July 2008 ASC Q&a- Wink Wink Comp Comp

[Bill_FL]

Ok - Ya'll can have at it. I am done. This subject is just turning into another "comp checks are illegal" type conversation. I'll just wait a couple of years again.

Mike - there are bad appraisers and bad MB's and bad lenders. they all participate in the real problem, value shopping. The flexibility of the scope of work is not the issue, but you just will not take off your blinders to see it. Its not comp checks, its not desktop appraisals, its not a form or the level of inspections performed by appraisers. It is unethical people acting unethically - participating in value shopping. It really is just that simple. You are barking up the wrong tree. Switch trees and I would bet support for your issue would greatly increase.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

Ok - Ya'll can have at it. I am done. This subject is just turning into another "comp checks are illegal" type conversation. I'll just wait a couple of years again.

Mike - there are bad appraisers and bad MB's and bad lenders. they all participate in the real problem, value shopping. The flexibility of the scope of work is not the issue, but you just will not take off your blinders to see it. Its not comp checks, its not desktop appraisals, its not a form or the level of inspections performed by appraisers. It is unethical people acting unethically - participating in value shopping. It really is just that simple. You are barking up the wrong tree. Switch trees and I would bet support for your issue would greatly increase.

Mr Potts ... I belive you have it exactly right. Props on this one.

(Well I would give you props but this system says you have to spread it around ... so publically I will just say this is RIGHT ON ... until such time as the "system" is fixed to allow for proper acknowledgement when someone says something smart for a change.)

 

[George Hatch]

George Hatch;1650115] "Same client, different SOW in both situations. Other than the improper contingencies in the one, what's not similar?"

The HC variable is not applicable nor relevant to comp checks on a SFR mortgage loan for FRTs.

You're reaching here, and it's not becoming of you.

The subject that we're discussing in this thread is the ethical question involving multiple appraisals on the same property, and it is within that context that I compared the two scenarios. The fact that these two particular scenarios involve different property types is what is irrelevant to this discussion. All assignments involve properties that have differences from each other. What with your overly narrow perspective you could just as easily have compared a scenario involving an SFR and a condo and told me they were too different for comparison, too.



"BTW, the intended use and intended users for the comp check request is almost completely different than for the mortgage underwriting appraisal"

The Intended Use and Users in the context of this thread {mortgage underwriting appraisals} are exactly the same: mortgage broker with a SFR mortgage loan application, residential mortgage lender(s), a "formal" appraisal order predicated on an advance preliminary range or point of value opinion which indicates either a minimum point, range, or direction in values sufficient to "do the deal".

Again you are making a huge mistake here. You seem to be having a vocabulary problem. The two scenarios do involve the same client on both ends, but they do not share the same intended users on both ends. In each case, the only intended user of the intitial appraisal is the client and their requirements were very minimal. No third parties are expected to rely on those initial assignments. The follow-up assignment in each case had additional intended users with additional requirements.

The same holds true for the intended uses. In each scenario, the initial intended use was limited to a client trying to ascertain in broad strokes whether there was some feasibility for sending their deal on to a 3rd party. That's an extremely low-risk decision to make. The only thing that's riding on that decision is the time, effort and expense of getting their loan package together.

Neither "1st assignment" was intended to be used to actually underwrite the loan. In contrast, both "2nd assignments" were intended to be used to underwrite their respective loans. That's a much more demanding use and there's a lot more riding on the decisions those intended users will be making.

The different intended users and intended uses for the 1st vs. 2nd assignments is exactly why the SOWs and report requirements were different, which is why the resulting appraisals look so different from each other.



The general principals still apply:

- Appraisers can perform appraisals,

- Appraisers can perform appraisals for free if they wish.

- Appraisers are not allowed to accept assignments that have improper contingencies.

- Not all assignments an appraiser might choose to perform for free have improper contingencies.

- Not all "2nd assignments" are engaged with improper contingencies.

- Not all clients who want to look before they leap are requiring a minimum value for their 2nd appraisals.

- Not all appraisers who choose at one time or another to do any of the above are acting unethically.


It is because you guys cannot escape or evade any of the above facts that you are incorrect about the propriety of the ASBs Q&A.

 

[Fred]

Santora you need to climb down from the high horse occasionally. Your diffuse and repetitious jargon is not to be confused with substance.

And you need to stop making me the topic of everyone of your posts. IMO, if the moderators were doing their job, they would make you discuss the issue and stop bloviating on your theories of me.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

"It is unethical people acting unethically - participating in value shopping."

Title XI, and the ASC and ASB via AO-19 and this QA have enabled it and empowered it.

 

[George Hatch]

By the way, the different use/users answer above also applies to why your post #571 - and now #576 - was a complete waste of your time and why you need to try to find (yet again) a different angle to support your objectives.

 

[Fred]

Fine. The OP was a sarcastic and irresponsible post which used yellow journalism and sensationalism

and was already inflamatory, and was likely a much less accurate portrayal of the exact questions asked than is the ASB's QA document.

Isn't that simple? Not really that much more to discuss, is there?

You mean not much other than deflecting the constant implications that anyone who doesn't hate the ASB responses is tinged with some form of immorality, or otherwise a defective person - an esoteric lapdog, sitting on the sidelines, adding only substanceless non "normal" language to the thread. And how any instrumentality that hasn't put a stop to whatever they don't like is "empowering" criminality and a root cause of the so-called "crisis."

 

[Mike Kennedy]

In each scenario, the initial intended use was limited to a client trying to ascertain in broad strokes

REALITY CHECK:

In each scenario there are NO broad strokes; Gimme the guarantee $$$ or you do NOT get the "actual" order. Apparently those who choose GRAY...will always see gray.

 

[Fred]

"It is unethical people acting unethically - participating in value shopping."

Title XI, and the ASC and ASB via AO-19 and this QA have enabled it and empowered it.

Nonsense. AO's and QA's "empower" nothing. As far as Title XI and the ASC, they are just playing the game appraisers insist on. That is, "it's not rocket science," "it's not strictly mathmatical" and "we only give OPINIONS." It's a two-edged dull sword that won't cut in either direction. Keeping the statistophiles from saying you are wrong - caus' it ain't science, just opinons - keeps you from slicing up the ones you think are wrong.

If appraisers were doing their jobs, value shopping would not yield potential benefit to the shopper. And if appraisers were doing their economic duty, and charging for their servicess, value shopping would have a negative cost-benefit to the shopper.

 

[Fred]

REALITY CHECK:

In each scenario there are NO broad strokes; Gimme the guarantee $$$ or you do NOT get the "actual" order. Apparently those who choose GRAY...will always see gray.

There is no gray in that. And there is no comp check either.