Appraisers' Free Forum

mr rex wrote:

Edd Gillespie wrote:

mr rex wrote:I disagree with the 5 year rule. The worst appraisals I have ever seen were from a gentleman with a license number between 100 and 150. I did my first review before I had done 50 appraisals (of course under the thumb of a CG). I agree that there should be special training and testing, but time doesn't make appraisers, understanding of USPAP, SOW, and supplemental standards etc does. Some old timers I meet in CE classes shouldn't be allowed to vote, drive, or breed and couldn't appraise a doghouse without a sales price or owners estimate, but they are "tenured" appraisers.

If we need arrogance and condescension we now have an available source that is absolutely reeking. What bugs me in these classes are the inexperienced, poorly educated, but incredibly vocal whipper snappers who don't even know what they don't know.

Come back when you get some rings on your horns and your heels wounded and we'll see how smart you are then. You sound like you must be all of 15 and very, very wet behind the ears. I qualify for social security buddy and you do not have my permission to call me an old timer. In your case the time required to qualify as a reviewer should be extended to at least twenty years. I've got the impression it may difficult for you to learn what you need to know to be a good appraiser or reviewer.

Get a mentor.

Edd, Ill go brain cell to brain cell anytime you want old timer. If you want to get ugly, why is it that you have a juris, and are a lowly appraiser? I love a challenge, and if the state would allow it, I could pass the bar in under 2 years. Come back when you have a better argument, and not one based on your training as an arguer.(if that's a word) It seems you need a lawyer mentor, or you wouldn't be wallowing in our problems. Now, you want to rassle? I have horns and I bite. You want to play rough, you don't have the expertise to scare me, the brains to outsmart me, or the balls to call me out in person. I will gladly meet you anywhere you want, and we will compare intellect and Dick sizes if thats what flips your trigger, but don't dare give me the kind of bullshit you just posted.

OK, you win. I was wrong. You're dumber, got a smaller penis and are more arrogant than I gave you credit for. You didn't do yourself justice on the first go round. I'll bet you get to be a mortgage broker next.

Since my post apparently had the deisred effect here it is again just for you in bold red type.

If we need arrogance and condescension we now have an available source that is absolutely reeking. What bugs me in these classes are the inexperienced, poorly educated, but incredibly vocal whipper snappers who don't even know what they don't know.

Come back when you get some rings on your horns and your heels wounded and we'll see how smart you are then. You sound like you must be all of 15 and very, very wet behind the ears. I qualify for social security buddy and you do not have my permission to call me an old timer. In your case the time required to qualify as a reviewer should be extended to at least twenty years. I've got the impression it may difficult for you to learn what you need to know to be a good appraiser or reviewer.
Get a mentor.

Wannabe

But thanks for letting us all know who really are. Anybody still wondering if this guy cares who he takes on?

Edd, I did have respect for you. I guess everybody is wrong sometimes. Maybe you will do better as a sage appraiser than you did as a lawyer. In either case, I wish you well. BTW, repeating yourself may work in trial cases in law school, but it makes you look like you have nothing more to add out here in the real world. I guess that says alot.

I don't care who I take on. Why the hell would I back down from you or anybody else? Quite frankly, I've met better appraisers and lawyers. It seems to me that you aren't an exceptional appraisal mind and certainly not an exceptional JD mind. Where the hell did I piss in your Wheaties personally? I haven't but dammit I will, keep trying me.

Well, I am glad this thread is progressing nicely

Annemieke Roell wrote:Well, I am glad this thread is progressing nicely

Yeah. I started it by reacting in kind to Rex's way of expressing his opinions. I should have known how easy it is to derail the thread by participating in invective. The thread is about review, which I consider to be an extremely important but very underrated activity in our profession. And I am pleased we are discussing it. I disagree with Rex's opinion about who should be reviewing. I believe that it requires a very discerning mind and a lot of experience. As you know, I believe any reviewer who undertakes to substitute conclusions and results for the appraiser's needs competency in what ever market is involved.

The exchange between Rex and me might be a good example of jumping to conclusions without sufficeint evidence. Something many reviews do. I thought about taking down my posts that don't have anything to do with review, but I changed my mind. I sincerely do believe Rex failed to inspire confidence in his opinion about who is and who is not qualified to review, but more importantly the exchange between Rex and me is hard evidence of how easily distracted and offensive we can become. I reacted to his arrogance and inappropriate comment about "old timers." I'm sure none of you needed me to point that out.

Sorry, if anybody else was offended by what I did. I also forgot my rule to avoid becoming involved in having the last word, which seems to be so important to forum participants.

I believe the five year period represents a minimum time for the education and experience required to become discerning, and may be too short. There is a mind set among those who review in my office that if it comes in for review there must be something wrong with it and the appraisal is fly specked. So far I have been unsuccessful, except in one case, of modifying that attitude. I believe every review should be an effort to find first what is right about the appraisal. If nothing more we should have enough respect for our own profession to do that. I believe the overriding objective of review should be to get rid of the need for review of incompetent appraisers, through elimination of incompetence. There will always be gradients of quality, but the current lowest levels of quality of appraisals is ridiculous.

It seems to me that the importance of review is not only to protect the clients from unscrupulous or incompetent appraisers or even just plain error, but each one should be a learning experience for the profession. So far the last objective is not being realized.

Reviewers should be required to pass an extended and rigorous process of education and peer review similar to designation.

Annemieke Roell wrote:Well, I am glad this thread is progressing nicely

We should have known.

Edd Gillespie wrote:

Annemieke Roell wrote:Well, I am glad this thread is progressing nicely

Yeah. I started it by reacting in kind to Rex's way of expressing his opinions. I should have known how easy it is to derail the thread by participating in invective. The thread is about review, which I consider to be an extremely important but very underrated activity in our profession. And I am pleased we are discussing it. I disagree with Rex's opinion about who should be reviewing. I believe that it requires a very discerning mind and a lot of experience. As you know, I believe any reviewer who undertakes to substitute conclusions and results for the appraiser's needs competency in what ever market is involved.

The exchange between Rex and me might be a good example of jumping to conclusions without sufficeint evidence. Something many reviews do. I thought about taking down my posts that don't have anything to do with review, but I changed my mind. I sincerely do believe Rex failed to inspire confidence in his opinion about who is and who is not qualified to review, but more importantly the exchange between Rex and me is hard evidence of how easily distracted and offensive we can become. I reacted to his arrogance and inappropriate comment about "old timers." I'm sure none of you needed me to point that out.

Sorry, if anybody else was offended by what I did. I also forgot my rule to avoid becoming involved in having the last word, which seems to be so important to forum participants.

I believe the five year period represents a minimum time for the education and experience required to become discerning, and may be too short. There is a mind set among those who review in my office that if it comes in for review there must be something wrong with it and the appraisal is fly specked. So far I have been unsuccessful, except in one case, of modifying that attitude. I believe every review should be an effort to find first what is right about the appraisal. If nothing more we should have enough respect for our own profession to do that. I believe the overriding objective of review should be to get rid of the need for review of incompetent appraisers, through elimination of incompetence. There will always be gradients of quality, but the current lowest levels of quality of appraisals is ridiculous.

It seems to me that the importance of review is not only to protect the clients from unscrupulous or incompetent appraisers or even just plain error, but each one should be a learning experience for the profession. So far the last objective is not being realized.

Reviewers should be required to pass an extended and rigorous process of education and peer review similar to designation.

Edd, FWIW and in my own opinion and perspective (not as a MOD), you both have valid points. The review side of the profession is and has been overlooked for many many years. That's because, IMHO, the lenders/investors are looking for just another "second" appraisal but don't want to pay for it. There are far too many people out there who call themselves "appraisers" who don't know what they are doing or how to do it - that includes appraisal analysis and reviewing.

As I'm sure you're aware, there are some who come into the field, appraising and reviewing, who are almost immediately qualified (or almost). They can see the problem, good at research and analysis and can keep an open mind. And then, there are far too many who don't have the slightest idea of what they are doing in either aspect, even after 10 to 20 years of attempting to do it. As such, those who are "passionate" about what we do, are really passionate - for one belief (or side) or another.

While I believe that there should be more classes and potentially some sort of "separating" designation/insignia, I also believe that there are those that can just do it from the start. Similar, somewhat, to a relocation analysis (some can do I [I for one] and others haven't even seen the daylight). A good example of someone who can do it from the start, I believe because I've had many discussions about it, is Annemieke. It does help to have good mentorship and that would apply to not only reviewing but to also the preparation and completion of appraisal reports and the analysis. So the concerns don't only apply to reviewers but also, IMHO, to people who want to be mentors.

I'd enjoy this thread better if you guys didn't feel the need to quote-repeat your antagonist. I'm sure we can all figure out the context.

I agree with the dog, you don't need to be a 100 year old appraiser with hair in his ears to be a competent reviewer. Some of those guys suck just as bad as the sweet young 20-somethings popping them out for $100 for LSI or whoeverthef@#k.

Edd take your meds, not everyone is out to trash your work.

I understand what Edd was saying, and must give credence and credit to it. Yes, there are appraisers that come into the business and rapidly progress, but lets be blunt. There aren't that many.
No insult to Annemieke, and I know she won't take any, but she didn't just step out of the class and become a dynamo. She has a good mentor.
Still, she has years of experience, and, the one thing that really needs to be remembered as well: She isn't a kid.
Older, wiser, and more mature, she understood, from life experience, which helps a lot.
By and large, all things being equal, an older appraiser IS better than a relatively new one.
Law of averages, folks. Lets also not take that comment as an insult to any of those who didn't appraise one of the pyramids.
We're all learning. And I'll bow down to the older wisdom than me. I also have enough sense to tell when an appraiser on a forum is an idiot.
I don't rank Edd or Mr. Rex as one, and am simply going to chalk their little exchange up to raw nerves and Underwriter frazzle.

mr rex wrote:Edd, I did have respect for you. I guess everybody is wrong sometimes. Maybe you will do better as a sage appraiser than you did as a lawyer. In either case, I wish you well. BTW, repeating yourself may work in trial cases in law school, but it makes you look like you have nothing more to add out here in the real world. I guess that says alot.

Infantile ad hominem doggie poop. Rex, hit yourself with a rolled up newspaper and keep saying bad doggie until you come up with something professional.

benluby wrote: I also have enough sense to tell when an appraiser on a forum is an idiot.
I don't rank Edd or Mr. Rex as one, and am simply going to chalk their little exchange up to raw nerves and Underwriter frazzle.

Me too. Perhaps we DO need some of the "you-know-whos" from the other forum to come over here so we have legitimate beefs to react to.

First, thank all of you for the kind words about Annemieke and myself. It means a lot to me to have that kind of comment from people whose opinion I value.

In the issue over rules to establish quality reviewers, the same criteria applies as to establish quality appraisers. You have to start with a good person. By that I mean a person whose willingness to not compromise with the truth. Who can look the client in the eye and say "It is what it is." And be confident that the research that was done was thorough.

Annemieke already had that attitude. I tend to be hard headed and not given to compromise anyway, but the reason she is as good as she is (and this is important in ALL potential appraisers and reviewers) is that she too, is uncompromising and is dedicated to being thorough. That and she thinks far enough out of the box that she CAN see alternatives.

Others in the same class are guys like Hall and Ben. But I see lots and lots of appraisers who will never make good reviewers.....the kind of appraiser who needs a target value on the order, otherwise he doesn't know what to do. He uses the market to support a value, not to develop a value. And the difference, in attitude and ethics, is tremendous. And I don't think it can be taught.

Goodpasture wrote:In the issue over rules to establish quality reviewers, the same criteria applies as to establish quality appraisers. You have to start with a good person. By that I mean a person whose willingness to not compromise with the truth. Who can look the client in the eye and say "It is what it is." And be confident that the research that was done was thorough.

You guys are both my heros and mentors.

With respect to finding and keeping good quality ethical and competent people. I've wondered how that could be done. Obviously, we have problems with that in all professions and walks of life from politicians and preachers.

What would you suggest?

Edd, when you take someone on as a trainee, that is the beginning of the end for most people. Too many people have a hard time pulling the boot back and kicking them out the door when they catch them 'bending'.
If they argue about a value, without valid points on more than one occassion, if you find them doing comp checks to get the order, or they ignore obvious maintenance issues, once, maybe twice you can chalk it up to 'newbieitis'.
After that, you are probably training a future skippy, that, once they get on their own, they are going to do their thing to make LO's/MBs love them.
And if you see that coming and don't kick them out the door because 'they have a family to feed', their mentor is just as guilty as they are of being a skippy breeder.
You'd do better off to train that kid at home depot that chases you down to give you back change when you gave him too much, than to train the bankers college graduate nephew that laughs about getting back an extra dollar, and how stupid it was of the clerk to do that.

benluby wrote:See a lot of reviewers that work in the torpedo category. They'll take a good report and try to rip it apart, solely so that they can attempt to get the customer to start ordering from them.
I'm open to suggestions on how to work around that issue.

Some things just never change do they?

Unfortunately, I think this kind of behavior is ingrained in our society. Take any group of people and you'll find these kinds of antics--.the larger the group, the greater the competition, the worse the bashing gets.

Some people are just under the mistaken impression that 'the way to make themselves look good...is to make other people look bad.'

I blame politicians and their foolish commercials, and guess what's right around the corner

On a serious note: I've been torn apart occasionally by competitors and dealt with it sufficiently by taking the time to write a good retort. As an example of how bloodthirsty competitive people can get--every cut-throat review I ever received (w/two exceptions over 15 years) agreed with my opinion of value. Unable to disagree with my number...the gung-ho reviewers lit into my methodology.

'No matter how hard you try...you just can't stop stupid'

Mako wrote:

benluby wrote:See a lot of reviewers that work in the torpedo category. They'll take a good report and try to rip it apart, solely so that they can attempt to get the customer to start ordering from them.
I'm open to suggestions on how to work around that issue.

On a serious note: I've been torn apart occasionally by competitors and dealt with it sufficiently by taking the time to write a good retort. As an example of how bloodthirsty competitive people can get--every cut-throat review I ever received (w/two exceptions over 15 years) agreed with my opinion of value. Unable to disagree with my number...the gung-ho reviewers lit into my methodology.

I have NO PROBLEM with a reviewer shredding one of my reports, although it rarely occurs these days. As long as I base my report of verifiable facts, that it is written in a coherent manner, that my assumptions and calculations can be supported, I can, in turn, shred the review to such an extent that the reviewer is apt to lose a client. In fact, one of my review clients came from such an incident, where the reviewer had "problems" with my report and I submitted a multi page rebuttal. I got a call from the underwriters to discuss some differences. After resolving the issues, I asked them how they selected their reviewers and told them if they wanted to minimize this crap in the future to start using me. They did.