Review Appraiser "Hides" behind client relationship

[Mark K]

It looks like your appraisal was reviewed by Freddie/Fannie Form Filler (4F'er, I hesitate to call some of these people appraisers) who lacked competence to properly review a hobby farm. File a rebuttal with the lender and file a complaint to the state.

 

[Jim Onderisin]

Easy does it, Todd! The easiest thing to do, and the thing I'd feel most natural doing, is to go ahead and discuss the review with you if you called. But I can't...those are the game rules I agreed to play by when I accepted the order. And the easiest way to lose clients is to not play by the game rules. It has nothing to do with courage or punching people or whatever.

Now, what if the reviewer WERE willing to talk with you about the review? What would you be hoping for...to change the reviewers opinion? Prove that person wrong, maybe? Do you think, after speaking with you, that person would amend the review and re-submit it to the client? What were you hoping to gain?

 

[xm72mhd]

Edd, how do you know that the confidentiality in this case is not contractual?

Because, they sent the review and the reviewer's name? It's no longer confidential, if indeed it ever was. What is this, tell all then impose a gag order? Nuts to that. That has nothing to do with confidentiality and crosses over into pure control after having already waived confidentiality. I guess if you agree the client has complete control over your actions once you're hired to complete an appraisal your argument holds water. Would that include not working for a client's competitor?

 

[Hal Mann]

Because, they sent the review and the reviewer's name? It's no longer confidential, if indeed it ever was. What is this, tell all then impose a gag order? Nuts to that. That has nothing to do with confidentiality and crosses over into pure control after having already waived confidentiality. I guess if you agree the client has complete control over your actions once you're hired to complete an appraisal your argument holds water. Would that include not working for a client's competitor?

1) Just because they sent the review to Todd or William (or whoever the hell he is) doesn't tell us anything about what kind of arrangement the client has with the reviewer. Furthermore, the reviewer could easily be unaware that the review was handed over to T or W or whoever by their client.

2) "Would that include not working for a client's competitor" = non-sequitor.

I don't understand the outrage, especially since it's all based on a series of assumptions.

 

[xm72mhd]

The easiest thing to do, and the thing I'd feel most natural doing, is to go ahead and discuss the review with you if you called. But I can't...

That is correct and schizophrenic as well. Makes no sense in a profession that holds itself out to examine and report objectively. Happy mind boggling confidences all! Is anybody convinced this is a higher calling?

 

[George Hatch]

Edd,

There are some good reasons for the Confidentiality section of the Ethics Rule. You may not agree that it should apply to all assignments, but I'm sure you recognize the problems that can occur when the burden of judgement on this passes from the ASB to the individual appraiser, dependent on the situation. The practice of law practically exists to create exceptions to the rule. As far as I can tell, the downsides far outweigh the upsides.

If a client wants a reviewer to spend a couple hours of uncompensated time arguing with an appraiser over differences on opinion then all they have to do is direct the reviewer to cooperate. The end result will probably remain the same, though. The client and intended users are still going to have to decide which workproduct they think is more credible.

 

[Webbed Feet]

Bigger fish to fry / More important topic

Because, they sent the review and the reviewer's name? It's no longer confidential, if indeed it ever was. What is this, tell all then impose a gag order? Nuts to that. That has nothing to do with confidentiality and crosses over into pure control after having already waived confidentiality. I guess if you agree the client has complete control over your actions once you're hired to complete an appraisal your argument holds water. Would that include not working for a client's competitor?

Mr. Gillespie,

I feel there is an aspect that has been missed here throughout the thread and by Mr. Rightsell. I hope Mr. Rightsell sees it when he calms down.

A far larger industry question needs to be asked here. When any AMC very aggressively shops around for the very cheapest fees with the very fastest turn times to the point doing any sort of quality job for them becomes difficult... who is to blame for the results? I will agree, yes no appraiser should accept an assignment they cannot do competently. But there IS another side to the coin here. When conditions for SOW are set by a PROFESSIONAL appraisal management corporation that literally insures only brand new to the business (read that lacks experience) independant contractors (appraisers) will work for them most of the time, because they lack other clients, the results can be forecasted very easily. Any reasonably intelligent person on the planet understands if you hire the very cheapest you can find, and demand they meet record setting completion times along with riding their *** every two hours to get the job done, the odds of a crappy job result are extremely high. Because the people who will work under those conditions cannot get other work.

For any appraiser who has just opened their own shop, one of the hardest lessons to learn is when to turn down an assignment. Yes, as appraisers we are supposed to be responsible for our own choices. But let all of us step back and look hard at where the blame should really be placed. When there is a predatory so called "appraisal management company" who claims to be managing a situation in order to produce "quality" results for the AMC's clients.... But whose requirements may often cause just the opposite, and they should damn well know it, who's to blame? Was a review appraiser hired under such conditions in this case, with no regard whatsoever for the review appraisers experience and qualifications? I can only poise the question. I leave it to the forum members to have their own thoughts regarding an answer.

I believe the real lesson here is for all "new to the business" forum members to wake up and take note if there is a potential and well known client in the industry ordering reviews that will demand the cheapest fee, fastest turn time, and then in the end turn around and promptly shaft them by placing them into a confrontational sitution with another appraiser with no shielding from it whatsoever.

Should an appraiser's name in an original appraisal sent out for review be blocked out and not given to the review appraiser? I say yes it should be. Should a review EVER be sent back to that appraiser showing the reviewer's name due to the exact same reasons the opposite above should not be done? I say yes a reviewer's name should not be given out so they are free to review without concern regarding a conflict occuring, anything less could possibly damage the reviewer's bias due to worries over it. Should an AMC actually "Manage" all this instead of bailing out on the responsibility? I say they should. Is there an AMC that is NOT doing this and providing names of everybody to everyone else? We all should be asking if the liability being dumped in our laps is worth the wittle fee to review being offered. Can any of us really do an unbiased review knowing full well if the review is negative we will promptly be given the shaft by the client involved and pitted in a dog fight against the appraiser under review?

Barry Dayton

P.S. Disclaimer... None of the above comments are intended to reflect on any AMC named in this thread. They are regarding a hypothetical AMC who may engage in the described practices for discussion only regarding the hypothetical effects on the industry.

 

[xm72mhd]

Edd,

There are some good reasons for the Confidentiality section of the Ethics Rule. You may not agree that it should apply to all assignments, but I'm sure you recognize the problems that can occur when the burden of judgement on this passes from the ASB to the individual appraiser, dependent on the situation. The practice of law practically exists to create exceptions to the rule. As far as I can tell, the downsides far outweigh the upsides.

If a client wants a reviewer to spend a couple hours of uncompensated time arguing with an appraiser over differences on opinion then all they have to do is direct the reviewer to cooperate. The end result will probably remain the same, though. The client and intended users are still going to have to decide which workproduct they think is more credible.

Actually I vote for the burden being on the client and not on the appraiser or the ASB. And I don't know what the good reasons are for automatic confidentiality in appraising are although I've been told repeatedly that there must be some. I guess they are a secret, but even those can be handled with an agreement.

Discussion between reviewers and appraisers might result in some understanding as well. On both sides. And particularly so if one or the other is in over their heads. If they both are then god save us all. There is no reason that all of the conversations in this regard will be a waste of time as you characterize it.

It appears to me that this reviewer has wasted everybody's time and the client's money as well. What a shame. The client ought to be in on the three way conference, and then maybe consider a different approach the next time a review is needed, instead of pot-luck. Surely you guys are not thinking we can do away with review altogether by becoming more proficient.

 

[Tim Hicks (Texas)]

Edd, it is simple. You don't discuss the appraisal assignment with anyone without permission from the client. Preferably in writing. This ain't rocket science.

 

[George Hatch]

Default confidentiality is worthwhile because appraisals - and reviews and consulting assignments - are used for more than just loan decisions; and because there are lots of third parties who would love to gain the upper hand without the client's knowledge or consent.

Confidentiality requirements support the concept of trust in the appraiser-client relationship. Not having a universally applicable confidentiality requirement would detract from that trust. Compared to that, the "right" of an appraiser to automatically discuss a review with the reviewer pales in importance.