Revision Request

[timd354]

First and foremost, an accusation is not a violation. I am not arguing "would I want to risk" this issue. I am stating what the USPAP says and my interpretation of such.

Line 228-229 and 233 are not relevant to this specific issue, in my opinion. The assignment had already been accepted without any contingency.
As to line 233, again the assignment had already been accepted, but for the sake of argument, the results of the ROV could be adverse to the clients desired outcome.
True, the assignment was initially accepted (presumably without a contingency for a certain fee), however, now the assignment has been changed and the appraiser has now inserted an additional, contingent additional fee into the assignment. Additionally, you are ignoring the second part of line 228

Not sue how we jump to bias (line 191). Appraisers determine good comps bad comps all the time. True, but the results of that determination do not typically determine whether or not the appraiser gets paid like it does in this case

I think I would be pretty clear in what I have done when I certify (USPAP) lines 741-750.

Isn't everything you are pointing out related to the acceptance of an assignment?
No - reread lines 228-229....which state An appraiser must not accept an an assignement or have a compensation arrangement for an
assignment, that is contingent......

You and I apparently are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. However, it would be prudent for anyone who is trying to use such a contingent fee arrangement for reviewing comps to ask the ASB to weigh in on the issue before they find themselves arguing this issue before a state board.

 

[djd09]

USPAP violation. You know nothing. Cite on case of this so called violation. blah blah blah.

 

[Meandering]

You and I apparently are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. However, it would be prudent for anyone who is trying to use such a contingent fee arrangement for reviewing comps to ask the ASB to weigh in on the issue before they find themselves arguing this issue before a state board.

Reviewing "other sales" is not appraisal practice,

But when hired as an appraiser, an appraiser can chose to follow USPAP.

It is a second assignment, to which a new fee can be negotiated,
because it requires different "results", than the first appraisal already submitted.

And it has a different SOW.

And no opinion of value is required, unless an appraiser believes a credible opinion of value can be developed utilizing data which may be biased, as it was provided by interested parties


.

 

[residentialguy]

You and I apparently are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.

I agree with that...and you will continue to be wrong until you do agree with us.

Again...the intent of that ethics/management rule was to keep the appraiser from boosting/exceeding market value in order to get a higher fee... e.g. Fee for a MV up to $350k is $400. Fee for a home with a MV of $351k to 500k is $550. Fee for a home with a MV over $500k is $700, and so on. The MV of the property has NOTHING to do with the complexity of the assignment. It's completely bogus fee setting that encouraged inflated values.

Charging for ROVs are simply a fee charged for additional work requested by the client that is added from the original SOW. If the appraiser finds that they made a mistake, then obviously that should have been included in the original report, thus no fee would be warranted. This is nowhere near the intent of the management section of the ethics rule.

Same with doing a Review. If you find that that there is a flaw in the value, then you have to expand your SOW and do your own appraisal, which you'd need to charge them way more for that. It is contingent on the results of your findings. This whole "you're violating the USPAP because the results are contingent" of yours is bull.

 

[Meandering]

I agree with that...and you will continue to be wrong until you do agree with us.

Again...the intent of that ethics/management rule was to keep the appraiser from boosting/exceeding market value in order to get a higher fee... e.g. Fee for a MV up to $350k is $400. Fee for a home with a MV of $351k to 500k is $550. Fee for a home with a MV over $500k is $700, and so on. The MV of the property has NOTHING to do with the complexity of the assignment. It's completely bogus fee setting that encouraged inflated values.

Charging for ROVs are simply a fee charged for additional work requested by the client that is added from the original SOW. If the appraiser finds that they made a mistake, then obviously that should have been included in the original report, thus no fee would be warranted. This is nowhere near the intent of the management section of the ethics rule.

Same with doing a Review. If you find that that there is a flaw in the value, then you have to expand your SOW and do your own appraisal, which you'd need to charge them way more for that. It is contingent on the results of your findings. This whole "you're violating the USPAP because the results are contingent" of yours is bull.

Once you have certified to your report,

Everything else is a new assignment.

Each new assignment can have a new fee.

 

[timd354]

Reviewing "other sales" is not appraisalp practice
.

Reviewing sales sent by the lender for possible inclusion in the appraisal report as comps is not appraisal practice?

Okey-dokey.

 

[timd354]

Once you have certified to your report,

Everything else is a new assignment.

Each new assignment can have a new fee.

A new fee is fine. A new contingent fee is a problem

 

[Meandering]

Reviewing sales sent by the lender for possible inclusion in the appraisal report as comps is not appraisal practice?

Okey-dokey.

Not after the assignment is complete.

And it's completed upon signing the certification and sending to the client who ordered the report.

okey-dokey,

Because no "new" value opinion can be mandated - else that instruction is influence.

double okey dokey?

.

 

[Meandering]

A new fee is fine. A new contingent fee is a problem

The ROV is not a request to value a subject property.

The ROV is a request to compare other sales.

Comparing sales to properties is not appraisal practice. It may be a valuation service, but no appraisal is required, the appraisal has already been performed before the ROV happens.

And so no opinion of a defined "value" is being performed in the ROV, the fee can be contingent upon anything the appraiser wants.

USPAP
APPRAISAL: (noun) the act or process of developing an opinion of value; an opinion of value.
(adjective) of or pertaining to appraising and related functions such as appraisal practice or
appraisal services.

Comment: An appraisal must be numerically expressed as a specific amount, as a range of numbers, or as a relationship (e.g., not more than, not less than) to a previous value opinion or
numerical benchmark (e.g., assessed value, collateral value) .

You can not instruct an appraiser to value a property based upon the mandatory use of sales supplied by interested parties.

That's a fail for TILA, and the AMC Final Rule, and USPAP.

.

.

 

[Meandering]

Management:

An appraiser must not accept an assignment, or have a compensation arrangement for an assignment, that is contingent on any of the following:
1. the reporting of a predetermined result (e.g., opinion of value);
2. a direction in assignment results that favors the cause of the client;
3. the amount of a value opinion;
4. the attainment of a stipulated result (e.g., that the loan closes, or taxes are reduced); or
5. the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the appraiser’s opinions and specific to the assignment’s purpose.

The ROV happens after the appraisal was completed by the appraiser.

Seems that Danny's statement that his company has a "legal binding agreement" that appraisers perform ROVs is a violation of #5

And oh my, the AMC Final Rule, makes AMCs responsible for USPAP COMPLIANCE.


.