The New USPAP

[George Hatch]

Here's the thing about appraisal standards: the fundamentals about ETHICS and COMPETENCY and not rendering services in a careless or negligent manner all predate USPAP and they'll continue to be integral to what we do in our day-to-day regardless of what the origin or format is used. The same people who will make the effort to understand the material will become familiar with the requirements and the same people who hate being told what to do will continue to resist it under the guise that it isn't as specific as the 10,000 page Tax Code or as simple as the 10 Commandments.

The big variable will be the role of government regulation. Will the federal govt do it, with all control and response being from the central govt or will the states continue to regulate from the more local locations? Will we end up with 55 different appraisal standards publications or will we try to stick to just one that applies across the board - including timber and minerals.

For your troubles; a screen grab of a written appraisal standard dating back to a 1929 appraisal text. Which BTW predates Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AMCs or REVAA. Also predating the forebears of the Appraisal Institute. Your problem isn't USPAP and it wasn't created by TAF.

 

[Mejappz]

That might be. From the examples posted in this thread it appears the problem is actually reading it. But, I anxiously await you posting some of those confusing/nebulous passages that you insist exist.

This is roughly the 412th thread with this theme in my time here - and posting actual examples always seems to be challenging for those making the claim.

Again you need to speak with the board members they either are suffering from reading comprehension or are plain stupid or corrupt I don't know. How about the word misleading that was on the books for two years? It caused terrible confusion and eventually had to be scrapped. I know it's probably someone else's fault. The point is if it were so easily understood you would not have all these injustices carried out all over the Country.

 

[DWiley]

Again you need to speak with the board members they either are suffering from reading comprehension or are plain stupid or corrupt I don't know. How about the word misleading that was on the books for two years? It caused terrible confusion and eventually had to be scrapped. I know it's probably someone else's fault. The point is if it were so easily understood you would not have all these injustices carried out all over the Country.

I saw no one post on that topic that was confused. What I saw was disagreement, not confusion.

So far none of the injustices cited in this thread, including the ones I cited, were the result of poor wording in USPAP.

 

[George Hatch]

"Misleading" was an ASB mistake, which I'm glad they fixed it. Another idea that's been kicking around which doesn't make any sense is the "draft report" play. The ASB shouldn't be doing anything with that idea, either. IMO

 

[Mejappz]

'in the normal course of business'...what a joke

How about the use of “Peers”? If I did some of the things my peers did, I would probably have my license revoked. Lol

 

[Fernando]

How about the use of “Peers”? If I did some of the things my peers did, I would probably have my license revoked. Lol

Can you imagine if other professions used what Peers do as acceptable.
It opens up to interpretations and lawsuits.

 

[George Hatch]

The term is " Appraiser's Peers" and it has a specific definition for its usage in USPAP. Are you familiar with it? Let me help you out:


Read it for what it says, not what you apparently believe it says. It's not a reference to all appraisers or all licensees, but rather to the appraisers who have the expertise and competency. An appraiser who lacks such or doesn't perform as such in those assignments isn't the benchmark being referenced. Bear in mind that one element of the COMPETENCY RULE is actually "performing competently", not just knowing how to do it.

If you're planning on going on to the user expectations then please do us all a favor and read that clause for what it says before citing it. Then we won't have to go through this again.

 

[Fernando]

The term is " Appraiser's Peers" and it has a specific definition for its usage in USPAP. Are you familiar with it? Let me help you out:
View attachment 85225

Read it for what it says, not what you apparently believe it says. It's not a reference to all appraisers or all licensees, but rather to the appraisers who have the expertise and competency. An appraiser who lacks such or doesn't perform as such isn't your peer. Bear in mind that one element of the COMPETENCY RULE is actually "performing competently", not just knowing how to do it.

So if my peers do it the wrong way by majority, it's acceptable?

 

[George Hatch]

Maybe it would help you to read my comment out loud to yourself before asking me to repeat it. Do it slowly so you won't get confused.

 

[Fernando]

Under time constraints, many appraisers take "short cuts" in not doing a more thorough analysis as they should be doing.