model

Something early on bothered me about this discussion of incompetence versus ethical appraisals.

The argument was there are 4 types of appraisers:

Ethical, competent
Ethical, incompetent
Unethical, competent
Unethical, incompetent

I do not believe this to be true. You are either ethical and competent or unethical and incompetent.

The reason for my belief is if you are incompetent you can not conduct an appraisal in an ethical manner. Competence is a matter of ethics. If you represent yourself as being able to conduct a proper appraisal while being incompetent you have unethically represented yourself.

Likewise, if you have unethically performed an appraisal you are not competent no matter your education and qualifications.

What someone wants to be (ethical and competent) does not exclude them from what they are (incompetent and unethical). Granted, a person may not be competent but has a desire to improve one's self to become competent. Until that time they are unethical and incompetent because they are misrepresenting themselves.

The model introduced is a take off on the William Howell Learning Model in which levels of learning are modeled in four stages.

1.Unconscious incompetence
2.Conscious incompetence
3.Conscious competence
4.Unconscious competence


This model is very relevant to appraiser mentoring.

The learner or trainee always begins at stage 1 - 'unconscious incompetence', and ends at stage 4 - 'unconscious competence', having passed through stage 2 - 'conscious incompetence' and - 3 'conscious competence'.

Can ethics be taught?

Members of the NAR every four years have to take a NAR Course on Ethics. I took the course two weeks ago. Amazingly, the author of the NAR course came all the way to isolated Montana to deliver the course. I was able to pose two questions to her about real estate agents. Both answers were directly addressed within the NAR Code of Ethics. In both cases the real estate agent was not following the NAR Code of Ethics.

Was this because of ignorance that the behavior was unethical or because of a decision to act contrary to the ethical code?

I think the answers fall toward the suggestion made above. In appraising both the mentor and trainee must, in the learning process, make ethics part of the learning model. The trainee has to know what is unethical or at least know a framework on which to determine whether a certain act is ethical or not. Simply put, an appraiser has to know what is wrong and to know what is wrong requires learning to analyze the situation within a given ethical framework. Persons entering appraising do not come to the ethical challenges of appraising either consciously competent or unconsciously competent. They may have a foundation but this foundation must be made relevant to appraising in the process of induction into appraising.

Appraising is a collection of knowledge, skills and attitude. In the the end, the value of the role of the mentor to pass along skills and knowledge is exceeded only by role of the mentor to prepare the trainee to act ethically.

Hence, there is an obligation on the trainee to be competent in both appraising and ethics.

Doug

 

[Mike Boyd]

The model introduced is a take off on the William Howell Learning Model in which levels of learning are modeled in four stages.

1.Unconscious incompetence
2.Conscious incompetence
3.Conscious competence
4.Unconscious competence


This model is very relevant to appraiser mentoring.

The learner or trainee always begins at stage 1 - 'unconscious incompetence', and ends at stage 4 - 'unconscious competence', having passed through stage 2 - 'conscious incompetence' and - 3 'conscious competence'.

Can ethics be taught?

Members of the NAR every four years have to take a NAR Course on Ethics. I took the course two weeks ago. Amazingly, the author of the NAR course came all the way to isolated Montana to deliver the course. I was able to pose two questions to her about real estate agents. Both answers were directly addressed within the NAR Code of Ethics. In both cases the real estate agent was not following the NAR Code of Ethics.

Was this because of ignorance that the behavior was unethical or because of a decision to act contrary to the ethical code?

I think the answers fall toward the suggestion made above. In appraising both the mentor and trainee must, in the learning process, make ethics part of the learning model. The trainee has to know what is unethical or at least know a framework on which to determine whether a certain act is ethical or not. Simply put, an appraiser has to know what is wrong and to know what is wrong requires learning to analyze the situation within a given ethical framework. Persons entering appraising do not come to the ethical challenges of appraising either consciously competent or unconsciously competent. They may have a foundation but this foundation must be made relevant to appraising in the process of induction into appraising.

Appraising is a collection of knowledge, skills and attitude. In the the end, the value of the role of the mentor to pass along skills and knowledge is exceeded only by role of the mentor to prepare the trainee to act ethically.

Hence, there is an obligation on the trainee to be competent in both appraising and ethics.

Doug

I thought that was called "The Perfect World" theory.

 

[Vivian Bachner]

cwd: with all due respect, I disagree: a competent yet unethical appraiser can exist and is the most damaging to our profession and dangerous to society. Ethics is not "a matter" of competence or vice versa. Ethics is not about simply following the law. Ethics is a belief system of right and wrong and, when developed, lets us know what to do and what not to do. ie. rape, kill, commit fraud. etc.

Can ethics be taught to adults? Please don't all jump on me but I don't think so. Not if you agree with my definition of ethics. By the time one enters their first USPAP class, hopefully, the "ethical" belief system is already there! Yeah, you learned it in kindergarten. One is either ethical or not! Sociopaths kill, maim, commit fraud etc. I really don't think it is USPAP or an ethics class that teaches an individual to do the right thing when asked or presented with an opportunity to do the wrong thing.

 

[Mztk1]

I thought that was called "The Perfect World" theory.

Perfect world theory is: "You are free to excercise your rights freely as long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others".

That's real clear and answers a lot, nes pas? :Eyecrazy:

I can hear Dr. Pangloss shouting it now:

"C'est le meilleur de tous les mondes possibles."

 

[xmmcsmielr]

How to "test" for ethics?

Excellent points, Vivian.

That brings us back to the "ethical test". Is there really a "test" that a board could require that demonstrates inherent ethical tendencies in a potential appraiser? I'm not experienced in that type of measure, but would be surprised if such a test would consistently identify ethical versus unethical applicants.

Maybe the "test" for ethical conduct should be performance?

It would be nice if trainers were all ethical. Then our profession could rely on trainers to grauduate ethical trainees to populate every state's group of appraisers. Since that is not the case, that won't work. In fact, there are several cabals of "hit the numbers" shops that have produced several generations of lying sacks of mierda, who call themselves appraisers in Tucson. This results in a whole company regularly hitting LOs' requested numbers illegaly.

The only solution that may be possible is to ratchet up the levels of USPAP enforcement. However, intensified USPAP enforcement probably is not realistic, either, because American society has a major void in adequate enforcement in just about all levels of crimes. The medical boards regularly fail to effectively sanction butchers, who call themselves physicians. AGs fail to indict politicians who regularly violate the U.S. Constitution. Etcetera. And, most important, the AZ BoA has failed miserably during its ~17 years of existence.

So, there is little chance that USPAP will ever be effectively enforced by any level of government, in spite of a large number of appraisers wishing and hoping, attending Board meetings, criticizing Board actions and griping to the Arizona Legislature.

That brings me back to a conclusion I reached ~five years ago: I need to challenge criminal appraisers to duels. Arizona needs to legalize dueling. I need to campaign for that, instead of trying to encourage the Arizona Board of Appraisal to effectively enforce USPAP.