lender is entitled to choose which appraisers they accept work from, and indeed, is held accountable by the feds for the appraisals they take in.
Oh would that they WERE held accountable :twisted: How many mainstream lenders have you heard of recently or EVER, sanctioned for pressuring ethical appraisers or consistantly cherry picking the blind and morally weak appraiser segement?
I wish Mr. Bruss had put the problems of the appraisal industry, which do exist, in context by mentioning that individual performance varies among every profession, including the practice of Law.
Yes but in Law and MOST other businesses many of the poor quality individuals are placed in direct competition with competent persons, and thus weeded out through market action!
In our business as currently run, numberhitters recieve great rewards, with little or no possiblility of adverse action :evil: :!:
And finally:
Our biggest enemy is not Mr. Bruss. It's appraisers who don't follow the rules and the clients who use them.
George: ponit a I concurr with, but I respectfully disagree with the wording of the second sentence.
How about:
"Our enemy is: the clients who USE appraisers who don't follow the rules (and secondarily the lowlife appraisers who bend and break those rules).
To the extent as you indicate that the enemy is US, I agree, but given the economic reality and difficulty in self policing as commented on in another thread on this forum: it appears that the golden rule will drive out competent appraisers regardless of how ethically they perform their own tasks... Unless we also take very seriously and to our own detriment the policing function! few business pople can function under such restriction:
I am starting to believe that the policing function should NOT be in the hands of individual states or personell, and the complaint process might better be served if on an out of area basis.
Perhaps selecting two local appraisers to review any given report on which there is a complaint. Pay a nominal or reasonable fee for the reviews, and if the complainant is found to be false/fraudulent, bill the complainant. If two of three result in significant discrepancies then an additional level of formal review? Rotate the reviewers, and I would be willing to bet the profession would clean itself up in a hurry. I would be willing to bet that you could run it like jury duty: nominal fee for review and you do your civic share in donating some of your time to the process.
National rules ? This is its' own set of worms, however local biases and good old boy systems however innocent run counter to the ethical requirements of this profession!
