Virgina REAB and Portal Petition

[George Hatch]

Maybe Wintotal and ACI should be providing appraisers with forms that are set up specifically to match the FNC templates so that the reports can't look different from one end to the other.

 

[Carnivore]

delted double post

 

[Carnivore]

Geroge

The much larger issues is communication. If I understand your postion:

1. You would find it acceptable if a client requires you to send your report through a designated portal so they can do a QC function.

2. You would find unacceptable in if the converter that you must use; deletes pages, changes the order , mixes stuff from one page to another and then requires you to send it in via a portal.

So far so good?

a. As long as you could fix the conversion to be presented properly within the conversion final report before sending it.

or not acceptable

b. you are not able to fix the conversion either from within or prior to the conversion so that it appears as you want.

If this is what your saying then the problem is "b." You can not fix the conversion within or outside the process.

 

[Jonsey]

You guys keep referring to going back in time as if that's the only direction there is. What about the compromises you've already made in the past in order to take advantage of advances in productivity and expediency? Does "no compromise" only count when you're trying to use it to slay the datamining dragons from behind?

Maybe Wintotal and ACI should be providing appraisers with forms that are set up specifically to match the FNC templates so that the reports can't look different from one end to the other.

And maybe the lenders and software providers should reimburse the appraiser for the cost of these forms, waive the form updating fees, rather than expect Appraisers to bear the burden of appeasing the lenders ever changing demands.

 

[woodyva]

How about because it is required to meet the client's requirements which are reasonable, or because the appraiser agreed to use the format and that it was acceptable?

IMHO, the Virginia board is creating a problem where none exists rather than investing their energy and resources on protecting the public from actual poor appraisal practices of their licensees.

That is the problem guys, we are allowing a company uninterested in manintaining the importance of what we do, and how we do it to tell the clients that what they do inhances the appraisal. It does not, it breaks us down into something that will stigmatize and piegon hole us. The clients are led to believe that by dumbing down our reports into these compartmentalized data reports.

I have taken several classes with various USPAP experts, and from what I have learned from within these academic settings is that sometimes the things clients ask for are not good for the appraisal process. I think many of us misunderstand that if a client asks for something they are entitled to it. That is not the case, ever. If what they ask for undermines what we are doing then it is our obligation to deny it.

 

[Ken B]

You guys keep referring to going back in time as if that's the only direction there is. What about the compromises you've already made in the past in order to take advantage of advances in productivity and expediency? Does "no compromise" only count when you're trying to use it to slay the datamining dragons from behind?

Well, there is the data mining issue and there is also FNC's CollateralDNA data sharing service. Other parties, such as alaMode, are developing competitive data sharing services. I am sure that others could provide much more insight into this aspect of the issue.

 

[Carnivore]

The opposition to what I and others have been saying is coming into play because most residential appraisers are actually becoming more informed and organized in there efforts, along with the state boards waking up and smelling the coffee.

 

[TJSum]

That is the problem guys, we are allowing a company uninterested in manintaining the importance of what we do, and how we do it to tell the clients that what they do inhances the appraisal. It does not, it breaks us down into something that will stigmatize and piegon hole us. The clients are led to believe that by dumbing down our reports into these compartmentzlized data reports.

I have taken several classes with various USPAP experts, and from what I have learned from within these academic settings is that sometimes the things clients ask for are not good for the appraisal process. I think many of us misunderstand that if a client asks for something they are entitled to it. That is not the case, ever. If what they ask for undermines what we are doing then it is our obligation to deny it.

My red above. Of course, it is just another step along the path of eliminating the appraiser completely. Why else embrace a more limiting software that limits exhibits and narrative statements and places more importance on "checkboxes" and computerized quality control methods.

 

[woodyva]

Well, there is the data mining issue and there is also FNC's CollateralDNA data sharing service. Other parties, such as alaMode, are developing competitive data sharing services. I am sure that others could provide much more insight into this aspect of the issue.

Actually Ken, what they are developing is a way for peers to share data amongst themselves. A la mode does not intend to be involved in what is shared, just to provide small groups of appraisers a means to share data.

 

[Jonsey]

My red above. Of course, it is just another step along the path of eliminating the appraiser completely. Why else embrace a more limiting software that limits exhibits and narrative statements and places more importance on "checkboxes" and computerized quality control methods.

Bingo. A man with vision.