Virgina REAB and Portal Petition

[TJSum]

Yeah, except being able to peek behind someone else's curtain is unwarranted government control. I know. If you you are breaking any laws, then you should have nothing to hide, right? Where have I heard that before?

Right now, the individual appraiser can not peek behind their own curtain, to see the end result of their own work, what has actually been delivered to the client. Isn't there something very, very wrong with that.

 

[Couch Potato]

"If someone with jurisdiction over this, like the DOJ-FBI wanted to catch bankers falsifying appraisal reports, they would. They don't need a vault." From Steven

Yes, but the people with jurisdiction need to see the "true copy" in order to catch those who are falsifying the reports, they need something to compare the bogus report to. Right now, they assume the appraiser commited the fraud, instead of the guilty party, and the burden is then on the appraiser to prove themselves innocent. That is why the vault is needed to allow for the proper chain of evidence to shine the light on the guilty parties. It lessens the chance for the appraiser's report or signature to be stolen or altered, that is what was meant by "control".

Which is a very easy to do if one uses a real digital signature.

 

[Ken B]

Right now, the individual appraiser can not peek behind their own curtain, to see the end result of their own work, what has actually been delivered to the client. Isn't there something very, very wrong with that.

No. As an appraiser, I have better things to do with my time than hold my client's hand and make sure they don't run into the street. As a client, I would have better things to do with my time than entertain every nutcase appraiser who calls and wants to make sure that I can provide a copy of what they delivered to me.

Appraiser's have neither the responsibility or authority to ensure clients are not misbehaving. I refuse to accept that responsibilty or authority unless someone wants to give me a badge and a payraise.

 

[TJSum]

Which translated in light of the realities of modern technology means, "I don't care what they do. I will never be satisfied."

The only way such a guarantee could possibly exist would be to hand deliver the report on paper in the presence independent of witnesses. Even then a few loop holes exist. I hate to say it, but you are not being rational Pam.

"Which is a very easy to do if one uses a real digital signature." Also from CP.


So which is it ???

 

[TJSum]

No. As an appraiser, I have better things to do with my time than hold my client's hand and make sure they don't run into the street. As a client, I would have better things to do with my time than entertain every nutcase appraiser who calls and wants to make sure that I can provide a copy of what they delivered to me.

Appraiser's have neither the responsibility or authority to ensure clients are not misbehaving. I refuse to accept that responsibilty or authority unless someone wants to give me a badge and a payraise.

Exactly, no time would have to be wasted because it would all be automatic. I can understand the fear of too much government, but can not understand the fear of transparency which allows the proper enforcement of the laws already in place. It sure beats adding hundreds of new laws that will never be properly enforced either.

 

[DWiley]

Right now, they assume the appraiser commited the fraud, instead of the guilty party, and the burden is then on the appraiser to prove themselves innocent.

I have been involved in several such cases, and have never found that to be true of the FBI, DOJ, or courts. I have found it to be true of some state board members

 

[DWiley]

Exactly, no time would have to be wasted because it would all be automatic.

That assumes a requirement for all reports to be electronic. If a client changed a PDF file (which would take about 2 minutes), then printed out a paper copy and use the paper copy for a fraudulent deal, how would a "vault" solve that?

You can never stop someone from doing something wrong. Like others, I don't want the responsibility of policing my clients.

 

[TJSum]

I have been involved in several such cases, and have never found that to be true of the FBI, DOJ, or courts. I have found it to be true of some state board members

I hope your first sentence is true. :new_all_coholic:

 

[TJSum]

That assumes a requirement for all reports to be electronic. If a client changed a PDF file (which would take about 2 minutes), then printed out a paper copy and use the paper copy for a fraudulent deal, how would a "vault" solve that?

You can never stop someone from doing something wrong. Like others, I don't want the responsibility of policing my clients.

As the loan travels up the food chain, the lender could confirm the report with the vault or just download it from the vault instead of blindly accepting the AMCs or brokers version. The people actually loaning the money would do the policing. The fix is for all actors in the lending process to hold each other more accountable, not some overbearing government agency. The free market is the best fix, when the system is set up properly with true transparency and accountability.

 

[Marcia Langley]

Which is a very easy to do if one uses a real digital signature.

A real digital signature has absolutely no "corrective" effect if the problem to be solved is described in this way:

The appraiser is obligated by assignment conditions to upload his file into conversion software before transmission. That act of uploading places imbedded objects into the file. Some of those imbeded objects cause changes to the appearance of the file on the appraisers' screen viewer and others of those objects don't do anything until the receiver opens the file in their own, different viewer.

The appraiser says his true copy is what he saw on his screen, the receiver says the true copy is what he saw on his screen. But the two parties are not seeing the same thing because some of those imbedded objects aren't activated on the appraisers' viewer, only on the receivers' viewer.

At some point, it becomes important either at a state board or in court to determine which version is the true copy. Regardless which version is ultimately determined to be the true version, the fact will remain that there was never any chance that both parties would have posession of the true copy, only one of them will.

The difference a vault would make is that an appraiser could deliver a universal PDF to a vault. Subsequently, the appraiser could retreive the true copy from the vault. Then the client could retreive the true copy from the vault. Then the board or the court could retreive the true copy from the vault.

Everyone would have a common understanding of what the true copy was. If the receiver chose to retreive the file from the vault and open it in such a way as to view it differently, then everyone involved would know that he specificall chose not to look at the true copy before making his lending decision. the onus would be on him and the appraiser could not be accused of complicity.

==========

The only apples to apples comparison to a non-vault scheme would be for clients to discontinue the practice of requiring the conversion to take place on the appraisers' computer. The appraiser could send all files as a universal PDF and transmit it in a digital signature.

In both cases, vault or digital signature, the "other agenda" of the appraiser is to be relieved of having to do an unknowable conversion prior to transmission.

But only the vault scheme gives third parties a benchmark as to what the true copy is.

=========

This touches on the root of the "other agenda" on both sides.

The client wants to make the appraiser responsible for all of the conversion.

The appraiser doesn't want to be responsible for any part of the conversion that is unknowable, that he can't see or can't understand including any/all imbedded objects that he doesn't even know are there.

=========

There are more "other agendas" on both sides but these are the ones associated with the idea of the vault.