Where Do You Think "geographic Competency" Begins And Ends?

[George Hatch]

I'll also say that what passes for an adequate SOW for one use/user can and is sometimes very different than what's adequate and sufficient for another.

To regurgitate the fundamentals, the SOWR has that 2-part test for the acceptability of SOW decisions:

- the expectations of parties who are regularly intended users for similar assignments, and
- what an appraiser's peers actions would be in performing the same or similar assignment


"appraiser's peers" is a defined term in USPAP which also benchmarks off of "similar assimignments" which itself is a defined term. Like it or not, there is no arbitrary and fixed external benchmark for these expectations, and there never has been. The GSEs and other users have their own expectations, but those are already covered under the "similar assignments" tag, and in any case are user-defined.

Moreover, "credibility" is also addressed in the SOWR, and is also tied to the intended use:

"The credibility of assignment results is always measured in the context of the intended use"

None of this is new material. There isn't anything that's even controversial in these elements. We've always done different services for different uses and users. Always. And it's always been the users - not appraisers - who have decided what's meaningful to their usage.

 

[George Hatch]

Oh come on J,

they get around that by writing their own forms.

Dang it,

Do you expect them to pay those fees in the COW states forever???

Heck, they could be sending out state wide appraisal assignments now, but they are not.

Or maybe it's just the competency of fee appraisers that's in question and the desktop employees are the unicorns on their rainbow.

.

Well, yeah. Users come up with different expectations for certain assignments. You didn't think scope creep only worked in one direction, did you?

I remember when 45-pg URAR reports were all the rage back in the early 1990s, right after licensing came online. Then as the lenders loosened up the more abbreviated reports became more common. I remember doing one review on a new home in 2005 where there were only a total of 17 words of original writing in all of the comments sections of the report that weren't part of that appraiser's boilerplate.

 

[Joe Flacco]

I'll also say that what passes for an adequate SOW for one use/user can and is sometimes very different than what's adequate and sufficient for another.

To regurgitate the fundamentals, the SOWR has that 2-part test for the acceptability of SOW decisions:

- the expectations of parties who are regularly intended users for similar assignments, and
- what an appraiser's peers actions would be in performing the same or similar assignment


"appraiser's peers" is a defined term in USPAP which also benchmarks off of "similar assimignments" which itself is a defined term. Like it or not, there is no arbitrary and fixed external benchmark for these expectations, and there never has been. The GSEs and other users have their own expectations, but those are already covered under the "similar assignments" tag, and in any case are user-defined.

Moreover, "credibility" is also addressed in the SOWR, and is also tied to the intended use:

"The credibility of assignment results is always measured in the context of the intended use"

None of this is new material. There isn't anything that's even controversial in these elements. We've always done different services for different uses and users. Always. And it's always been the users - not appraisers - who have decided what's meaningful to their usage.

The problem is the the "benchmark" or the bar is too low. It is on the floor. It is basically the same today as the 90's while what is possible has increased significantly. Part of the reason for this is that most of the current appraisers are from the 90's. Functional obsolescence in much bigger ways than not using regression.

 

[Peter LeQuire]

What are you saying.

To reply is to risk being hammered for straying off topic. That said....

"Would that..." is a grammatical construction that expresses the desire of the speaker that a condition that exists did not, in fact, exist, or that one that does not, does, in fact, exist. You can find it defined in the Urban Dictionary. That construction is referred to by grammarians as the subjunctive mood.

Think of it as being similar to a hypothetical condition - but instead of assuming something to be true that is not (as a proposed construction house being appraised as if in fact it does exist), it expresses the desire that something that is not true is, in fact true. That expression in my post was simply to state the wish that there were more appraisers with Danny Wiley's competence as appraisers, which, from my observation, is contrary to fact. "Would that it were not raining so that I could go sky-diving."

You can even get it on a T-shirt.....

 

[Joe Flacco]

To reply is to risk being hammered for straying off topic. That said....

"Would that..." is a grammatical construction that expresses the desire of the speaker that a condition that exists did not, in fact, exist,or that one that does not does, in fact exist. You can find it defined in the Urban Dictionary. That construction is referred to by grammarians as the subjunctive mood.

Think of it as being similar to a hypothetical condition - but instead of assuming something to be true that is not (as a proposed construction house being appraised as if in fact it does exist), it expresses the desire that something that is not true is, in fact true. That expression in my post was simply to state the wish that there were more appraisers with Danny Wiley's competence as an appraisers, which, from my observation, is contrary to fact. "Would that it were not raining so that I could go sky-diving."

You can even get it on a T-shirt.....
View attachment 34415

Well no argument there. I agree with you then.

 

[ucbruin]

I apologize. I was anaware of any Forum rules obligating me to disclose the motivations of others. As George has stated, I knew nothing of the poll until I saw it posted, just like everyone else.

Now, based on the emotional responses and wild theories posted in this thread, I think few realize how important the answer is.

Sounds as if there is a little bit of emotions going on here....

As for my interest on this topic, I have posted multiple times the specific question that asked of George privately. I am struggle to see how I could be more transparent than that.

As George noted, I call him a few times a year to bounce things off of him that I am contemplating.

I reach out to George

My response was specifically made to your specific response to JG....
"Wow. You really think George is that devious? "

Seemed innocuous at the time....
But in hindsight it appears you posted an unintentional "gaslight" comment....
Gaslight, a term I recently heard.....
So I had to find a way to use it!!!!

I'm sure if you take a step back and think about it....
Under the circumstances, it's understandable why that specific comment you made to JG now seems questionable....

 

[timd354]

So back to my original question,

If this was some under handed honest attempt to “get answers” why was Tim so upset for the answers? What part of honest discussion requires an enforcer, other than to protect the dishonesty?

.

Just for the record, I had nothing to do with this thread being posted and have not discussed anything about thus thread with either George or Danny. I don't know why you think that I am "upset" with any of the answers, as nothing that is posted on the AF has any effect on my life....I just pointed out the foolishness of some what is posted here, which is neither upsetting to me nor surprising. I don't really care if someone has a different viewpoint from me and am more than willing to respect a different viewpoint if it is rationally and honestly advanced, but when people argue in an intellectually dishonest manner by setting up a strawman, using a red herring, misrepresenting what others have actually stated, otherwise obfuscating, or as George stated, using the Swedish argument, then I am going to point that out.

 

[DWiley]

Danny, not trying to evade the answer ( whatever you think it might be), but the question itself perhaps is impossible to ever adequately answer for other appraisers en mass, let alone for oneself.
.

Well, we all better hope that it is not impossible to answer, because the impending expansion of the use of hybrid or bifurcated processes will almost certainly force some state boards to deal with this question. Given all the animosity that is being posted about expansion of use of such services, it is almost a given that there will be those who will turn in any appraiser providing such a service, just becasue they are opposed to the service.

If that happens, and if a state board reacts as some have in this thread (and, frankly, there is no reason not to expect that) the results could be far reaching and catastrophic. The shot fired in an attempt to curtail hybrid/bifurcated appraisals could easily richochet and hit those doing “traditional” work right between the eyes. That is why careful and thoughtful consideration of the topic is necessary.

 

[timd354]

If that happens, and if a state board reacts as some have in this thread (and, frankly, there is no reason not to expect that) the results could be far reaching and catastrophic. The shot fired in an attempt to curtail hybrid/bifurcated appraisals could easily richochet and hit those doing “traditional” work right between the eyes. That is why careful and thoughtful consideration of the topic is necessary.

The mob carrying the torches and the pitchforks never does consider the long term consequences of their actions.

 

[George Hatch]

IMO we've been demonstrating our answers to that question all along by our own actions. While I don't think you can ever go wrong by erring on the side of a little too much that doesn't necessarily represent the only acceptable solution.

I also don't think it's too soon to give the topic serious consideration - regardless of which side of the debate your opinion falls. If you want to oppose the use of URAR alternatives then you want to develop the cogent and persuasive argument in support of your views. By the same token, you wouldn't want to start getting involved with these things unless you could defend your use of them against its critics. Either way you need to have something going for your opinion other than tradition, market advocacy (must protect home values), or your own economic interests. None of these are going to be effective with the various decision makers, either in the market or in the government.