Appraisers' Free Forum

Typically, the punitive/corrective actions imposed by State Boards range from a minimal fine to completion of a CE course to suspension to revocation.

With all the discussion about the difficulty of the 2008 exams, wouldn't it be something if an option available to the Boards was a requirement that an appraiser guilty of an infraction take and pass the new exam? I would think that would be very effective at weeding out the incompetent. Impose a requirement that the exam be passed within a given time period, say 3 months. If the exam is not passed in the required period, the license would be suspended until such time as the exam was passed.

I would think that those appraisers that are not incompetent, but got caught having an "um duh" moment should jump at the chance to merely take and pass the exam.

Is it your experience that the appraisers sanctioned by their various states often just have an "um duh" moment or is that pretty atypical? At least with the Michigan board it doesn't seem to be the case on the majority of actions, although that isn't saying that some haven't been just such.

I feel that if errors on the appraisal are basically the result of negligence, and the action old (say 2005 when brought forward in 2008) AND, and this is a big and, the appraiser has shown a marked improvement in their work product in the mean time, that lenience should prevail. If on the other hand, the problems are on going and still present in the current work, then the enforcement should be more punitive (and with a high monetary component).

As to the idea of taking the exam again, it sounds quite good, although unfortunately some of the worst offenders are quite smart and able and would be able to pass easily, as it is their moral compass that is broken, not their knowledge base....

Those with the broken compass are the ones who should have their license revoked.

Although you can teach and learn ethics, you can't correct intentionally unethical behaviour.

I agree with the bit about leniency for those that self-identify weaknesses and personally impose corrective actions. Someone who reversed the sign of a quantitative adjustment three years ago should not get the book thrown at them tomorrow. Especially if the action did not result in assignment results which would be materially different had the correct action been taken.

The "zero-tolerance" crowd should be careful about what they wish for.

I would think that would be very effective at weeding out the incompetent.

The problems I see with your suggestions is how do you establish a baseline. Do the people on the board have to pass the test in order to get on the board and if they don't, do they go back to square one?

From what I have seen of state board rulings, I am not sure you'd be testing the right people. DW reports learning of a state that recently sanctioned an appraiser for not having a specifically labelled "scope of work" section in his report. This ruling came despite the fact that USPAP contains no such requirement, and despite the fact that the appraiser presented QA and FAQ type documents in which the ASB clarified that it had put no such requirement in USPAP.

Simple question for you - in that case - who should be forced to pass a test?

Even if yoiu could get passed some of the practical problems, is it possible that some good appraisers are bad at passing tests and some bad appraisers are good at passing tests? Could be my imagination, but at least 80% of the test I took was stuff that no one ever used to figure out what a property is worth. That's what I think made the test hard, memorizing material that had no prior or future use in practice.

They still asking the "fenestration" question?

Good points...

There is the problem of those with significant appraisal experience not keeping current with modern terminology and/or becoming megalomaniacs. As I have previously commented, one cannot teach those that will not learn.

I was sitting in an AI course a couple of months ago and a war story became a discussion about an appraisal technique about which two MAIs shared a difference of opinion. The discussion became heated to the point I thought they were going to start throwing things at each other. Unfortunately, I was sitting in the line of fire. Both parties were local and there was obviously some history between the two about the subject. One of them commented something about "I've been doing it that way for almost 30 years!" While that reasoning did not provide much support for his position, his methods could have been completely acceptable.

The moral of the story is that there can be different ways to solve a problem with each method being valid. The State Board that was the subject of DW's comment had decided that there was a certain procedure to be followed with regard to SOW and they didn't care about any opinion that differed from theirs. That was wrong and I hope the appraiser had some course of appealing the decision.

The problem with punitive actions which require that an appraiser attend a CE course or basic educational course is that, often, that appraiser will seek out "Joe Mama's Correspondence School of Appraisal and Small Engine Repair", or the equivalent. Joe Mama will do a great job of teaching, ensuring that he stomps his foot or clears his throat whenever something "important" is stated. Since Joe Mama probably provided the appraiser's initial basic education, the appraiser will be no more qualified afterwards than he/she was to begin with.

With the more difficult National Exam, Joe Mama's teaching methods just won't cut it. Therein lies the value.

PC, what a wonderful idea!
Make state board members re-take their certification tests and pass them, or they can't be board members.
I like that a lot!

Jim Plante wrote:PC, what a wonderful idea!
Make state board members re-take their certification tests and pass them, or they can't be board members.
I like that a lot!

Just remember though. It's the state board that would have to vote in such a requirement.

I think the larger issue is that so many appraisers are convinced most of their colleagues are incompetent and “the problem” is how to drive the incompetents from the fold. I wonder if other trades and professions spend so much time trying to figure out how to regulate their competition out of business. Can you just imagine plumbers file complaints about other plumbers who do free pipe checks?

If I had a vote on one of these Malthusian options, I’d depopulate the appraisal world by making the USPAP instructor’s exam mandatory. I suspect the USPAP material has more practical application than the general exam and “fenestration” questions. For example, people who pass the USPAP instructor’s exam seem to have a low incidence of being confused by the term “comp check.”

Pina Colada wrote:I think the larger issue is that so many appraisers are convinced most of their colleagues are incompetent and “the problem” is how to drive the incompetents from the fold. I wonder if other trades and professions spend so much time trying to figure out how to regulate their competition out of business. Can you just imagine plumbers file complaints about other plumbers who do free pipe checks?

If I had a vote on one of these Malthusian options, I’d depopulate the appraisal world by making the USPAP instructor’s exam mandatory. I suspect the USPAP material has more practical application than the general exam and “fenestration” questions. For example, people who pass the USPAP instructor’s exam seem to have a low incidence of being confused by the term “comp check.”

Now there's a thought! (Emphasis added)

FWIW, I think the current brood of zealots that are spewing forth divisive words of intolerance and condemnation with their assumed air of superiority are as big a threat to the profession, if not moreso, than the minimally educated and experienced appraiser who has difficulty reading at the 8th Grade level. The rookie can probably be taught. Not so, the others.

Jim Plante wrote:PC, what a wonderful idea!
Make state board members re-take their certification tests and pass them, or they can't be board members.
I like that a lot!

Not all board members are appraisers, however.

Not all board members are appraisers, however.

Of course they're not. But if they ARE appraiser-members, they should be required to take and pass the current test at their cert level, i.e., residential or commercial.

Kenneth Brown wrote: The rookie can probably be taught. Not so, the others.

Sunset provision?

I believe it was Yoda who told Luke Skywalker, "You must un-learn."

Now, I don't want to go off on a rant about the AI/AIREA version of appraisal theory being created by six blind men and an elephant. And for better or worse, I was never a rookie or a trainee. I took an income property class out of curiousity and spent so much time arguing with the instructor about yield rates I got hired by someone in the class at the first lunch break, and two weeks later I was doing a DCF on a commercial leasehold. For mentoring, I had a file cabinet with some old reports and a Harrison book.

However, I do know a thing or two about rookies, old dogs and tricks you never heard of.

Over the years, I have toyed with the idea of developing courses, and even made signficant progress. Fortuneately, my good judgment has always won out, and I never try to market the courses. I have an all-purpose sales set I posted to another forum several times to demonstrate whatever issue would come up. I may even have posted it here. I think it can be solved by eye, or more effectively with a little sorting.

The part that appeals to my devaint sense of humor is that I solve the sales set several times, using nonsense units of comparison. I have the adjustments grids and all that. I get the same point value within 1 or 2 percent using every possible unit of comparison. My favorite unit of comparison is price per year built, but it doesn't matter, I get the same answer using price per date sold, which is even more whack. That set is 14 house sales and four or five variables. I am thinking of doing another one with maybe 25 commercial or industrial sales and six or seven variables. I could do sales grids on some really odd-sounding units like price per foot of building heght or price per mile from the rail spur.

The interesting part to me, is that AI version of appraisal theory is completely inadequate when it comes to explaining this.

It's fun to show it to appraisers once in a while, and watch them run for the hills. Show that to a state board, and they will burn you at the stake for witchcraft.

I wouldn't have a problem with that being one option, Kenneth. But, don't forget that being unethical does not necessarily maen they are not smart.

I do have a problem with it. It doesn't make sense to have somebody re-test for violations.

Yes it does. In most areas, certification was given to whoever paid the fee and swore he'd done at least XXXX appraisals. Most of those guys haven't taken the QalEd courses, because they're more expensive and take longer. Almost none of them was ever required to complete the certification test. So it makes sense to me to have them do it on a violation, before they get back out in the field.