February 2019 Newsletter

[chad hampton]

Yes. It was a positive, post-election change. I was previously stopped from publishing these by management who wanted to produce their own. It took them 18 months to publish one newsletter that was absolutely worthless. This one was started the day after this person left and was completed as I was home with bronchitis. The whole point of these is to help our licensees understand where we're coming from on a variety of issues. The hybrid article stemmed from a great deal of misinformation that was out there. People thought we were banning them...which we are not...just cautioning appraisers on the obvious liability.

What I cannot understand is the fact that a client would rather not pay for the appraiser to go to the property...but pay someone else. Why?

It makes no sense.

Why is the question and yes, it makes zero sense.

I've never been a big fan of putting the decision on the appraiser as to if the info is "credible" or not. What's not "credible" to me might be considered "credible" to someone else who just wants a quick payday. I don't know how many appraisers are in IL, but it shouldn't be 4,000 (est?) individuals to determine that is credible when it comes to these products.

The issue is very black and white to me - if you haven't trained the person and they aren't under your supervision, then you can't consider subjective information credible. At least not up to the level that your license require it to be. Just my opinion.

But overall, a very good newsletter!

 

[chad hampton]

Yes. It was a positive, post-election change. I was previously stopped from publishing these by management who wanted to produce their own. It took them 18 months to publish one newsletter that was absolutely worthless. This one was started the day after this person left and was completed as I was home with bronchitis. The whole point of these is to help our licensees understand where we're coming from on a variety of issues. The hybrid article stemmed from a great deal of misinformation that was out there. People thought we were banning them...which we are not...just cautioning appraisers on the obvious liability.

What I cannot understand is the fact that a client would rather not pay for the appraiser to go to the property...but pay someone else. Why?

It makes no sense.

Why is the question and yes, it makes zero sense.

I've never been a big fan of putting the decision on the appraiser as to if the info is "credible" or not. What's not "credible" to me might be considered "credible" to someone else who just wants a quick payday. It does not create a level playing field. I don't know how many appraisers are in IL, but it shouldn't be 4,000 (est?) individuals to determine that is credible when it comes to these products.

The issue is very black and white to me - if you haven't trained the person and they aren't under your supervision, then you can't consider subjective information credible. At least not up to the level that your license require it to be. Just my opinion....but also according to the wording of the laws in my state as I read it.

But overall, a very good newsletter!

 

[Carnivore]

Why is the question and yes, it makes zero sense.

I've never been a big fan of putting the decision on the appraiser as to if the info is "credible" or not. What's not "credible" to me might be considered "credible" to someone else who just wants a quick payday. I don't know how many appraisers are in IL, but it shouldn't be 4,000 (est?) individuals to determine that is credible when it comes to these products.

The issue is very black and white to me - if you haven't trained the person and they aren't under your supervision, then you can't consider subjective information credible. At least not up to the level that your license require it to be. Just my opinion.

But overall, a very good newsletter!

Now i think you may understand, if others don't why I use "Harry the Aluminum Can collector" and "Sally the Bag Lady" for a Inspector.

I think it might have more impact if I start Using; "Brian Coasterboy" - Now thats Credibility!!!

In effect we are making an over-generalization of Inspectors to determine credibility. You might also say we are making a faulty generalization of credibility if we apply it to ALL inspectors.

So lets carry it out a little: Harry says the SFT is X, is it credible, Well the Tax Card says the same thing; SFT is X. - Is Harry Credible? Maybe! Assuming the Tax Card is correct. One or both could be wrong. I know who the Tax Depart is made up of, but i don't know Harry. I also can get a hold of the tax office, but I cant get a hold of Harry. The other question is Did Harry determine the SFT or did he just use the tax card?

The Real Question is simple: Why are they not Identifying who is Harry? Why can I not get a hold of Harry?

The credible vs. the reliable text: Reliability refers to our ability to trust the consistency of the author's account of the truth. ... Credibility refers to our ability to trust the author's account of the truth on the basis of her or his tone and reliability.

reductio ad absurdum

 

[BRCJR]

Appraisers should perform a background and credit check on the inspectors they must use. Have them send a picture so verification can take place about who actually did the inspection.

The inspector will need to pay in advance for these checks.

Wonder how or if that would work out?

 

[ucbruin]

Appraisers should perform a background and credit check on the inspectors they must use. Have them send a picture so verification can take place about who actually did the inspection.

The inspector will need to pay in advance for these checks.

Wonder how or if that would work out?

Are you serious about a background check?

Or just pulling our collective legs?

 

[Carnivore]

Referring to USPAP Lines 763-768 Current Version and even the draft that got scrapped ... I did a little break down to put this in better context

Drilling Down on the words used in the Lines and in the context of "The Appraiser(s) who signs the Certification accepts full responsibility ...."

A competent person is someone who has sufficient training and experience or knowledge and other qualities that allow them to assist you properly. The level of competence required will depend on the complexity of the situation and the particular help you need.

A reliable person is someone who you can trust to behave well, work hard, or do what you expect them to do.

A credible person is expert (experienced, qualified, intelligent, skilled) and trustworthy

trustworthy is someone who is honest who can be entrusted with your secrets or with anything else of importance.

Definition of no doubt about it. —used to stress that something is true

We finally get to the question that must be answered by all Appraisers:

Who is Harry the Inspector?

If we are intellectually honest; Logic and USPAP says that we should be able to answer the question, by describing Harry using the words; competent, reliable, credible and trustworthy!

Since we don't know harry, never met Harry, can't contact Harry! How can we meet the requirements of USPAP since we are accepting full responsibility for Harry.

So here is who i think is responsible and should accept that responsibility and warrant Harry.

The Client, or the Clients representative; AKA AMC. Fast M Cheap!

Tell me where I am Wrong!

 

[BRCJR]

Are you serious about a background check?

Or just pulling our collective legs?

I just figured what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Bill S]

Great to have the newsletter back Brian. With the recent shakeup do you see a possibility of rolling back the "all CE must be taken six months prior to renewal" rule? This creates an issue for those of us licensed in multiple states with varying renewal dates.

 

[apt20]

Great to have the newsletter back Brian. With the recent shakeup do you see a possibility of rolling back the "all CE must be taken six months prior to renewal" rule? This creates an issue for those of us licensed in multiple states with varying renewal dates.[/QUOTE

3 months, not 6