Bye, Bye, ASC -Appraisal Subcommittee on the verge of shutting down

[Asuka]

Yep, again caught with their pants down.

View attachment 98734

IMO it is not the role of the TAF or the ASC or any of the state boards to advocate for or defend the actual performance of appraisers, either individually or as a group.

Its not about advocacy, as much as it is defense of what the industry is and why the claims are baseless. If the regulatory body does not know why this is relevant all the more reason the regulatory body should be dismissed.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

so you may wish they had left it alone.

 

[George Hatch]

The FAA below is similar to the TAF & ASB

Federal Aviation Advocacy​

Yes, the FAA acts as an advocate for aviation. While its primary function is to regulate and ensure the safety of civil aviation, the FAA also promotes aviation safety and encourages the development of the industry. It does this through various means, including:

• Setting standards and regulations

Federal Aviation Advocacy | EAA

IMO it is not the role of TAF or the ASC or any of the state boards the FAA to advocate for or defend the actual performance of appraisers pilots, either individually or as a group.

 

[George Hatch]

Its not about advocacy, as much as it is defense of what the industry is and why the claims are baseless. If the regulatory body does not know why this is relevant all the more reason the regulatory body should be dismissed.

In this discussion as to their roles your "what the industry is" can be interpreted two ways: either literally - what the industry actually is - or with the inclusion of the unspoken "performance" qualifier to which you are referring ("what the industry's performance is").

As for "the claims are baseless" the only way to support that conclusion is with data. Not with sentiment. Without the supporting data the assertion is unsupportable and indefensible. Nobody is in any position to confirm or deny the allegations of systemic bias. All anyone can truthfully say is "we don't actually know yet".

I think the allegations are all-but-baseless too, but I can't prove it and neither can anyone else except perhaps the GSEs who have direct access to all those appraisals in their database.

 

[Mejappz]

Its not about advocacy, as much as it is defense of what the industry is and why the claims are baseless. If the regulatory body does not know why this is relevant all the more reason the regulatory body should be dismissed.

TAF collaborated with HUD and should be held responsible. While others faced pressure, they stood firm and did not give in. TAF seems more concerned with self-preservation, ensuring those hefty salaries remain protected!

 

[George Hatch]

In your opinion, what would you have considered the more reasonable and supportable alternative? TAF agreed to take additional steps toward elaborating upon and clarifying the existing prohibits against using personal bias in appraisal practice? What do you think they should have done instead? Because issuing the knee-jerk response denying appraisers are guilty of the allegations - on the evidence-free basis - is outside their intended role and mission statement. Not to mention incompetent when considering how we normally develop our conclusions prior to committing to them.

Unlike TAF, the appraisal orgs ARE advocates for the interests of their members on both the collective and individual basis. That is part of their mission statement. They could have lept to the defense of appraiser conduct on the evidence-free basis. I think it was more prudent of them to hold back until they actually knew what they were talking about, but perhaps you disagree.

 

[TerryRohrer]

- on the evidence-free basis -

I think it was more prudent of them to hold back until they actually knew what they were talking about, but perhaps you disagree.

What evidence exists now that suggests anyone knows what they are talking about?

 

[George Hatch]

IMO there is no evidence of widespread misconduct - so far . All the advocates can actually point to is outcomes being slightly different on avg. They're backing into their explanations of how that is actually happening. They are not actually looking at the appraisals to identify what the lower appraiser did differently - and at the same time are also not identifying what the higher appraiser did differently.

Where the allegations are getting ahead is in the point that - with racial bias allegations - the burden of proof rests on the accused. Not the accusers. It's a teflon play because the mere accusation itself is presumed by the advocates to be beyond dispute. The denial of such requires proving the negative. Nobody can prove the allegations are untrue without getting into the individual appraisals to see where an allegedly bad appraisal went wrong.