Virginia Board 8/19 meeting may have national coverage

[rcsone]

..........how is "honesty", "experience", "ability" and "diligence" evaluated by the users of appraisal services?.........now and in the future?.........best to all...........rs

 

[ghrousseau]

An easy solution would be to have the lenders hold their loans for 18 to 24 months prior to sale.

Check how many foreclosures involve a borrower making no more than 3 payments. It would eliminate the fly by night mortgage brokers. It would make the lenders more responsible, not just paper pushers.

Most lenders have insufficient collateral to hold loans. They can hold the servicing, but they have to securitize the loans and sell them off. There is too much market risk from rate fluctuation. Also, that is how they raise capital for new lending. Now the problem is that the investors buying loans (Fannie, Freddie, and Investment Banks) completely disregarded the risk management processes that had been in place for many years prior. They moved away from real underwriting and let the whizz kids tell them that loan scoring engines and AVMs were better than humans in predicting risk. They were categorically wrong, as the never understood the concept of "garbage in garbage out." This is why this latest meltdown has been so bad.............it runs top to bottom and covers all sectors of the mortgage market.

 

[DWiley]

Neither do the portals or AMC's or any of the conversion programs.

I never said they did. If you send a PDF file without a real digital signature, it does not matter whether you send it by email or by portal - you have the same lack of security.

On the other hand, if you use a real digital signature, you have security regardless of the format or delivery method.

The ASC had their chance - it is time for the states to take over their own duties.

I don't think the Appraisal Subcommitte has had their chance. Anyone can look at the reports on the ASC's web site and see that they have been reviewing states' programs just like they are supposed to. However, Congress gave them no real diciplinary authority. The only power they have is to threaten to decertify the state, and states know that really isn't going to happen. How different would things be if the ASC had been given real authority?

It is time for the states to protect their own citizens and not depend on an organization who can't seem to settle on which version of USPAP is appropriate.

If states have not done the right thing during a time with federal oversight, how can one realistically think they will do the right thing sans that oversight?

...not depend on an organization who can't seem to settle on which version of USPAP is appropriate.

The ASC makes no USPAP decisions. If we are to bring about meaningful change, then appraisers must become better educated regarding the roles and responsibilities of the various entities.

 

[Don Clark]

I don't think the Appraisal Subcommitte has had their chance. Anyone can look at the reports on the ASC's web site and see that they have been reviewing states' programs just like they are supposed to. However, Congress gave them no real diciplinary authority. The only power they have is to threaten to decertify the state, and states know that really isn't going to happen. How different would things be if the ASC had been given real authority?

If states have not done the right thing during a time with federal oversight, how can one realistically think they will do the right thing sans that oversight?

The ASC makes no USPAP decisions. If we are to bring about meaningful change, then appraisers must become better educated regarding the roles and responsibilities of the various entities.

Might be a good idea for some who think the ASC or TAF has such power to read this:

http://www.AI-ct.org/firrea.html

Someone is trying:

http://www.appraisalinstitute.org/ano/current.aspx?volume=9&numbr=15/16

Personally, I believe in states rights. But....if states refuse to act, then maybe it is time to modify FIRREA and give the ASC or some other entity the power to regulate and enforce minimum standards.

In the cases I have been involved with where I have tried to assist appraisers who have been accused of violations by the state(s), many states profess to know what the standards are and more often than not, haven't a clue. Why is that? Well, some states excuse their board member appraisers from even having to take the required CE every 2 years, and have not looked at a copy of USPAP in years. Some do not even have a designated investigator to investigate complaints about appraisers. Some state board members operate on their own personal belief of what USPAP says, how an appraisal should be done, and in some cases outright bias due to lack of membership in certain organizations, or against a competitor in their own market. In some cases administrative law judges have ruled against state boards and the state boards totaly rejected the findings of the ALJ.

It was mentioned by someone that while attending the Virginia Real estate Board meeting the other day that the matter the attendee went to the board meeting about was not heard for about 3-4 hours due to the board having to hear and rule on so many complaints. Hooray for the Virginia Real Estate Appraisal Board. I have attended many meetings of the Virginia board. Any state that wants to see how it is done right....I suggest you attend one of our board meetings. Personally I am sorry i missed the meeting but could not attend due to health reasons. I plan to be at the next one though.

 

[Carnivore]

PE,

This is an interesting read. It sheds light on how the legal system in many states recognizes the necessity for a single format to conduct business.

http://copyrightlitigation.blogspot....discovery.html

http://copyrightlitigation.blogspot....discovery.html

This is a good place to get some serious thinking in Virginia on what you want to accomplish.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=208200342

------------

My thoughts go your appraisal board and communications with other VA State agencies and interstate communications with other appraisal boards.

It is possible that you already of a State Official document standard. Look to that for your answer. Maybe you have a State Information Technology department or division to confer with. Your State court system may be standardized also. If the Justice Department of VA has standardized document policy then I would adopt that same standard policy ASAP. It certainly would be tough for outsiders to challenge your board’s decisions in the VA Court system.

That is the thrust of my suggestion. Your state may already have a standardized cross agency document standard. It is widely felt belief that USPAP is quite ambiguous. I think it is that way purposely. They seem to have a 'don’t fence me in attitude'. That’s rather odd to me considering the very mission of the ASB is to be fence builders (standardization) not fence destroyers. They try and do this even though we have fifty+ state and possession Appraisal Boards with 50+ sets of different laws to comply with.

For example in USPAP 2000, there was Statement 8 that addresses this particular issue and it seems to support your opinions. This was a standard and appraisers could easily follow it. So they retired Statement 8!

Move forward to 2008-2009 USPAP we refer to the Ethics Section of USPAP under Record Keeping for guidance. One only has to read the two different issues of USPAP to see how the ambiguity was injected into the Standard.

Clearly USPAP is not definitive on the issue as they were in the year 2000. That means it is the individual states imperative to set the fence up.

This is a pretty broad statement, but remember, the TAF (ASB & AQB) only write minimum standard rules for Frt.’s and govern state compliance of those FRT requirements. All others, such as state banks, private entity clients can and must be controlled by your state government Appraisal board (also other state regulatory agencies) and applicable VA State laws. So you can tell VA appraisers what to do in your state over and above USPAP. For that matter you can even lessen USPAP for in state control if you deem it appropriate.

 

[DWiley]

For example in USPAP 2000, There was Statement 8 that addresses this particular issue and it seems to support your opinions. This was a standard and it could easily be followed by appraisers. They retired Statement 8.

SMT-8 was retired because it was out of date and could not be followed by appraisers. It contained technical requirements for communication, but those technical requirements were written for a time when computers "talked" to each other directly by modem. It was written prior to widespread use of the Internet and email. If SMT-8 were still in place, then everyone using e-mail would be in violation.

 

[Carnivore]

Danny

As you know there are past USPAP statements that have been revised. Statement 8 could have been revised also or incorporated in the main body of USPAP(which it was but revised, under record keeping).

Personally I think it is a serious error to delete the text of a retired Statement. The current USPAP can be better understood when its evolution can be studied.

 

[DWiley]

As you know there are past USPAP statements that have been revised. Statement 8 could have been revised also or incorporated in the main body of USPAP(which it was but revised, under record keeping).

Consideration was given to revising SMT-8. After public expsoure and comment, the ASB decided that report content was an appraisal standards matter and report delivery was not. It is unfortuante that we neglected to delete the very poor definition of SIGNATURE that still remains.

Personally I think it is a serious error to delete the text of a retired Statement. The current USPAP can be better understood when its evolution can be studied.

I think retaining language that no longer applied would be very confusing.

Anyone wishing to study the changes can look at the summary of changes in the front of each edition. If someone wants/needs more detail, past exposure drafts and comment letters can be easily obtained from the Foundation.

For example, looking in the front of the 2002 USPAP one can see that SMT-8 was retired effective January 1, 2002 "due to technological advances that were not envisioned when the STATEMENT was originally written."

 

[Workbox]

What about updating due to the technological Errors and abuse, because it has caused more harm than good.

 

[Bearslide]

On the other hand, if you use a real digital signature, you have security regardless of the format or delivery method.

I don't see how, when your signature is separated from the report and the report being received is not the report created .

I don't think the Appraisal Subcommitte has had their chance. Anyone can look at the reports on the ASC's web site and see that they have been reviewing states' programs just like they are supposed to. However, Congress gave them no real diciplinary authority. The only power they have is to threaten to decertify the state, and states know that really isn't going to happen. How different would things be if the ASC had been given real authority?

They seem to use their authority when it suits them - I distinctly remember they decided to over-ride those states who wanted to ban driveby appraisals- which should have happened, at least for lending purposes.

If states have not done the right thing during a time with federal oversight, how can one realistically think they will do the right thing sans that oversight? qoute]

Oh yes - we all know what a marvelous job the feds have done. They have let the lenders run amuck. That's real oversight for you. I believe the states could do a better job, particularly if their citizens complain loud and long. I am seeing evidence that the states are taking this crisis more seriously than the feds.

As Don Clark pointed out, the Virginia Board worked on 19 disciplinary cases before they got to other business. It was impressive to watch this particular Board as they performed their duties. They did so fairly and equitably and with much thought and discussion to each case. They took the necessary time to do their jobs and they did it right. Those State Boards who are not need to be put on notice, by the citizens they are supposed to serve (including appraisers) that the cronyism and games must stop and that they must get down to their duties. You stated somewhere else that the business with general funds has to stop - and you are correct. I also believe that those Boards who hear disciplinary cases (and there seem to be many) behind closed doors are in violation of the Sunshine laws and need to get it out in the open.

The feds have proven they are in bed with the money men. If they had done their jobs, we wouldn't be where we are, so it is time for the states to take back control. The Virginia Board is a shining example of just that.