Virgina REAB and Portal Petition

[Marcia Langley]

To my knowledge, USPAP merely requires that a true copy of the report be retained in the workfile. The workfile is not necessarily something you can pull out of a drawer and touch. If the State Boards want to make a rule that a hardcopy printout of reports as delivered to a third party be retained or available for review, that is their right.

What the state boards require is a true copy they can look at. It might be true that a given board would accept an electronic file as long as they could look at it. But sending an unopenable file as described by Carnivore and Maverick would not be acceptable.

Even so, an openable, viewable file that could not be printed might not be acceptable to boards, either, unless they have some paperless way to document their findings. boards might be put into a position of having to buy a set of every software just so they could view electronic files.

However, if a hardcopy print out of the ENV file is truly the primary concern, are you saying a software upgrade to allow this action would alleviate your issues with the various conversion programs used for electronic delivery of an appraisal report?

Obviously, this is not the only issue being debated here, it's just the first consideration in a connected stream of considerations.

The industry in general has reached a point where the technology has moved beyond what is manageable by the appraiser. And possibly beyond what can be managed by the boards. It has to be addressed.

 

[McPheeters]

Andrew,

I believe I am on the record stating that it would be preferable to make a hardcopy print out of the ENV file or any other file that is required for transmittal to a distant party. However, I don't think that USPAP actually requires hardcopy print outs. If someone would like to identify the section of USPAP that requires a hardcopy printout of a report, I will happily change my mind about that. To my knowledge, USPAP merely requires that a true copy of the report be retained in the workfile. The workfile is not necessarily something you can pull out of a drawer and touch. If the State Boards want to make a rule that a hardcopy printout of reports as delivered to a third party be retained or available for review, that is their right. I think any State Board that wants to make a rule that a certain electronic portal must be approved prior to use by an appraiser is totally off the mark with regards to their authority and responsibility. But that is my opinion.


Poor attempt at a sidestep Ken. I do not believe my Board will be too thrilled with receiving an ENV file they can not open.



However, if a hardcopy print out of the ENV file is truly the primary concern, are you saying a software upgrade to allow this action would alleviate your issues with the various conversion programs used for electronic delivery of an appraisal report?

Theres more to this AI Ready issue than that and you know it.

If so, I think that could be a very easy fix.

And for the people that don't like me "kicking up dust", I would think that someone like me bringing attention to the weaknessess and inconsistencies with the proposals made by other parties would be preferable to someone quietly taking advantage of those weaknesses for ill gain.

Best regards to all.

My red and blue..........

 

[Ken B]

My response was to Andrew's primary concern as he stated it. He did not express any other concerns.

I, personally, think it quite reasonable for a Board to desire a hardcopy printout of a file as delivered to a client. But if the Board wants to cite USPAP as the authority requiring a hardcopy printout, I don't think that opinion is supportable.

Again, I think a hardcopy printout of a ENV file is a very easy fix. If anyone at FNC is paying any attention at all, I would expect that a modification to the OADI uploader program to allow a printout of the file by an appraiser is in the works right now.

Of course, since it is the "native software" program, such as WinTotal, which creates the ENV file to begin with, perhaps the responsibility for creating a print option for the ENV file lies with alaMode and the other appraisal software companies.

 

[McPheeters]

My response was to Andrew's primary concern as he stated it. He did not express any other concerns.

I, personally, think it quite reasonable for a Board to desire a hardcopy printout of a file as delivered to a client. But if the Board wants to cite USPAP as the authority requiring a hardcopy printout, I don't think that opinion is supportable.

Again, I think a hardcopy printout of a ENV file is a very easy fix. If anyone at FNC is paying any attention at all, I would expect that a modification to the OADI uploader program to allow a printout of the file by an appraiser is in the works right now.

Thank you for the clarification Ken.

 

[Marcia Langley]

Ken,

So the next step is the issue of what happens when an appraiser says, "This is a true copy of what I transmitted to my client" and the client says, "Oh, no it's not, what I have here is a true copy of what the appraiser transmitted to me."

The ASB's Q&A says the appraiser is responsible for what is "transmitted to the client".

If the appraiser and the client disagree on what was transmitted, it seems it is left up to the state board to decide. Apparently, to date, the boards have been accepting whatever the appraiser gives them as the true copy of what was "transmitted to the client."

It is important to the public trust that there be an efficient way for boards and other regulatory entities to determine what was "transmitted to the client."

If the public trust is being harmed because the client is only looking at part of the appraisal then it's important for the public to be sure that the appraiser was not complicit in that.

Just as if the client received a paper copy and threw away part of it and based their lending decision on only part of the report. If the public trust is harmed by that, it is not fair to require that the appraiser be implicated.

Andrew has said this several times.

 

[Ken B]

As have I.

This scenario is not peculiar to appraisers.

In every trial of which I am aware, someone is accused of doing something which they deny.

The tier-of-fact must decide if the weight of the evidence supports the accuser or the accused.

There are no absolutely secure methods of ensuring that what the appraiser transmits is the same data used to make a decision.

That is the argument against GA's proposed rule change. It is unfair to the appraiser and places an impossible burden of responsibility with no authority upon the appraiser.

 

[Mr Rex]

Can someone post an example of what a 1004 looks like after the conversion process?

 

[Marcia Langley]

The tier-of-fact must decide if the weight of the evidence supports the accuser or the accused.

There are no absolutely secure methods of ensuring that what the appraiser transmits is the same data used to make a decision.

True. But the vault idea is one way to settle all arguments of what was "transmitted". It would be "the" true copy that appraisers, clients, boards, and courts would all have to stipulate to.

 

[Marcia Langley]

If there were a vault, and a client required some sort of conversion prior to transmission, then the appraiser, if they accepted that assignment condition, would know that the converted file sent to the vault would be what they were resonsible for.

The appraiser could download and print from the vault for their true file copy. He would know exactly what visible elements had been transmitted to the client.

That is not the end of the issues though. The appraiser would still need to be able to make an informed decision as to whether the converted file he transmitted contained some non-visible data that facilitated misuse after the client downloaded the report from the vault.

Now the issue is not just about true copies but other issues like signatures and data mining, if those are important to that particular appraiser. It is important that the appraiser make an informed decision.

Some appraisers will be happy only with transmitting non converted reports, some will agree to convert before transmission only if they fully understand and agree with the ramifications, others will not care and do whatever.

Boards may decide to require some limits on re-applying signatures.

But it will be clear that the vault copy was what was "transmitted to the client" by the appraiser.

 

[Ken B]

True. But the vault idea is one way to settle all arguments of what was "transmitted". It would be "the" true copy that appraisers, clients, boards, and courts would all have to stipulate to.

What percentage of appraisals performed are questioned regarding their authenticity? What is the cost of investigating and determining their authenticity?

What is the cost of creating, using, and maintaining a "Vault?"

What is the cost benefit or loss associated with implementation of a "Vault?"

I could turn my house into a SCIF. It would be a total waste of money that should be spent more productively on other needs, wants, and desires.

Silly question, but do you see what I mean?