Virgina REAB and Portal Petition

[DWiley]

Are there in any documentation or minutes on the consultations between the AI/Ready and ASB?

I do not know. That dialogue happened before I joined the ASB, so I don't have copies. I honestly don't know how long records like that are kept. You could ask The Foundation.

As a past ASB Chair, I do have some knowledge of USPAP's contents. I can say that no one has yet identified anything to me about AIReady that is both (1) accurate and (2) contrary to USPAP.

DW

 

[Workbox]

Queston for DW,......... when AIReady was being developed, was it really to adhere to USPAP? To protect the American Public Trust, or to find a way to retrieve data for future AVM technology?

 

[Workbox]

I do not know. That dialogue happened before I joined the ASB, so I don't have copies. I honestly don't know how long records like that are kept. You could ask The Foundation.

I do not get it? you must of sat somewhere?

When AIReady was developed the ASB was consulted, and the ASB found no USPAP issues. I was not on the ASB at the time, but I was at there when these discussions took place.

As a past ASB Chair, I do have some knowledge of USPAP's contents. I can say that no one has yet identified anything to me about AIReady that is both (1) accurate and (2) contrary to USPAP.

DW

Would they dare? IF this were to every go to court, this could take years. Who is willing to sacrifice such marathon?

 

[DWiley]

I do not get it? you must of sat somewhere?

Yes. I sat in the audience. I attended ASB meetings for several years before I became a member.

DW

 

[DWiley]

Queston for DW,......... when AIReady was being developed, was it really to adhere to USPAP? To protect the American Public Trust, or to find a way to retrieve data for future AVM technology?

There were four original founders of FNC. Two of them were USPAP instructors. They were, and are, very concerned that they never do anything that would put an appraiser in conflict with USPAP.

They were so concerned with this that the Vice President of External affairs was paid to attend all ASB meetings. This was to keep abreast of USPAP changes via first hand contact with them.

Why was AIReady developed? Primarily it was developed to help automate appraisal report processing for collateral analysis. Many large entities have adopted it, so it has been successful (at least to some degree) in that regard.

Another goal was to develop the best database of real property information by collecting it straight from the appraisers (and paying the appraisers for that data). This would (1) give appraisers and good data and (2) compensate them when data from appraisal reports was used for some other purpose. Appraisers rejected the concept. So now the data is used anyway, but the appraisers receive no compensation.
__________________________

As for your last - If the USPAP violation is as obvious as some seem to think, then posting it should be no problem.

 

[Mr Rex]

My personal opinion is that if the lenders require a format suitable for scaling, gutting, and filleting the appraisal, that's fine. But the final holder of the paper should be required a matter of record keeping to retain both the fillet and the original appraisal. The appraiser can only be responsible for the fish he brought to the dock and handed over. If the lender is also mining data from the appraisals, they need to admit that as well, and lets address compensation to the appraisers. The menu is still open for the 1/1/2009 first meal. Is it fillet or is it whole fish, eyes, fins and tail included? Or is it fillet, with full documentation back to before its butchering for lender purposes, that may or may not coincide with accepted Appraisal practice or acceptable to Appraiser presentation of their work.

 

[c w d]

In order to determine USPAP compliance the reliance on someone else's opinion and determinations who has a vested interest or at least an interest that is influenced by those who seek to manipulate appraisers is not the means to affect change. If the activists in our group feel strongly enough about the conversion and know from their own experience and knowledge that the conversion is not USPAP compliant then they should seek learned opinions through expert examination and testimony. They should litigate the non-compliance if they have supportive evidence in contrast to what may have already been determined. We do not live in an era where any entity or group, no matter their stated mission, can be trusted when we may have evidence to the contrary. As corrupt as the real estate industry is we can not afford to rely on anyone but ourselves.

 

[peturner]

C W D:
You are absolutely BRILLIANT!!!!! You have hit the nail squarely on the head...
It is called "MANIPULATE" not just the appraiser, but the appraisal!!!!
Thanks so much for your insight. It will be useful in the future...for many more purposes than one can imagine.

 

[McPheeters]

In order to determine USPAP compliance the reliance on someone else's opinion and determinations who has a vested interest or at least an interest that is influenced by those who seek to manipulate appraisers is not the means to affect change. If the activists in our group feel strongly enough about the conversion 1)and know from their own experience and knowledge that the conversion is not USPAP compliant 2)then they should seek learned opinions through expert examination and testimony. 3)They should litigate the non-compliance if they have supportive evidence in contrast to what may have already been determined. 4)We do not live in an era where any entity or group, no matter their stated mission, can be trusted when we may have evidence to the contrary. As corrupt as the real estate industry is we can not afford to rely on anyone but ourselves.[/quote]

1) As long as USPAP must be interpreted, there will be only opinions as to compliancy....It will require an authority's opinion to be determinable.

2) I have compiled, over the past several months, many opinions from experts far more learned than myself. Thus far, the "opinions" against compliancy outweigh those in favor.

3) See #1. It will all come back to "opinion"; and authority's opinion will, in all likelyhood, prevail.

4) and here is the statement of the year. It's up to us, as individual appraisers, to remain detached from this type of self-serving behavior. The trick is to look past the press releases and window dressing in order to make our own determination as to compliancy.

 

[DWiley]

2) I have compiled, over the past several months, many opinions from experts far more learned than myself. Thus far, the "opinions" against compliancy outweigh those in favor.

Again I ask, the question - Of those who think it is not compliant, which specific section of USPAP do they believe is violated?