Significant Appraisal Assistance (1004p)

[J Grant]

DWiley, Because report writing and development often occur simultaneously, many appraisers fail to really distinguish between the two different activities. I think you make the same mistake in many of your posts about inspection. Yes, when we visit/inspect homes we make judgments during that process. But those judgments are made based on the data we collect. The fact that we have often done those two things (data collection and forming judgments about the date) simultaneously does not make them one activity.

Never before the 1004P was language applied to inspection of "data we collect". We are not simply collecting data, we are trying to decipher what we observe in a meaningful context for the appraisal - quality, condition, site, floorplan flow etc. The fact that we jot down some "data (# of stories, roof type etc) is not the purpose of the inspection. Much of that data is online- so what is the reason an appraiser goes to the onsite inspection? To get a read in person of the property, site, influences , and see what photos can not show.

Saying it is now mere data collection to allow non appraisers to do it- already addressed it in the thread as decepttive, call it an inspection if they are going to say it is an inspection, not the deceptive "data gathering" - or if they call it data gathering, then it is not an inspection and they should not call it an inspection to mislead borrowers and users. \\\

Appraisal practice, by definition, is activity conducted by someone acting in the capacity of an appraiser.

That is my point- that a person doing an inspection of a property for the apprasial purpose is acting in the capacity of an appraiser. "

Their inspection of the subject as of X effective date will be the basis of the subject information relied on in the appraisal. USPAP did not specifiy it.- logically assumed appraisers would be inspecting for appraisal purposes - they did not anticpate this change.


Hence, as George has pointed out numerous times, the change you are seeking would not be as simple as what you present. It would require changes to some of the most basic definitions in USPAP, and it would have lots of undesired ripple effects.

I do not understand why USPAP stating an inspection for purpose of an appraisal is considered appraisal practice clarifying the disclosures would mean other changes or ripple affects. It does not require all assignments to have an inspection or same level of inspection,- so what other changes would it trigger?

The SOW Rule would already require proper disclosure of the nature of any inspection that was performed. Mis-classifying a third party inspection as appraisal practice would accomplish no real goal. So, WHY are you so set on having it labeled as appraisal practice? I find your position on this topic very confusing

I Think the reverse is occurring. The thrid party doing an inspection for purpose of appraisal is mis classified as not acting in capacity of an appraiser .Thus the pains to call it "Data collection"- but they call it an "inspection" to borrowers or on the form to mislead that well an apprasial level inspection was done- disloe it as such clearly on the 1004P - not just a check box that appraiser did not inspect, but an additional disclose so as not to mislead

1004 P form would look like this: Checkbox 1) Appraiser did not inspect checkbox 2) John Doe RE agent data collected

 

[J Grant]

Again, why are you hung up on using that particular label? The third party inspection is disclosed. do you really think that most intended users (and that is who we are supposed to be writing our report for) know the definition of that term?

The proper label and disclose would place it either within or outside of appraisal practice.

The slippery labeling it Data collection , to evade having third party inspection be part of appraiser practice, or disclosed as contributing significant real property appraisal assistance- while implying or calling it an inspection on the 1004P, and using the term inspection to set an appointment with parties is misleading. .

 

[George Hatch]

What's misleading is you adding stuff into the definitions that aren't there. Especially when considering your primary motivations for doing so.

If you are at all concerned about the legitimate interests of the intended users of these appraisals you don't mentioned them as a primary driver of your concerns - which should be your primary if this discussion was really about what is and isn't an appraisal.

By contrast, you've gone to lengths to talk about the economic interests of fee appraisers, rail against the AMC and the lender business and even drag the property owners into it; all the other parties *except* the parties that - per our standards - matter the most in any SOW decision.

Or profession exists to address the demand for such services by these users in the market, not to dictate terms to them.

 

[glenn walker]

I also included documents in my description of data.

However, data these days to most people means computer data.

Do an experiment : Ask family and friends /others ( who are not in the field nor read this thread ) what comes to mind when they hear the term "data collection"

"

I don't need to do the experiment because first thing out of peoples mouths is lets's Google it and in general whatever pops up on Google must be the correct answer- Of course much of this also has to do with generational differences.

 

[DWiley]

I do not understand why USPAP stating an inspection for purpose of an appraisal is considered appraisal practice clarifying the disclosures would mean other changes or ripple affects.

Yes, your posts demonstrate quite well that you do not understand that. I suggest study of the DEFINITIONS section in USPAP.

 

[J Grant]

What's misleading is you adding stuff into the definitions that aren't there. Especially when considering your primary motivations for doing so.

If you are at all concerned about the legitimate interests of the intended users of these appraisals you don't mentioned them as a primary driver of your concerns - which should be your primary if this discussion was really about what is and isn't an appraisal.

By contrast, you've gone to lengths to talk about the economic interests of fee appraisers, rail against the AMC and the lender business and even drag the property owners into it; all the other parties *except* the parties that - per our standards - matter the most in any SOW decision.

Or profession exists to address the demand for such services by these users in the market, not to dictate terms to them.

I am not "adding stuff " into the definitions, I am saying USPAP needs to update the definitions to reflect this sea change ( they do call it a living document and that they might address inspections )

I posted my perspective about the profession in general, inspections and USPAP If you want to talk about it in terms of "legitimate interests of fee intended users" than that would be your thread.

I stayed away from talking about AMC;s and economic interests of fee appraisers in this thread. That is part of other threads on the topic,. . ,

I fail to see how hanging a USPAP disclosure or definition not to be misleading means we are dictating terms to the users.

 

[DWiley]

This aspect seems to get overlooked during the hybrid conversations. Experience and education requirements are being relaxed because of a perceived appraiser shortage. If hybrids become the new norm, this new generation of appraisers will not be trained to the level of many seasoned appraisers in the intricacies of property inspection. When/if the hybrid test project fails, the industry could be left with a large number of appraisers who cannot competently inspect a subject property.

Perhaps. But I see a different possibility. One thing all this discussion has done has highlighted the lack of formal training/education in inspection for appraisers. Many want to proclaim the superiority of an appraiser's inspection - but where s the objective evidence of that? How much formal training in inspection is required of an appraiser? (answer - none).

So, I see development of (required) education on the topic, and I think that would actually be a good thing. The PAREA program could help everyone (including seasoned appraisers) hone inspection skills.

 

[DWiley]

I am not "adding stuff " into the definitions, I am saying USPAP needs to update the definitions to reflect this sea change ( they do call it a living document and that they might address inspections )

I posted my perspective about the profession in general, inspections and USPAP If you want to talk about it in terms of "legitimate interests of fee intended users" than that would be your thread.

I stayed away from talking about AMC;s and economic interests of fee appraisers in this thread. That is part of other threads on the topic,. . ,

I fail to see how hanging a USPAP disclosure or definition not to be misleading means we are dictating terms to the users.

You are not trying to "update' anything. You want to change the definition of "Appraisal Practice" to include activities of non-appraisers. That is a terrible idea that would be VERY detrimental. You just cannot (or will not) see that because you are arguing base don emotion rather than logic.

Again i ask, why is it so important to you that the term "significant appraisal assistance" be applied? You still have not answered that.

 

[J Grant]

Adding a home inspection course could be beneficial. Though appraisers can and do receive that equivalence from their supervisor and reading books on subject, interviewing contractors etc.

What appraisers bring to the table that no amount of "Formal education" can provide, is the appraiser's years of in person inspections of various properties/sites/neighborhoods. The appraiser then integrates their field inspections with data analysis, the cost approach, ranking it to comparative properties, interviewing participants - the cumulative knowledge base comes from the interaction of the analysis and the field work over a period of years.

 

[Lil Rhody]

How much formal training in inspection is required of an appraiser? (answer - none).

I guess it would depend on how you define formal training. If one defines formal training only as course taken online or in person to either get your license or retain it, then our definitions would vary. I consider the training my mentor gave me during my two years of apprenticeship as formal training that was required to make me a competent appraiser. That training included subject inspection methodology and without it I would not consider myself competent to appraise. My mentor had a regimented schedule that we followed for the first 6 months of my training. It was well thought out and taught me to walk before I could run.
I do agree with you that this issue has shed a light on the lack of courses that teach basic inspection techniques. In this thread alone there have been a number of disagreements on something as simple as measurement techniques and taking measurement and pictures should be the easiest part of an onsite inspection.