Double Trouble - How Risky Are Hybrid Appraisals, And Where Do The Hazards Lurk

[George Hatch]

Right now I'd say the biggest problem out there is reviewers not understanding that the role of the user-driven expectations not only add to the minimums in an assignment but at the same time they also indicate to a ceiling for the reviewer's discretion. If a given SOW met all the terms of the engagement and the known expectations for the users (and what the peers are actually doing) then the reviewer has no business adding any other expectations of their own to it. If the users and peers think a given SOW is sufficient then that's the thing, and it becomes unethical for a reviewer to move that goalpost after the fact. Even if they are the Super-Dave Osborne of the appraisal profession.


Think about what this means if/when the client doesn't have a written appraisal policy of their own or a laundry list of requirements to which the appraiser or the reviewer could refer.

 

[djd09]

USPAP is a fluid document, by some measure - having heard an appraiser brag that he worked contract work for Fannie Mae and he could find something wrong somewhere if pressed to do so...Ironically, Oklahoma stung him first for certifying the completion certificate when the kitchen appliances and cabinets had not been installed, and, then limited his license when he botched a commercial report and he simply quit the biz.

Therefore, "enforcing" USPAP against only those who have had a complaint-frivolous as it may be- can be a punitive punishment based solely upon a complaint that didn't have a thing to do with the infraction. Serendipity then plays the part of picking the "winners" and the "losers". Someone failing to comply for 25 years can skate...until they get a complaint, which then we claim somehow is assuring the "public trust"?

I've heard more than one board member or former board member, claim how much they learned about USPAP compliance once on the board! What the heck kind of statement is that to make? It suggests to me that NOBODY complies with USPAP all the time, not by design - but because the convoluted ever pointlessly changing document is a Greek Mullet... a little fishy at the core but everything else subject to whim of the moment and the reviewer or investigator or Lord only knows what.

If you want to enforce USPAP uniformly, then sample everyone's reports one by one, every year. So hire a reviewer to review all the work of an individual and by mid-year the last appraiser will have been sanctioned and then we can talk about an "appraiser shortage" because there won't be a ****** one of us left. USPAP is an over-reaching document, always has been, always will be. Survivors survive by luck, not skill. And as crumby as the braggart above was, I bet he was right. Someone somewhere can nitpick a report and my conclusion that is a failure of the document, not the appraiser. Rules are black and rules are white but appraisers often have to deal in shades of gray. And as for USPAP, I bet we could go back to the 1992 document and basically all of us would produce the same fundamental work. Almost all the changes that have been made have, to some degree, been created and then unraveled. And we call that a "standard"?

this might be the post of the year.

USPAP is junk. the regulators are reactive not pro.

the 'preferred' panel AMC lists are sheltered.

WF is a ohio board member. enough said.

 

[Eli]

It’s not what you know, it’s who you know.

 

[Eli]

It could get uglier quick. With proper representation, appraisal coalitions could turn the tables even more. Appraisal coalitions are already making big moves.

 

[George Hatch]

Yeah, they're making big moves. To shoot themselves in the foot.

NY State's activists just managed to hand most of the hybrid market to the brokers. They should have called it the Broker's Guaranteed Employment Act.

 

[Evincere]

Yeah, they're making big moves. To shoot themselves in the foot.

NY State's activists just managed to hand most of the hybrid market to the brokers. They should have called it the Broker's Guaranteed Employment Act.

How so. Are you saying Brokers can now sign off on the valuation component?

 

[Dublin ohio]

WF is a ohio board member. enough said

As a representitve from AMCs. Since the board now regulates AMCs. Since you think all AMCs are scum. Who would you prefer as a AMC representative? There are also 3 appraisers on the board and 1 member from the general public. Did you do a background check on their reputations or affiliations?

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

I've reviewed a lot of appraisal reports that met the minimums of USPAP. So I don't believe in the "it's impossible to comply" argument.

That is only YOUR opinion. Compliance may depend upon WHO is doing the review.

 

[George Hatch]

That is only YOUR opinion. Compliance may depend upon WHO is doing the review.

I'll put it this way: remember when you said in the previous post

I've heard more than one board member or former board member, claim how much they learned about USPAP compliance once on the board!

Well, you would never hear me or someone like me say that. I'm technically competent with the material and I know what I'm talking about insofar as the basics go, which is just about all you need to avoid screwing up. It's not that high a bar. Besides, when in doubt (and considering its people's status as a licensee that's at stake) a tie always goes to the runner. When the burden of proof rests with the state then "doubt" is all it takes to lose in an appeal in court. "Doubt" basically *compels* a judge to rule in the respondent's favor.

That's where sticking to the facts comes into play, because if there's a problem in an appraisal it's very nearly always the result of an error in fact upon which the "bad opinion" is based.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

It's not that high a bar.

You need to get out more... Like the lady who was sanctioned over a review done by her ex husbands new appraiser wife...and it went all the way to the Oklahoma State Supreme Court before someone with some sense realized this was a conflict of interest. Even then, the board argued that the review was not flawed and were miffed by the decision.