Where Do You Think "geographic Competency" Begins And Ends?

[djd09]

How many IAC members have BPO products? One foot on the pedal, one on the brake.

 

[George Hatch]

Are you really suggesting it's immoral for The Appraisal Foundation to solicit input from other professions, business groups or government?

I'm curious. Exactly how do you go about making SOW decisions for your assignments if not for asking your clients (who you hate) what they're respective requirements are? How far do you go in telling your clients that you don't care what they want, that you're still only going to give them what you want to sell?

The point I'm making is that you cannot do your job properly without taking whatever steps it takes to understand the legitimate needs of the users of your service. But then you're going to jump to the assumption on the knee jerk basis that when TAF uses the same approach in their process for what they're doing that it represents primae facie evidence of their corruption?

 

[djd09]

"hating" anyone or anything is a wrong assumption. I am not the Judge.

My job is more like Paul Revere. Just warning.

 

[George Hatch]

Let me rephrase, then.

Even if you hated a client you were taking work from you would still need to actively inquire or research what their legitimate needs were for those assignments - not even as much for their sake as for your own.

This is the situation TAF faces. Even if their role was to advocate for the economic interests of the profession - which it isn't - they are still obligated to do their due diligence WRT the legitimate interests of all the various constituents of the profession, not just the appraisers themselves.

Merely accepting a list of comps from a broker doesn't represent either a promise or an intent to present them as comps in favor of the better comps you have at hand. By itself merely accepting that outside input certainly doesn't prove you're open to selling out to them, let alone that you've actually done it. All you did was demonstrate your willingness to at least consider outside information.

This is not a rhetorical or even argumentative line of reasoning. I'm not playing word games here. this is just being consistent. All I'm doing is applying the same process we all follow in our day jobs to what the boards on TAF do. Problem identification comes first, and is not subject to arbitrary external limitations.

 

[Meandering]

I would say that if someone or something who is offshore is capable of actually beating you at your own game that you have a serious problem; and that the most you can hope for in appealing to the state to protect you from your competition is to run the clock.

On the one hand, I have confidence in the ability of people to adapt to a dynamic environment if they're sufficiently motivated. But on the other hand I'm working on my 3rd RE cycle and I know from experience that a certain percentage of people will not make those changes - and the reasons why don't much matter WRT the results - and they will get starved out.

I am not trying to be a jerk here, I'm just reporting the weather.

And what is the test of "winning" to know if you've been beaten or if you have won????

When the state issues extradition orders for overseas participants???

Is that when you know who won?

.

 

[George Hatch]

"winning" is like happiness, right? It's in the eye of the beholder.

The first step in achieving or maintaining credibility is establishing reasonable expectations that you can actually meet; then you go out and meet them.

As for the states, they primarily get pulled into situations as the result of a complaint, ya?

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

they care.

They care but they don't understand. Like CNBC's Diana Orlick when refining her home. Didn't understand the drive by, but did understand she was screwed and demanded a better appraisal. The sent someone this time to look inside and they valued it higher. If a RE reporter for a business network fails to grasp appraisal-speak the why expect Joe Plumber to understand "public trust". You can explain why a drive by is cheaper, and less reliable but the appraiser was "correct" under the given scope of work until you are red in the face, but their BS flag is already up.

 

[George Hatch]

Personally I think the default explanations on the Fannie forms are grossly inadequate, if not downright misleading by omission in a couple areas. If I did a drive-by and someone complained about the effects of me not seeing the interior I'd point them straight back to the disclosures I use that plainly state the assumptions I'm using along with the proviso that if significantly incorrect they might be of effect on my conclusions. So either the appraiser didn't explain their situation well in the first place or nobody referred that reporter back to RTFR.

It's examples like these that demonstrate why so many appraisers - including some of you here - need to stop fixating so much on the superficial elements of the mechanics and put more thought into what the reasons are for those mechanics and how they affect what you're doing.

 

[George Hatch]

As a matter of fact I've done exactly that in depositions when some attorney was attempting to jam me up on what I did and didn't understand about what my report said. By the time I got done I made them sorry they even asked me that question, not because I had the perfect appraisal going for me but because I had staked out some reasonable limitations.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

either the appraiser didn't explain their situation well in the first place or nobody referred that reporter back to RTFR.

If the value is wrong, then the value is wrong therefore the report is clearly misleading. And in her case, the value is wrong hence the report misleading for its intended use in a HELOC.