Unintended consequence of reviews

[DWiley]

USPAP has options for the depth and SOW, and those options can remain. However, they should call only standard 2 opt-in a review because the QC checks are a much lower benchmark, which is why non-appraisers can examine the reports ( and it is easier to train them for the rote work that entails. Non appraisers can still do a QC check of a report, but stop calling it a review (or call it a clerical review)

Pot, meet the Kettle.

Has it occurred to you that it is you that continues to use improper terminology?
In USPAP it is called Appraisal Review when an appraiser does it - not "review"

 

[timd354]

USPAP has options for the depth and SOW, and those options can remain. However, they should call only standard where a review addresses value and opinions a review because the QC checks are a much lower benchmark, and can be done by a non-appraiser (which is why it is easier to train those folks for the rote work that entails. Non-appraisers can still do a QC check of a report, but stop calling it a review (or call it a clerical review)

Who do you think you are that you think you can tell lenders and other non-appraisers that they can't call their evaluation of an appraisal a review? This is a ridiculous argument.

 

[sputnam]

USPAP is the minimum standard for appraisers, however, it also delineates what is and what is not part of appraisal practice. Since a non appraiser can do a QC check, it should not be part of appraisal practice and needs a different name. An appraiser of course could still do those rote QC checks if they want to.

The word 'review' existed before USPAP and it had meaning. It still has those same meanings and people who aren't credentialed appraisers can use the word anyway they want to. Credentialed appraisers can use the word casually when it's not in the context of their professional practice.

Is fodder for confusion? Definitely.

 

[J Grant]

LOL, USPAP only applies to the conduct of appraisers so even if USPAP stated that only a review done by an appraiser could be called a review or that a property inspection done by a non-appraiser was part of appraisal practice, that would change absolutely nothing as non-appraisers would simply not be bound to follow it. It is beyond silly to think that a professional standard for appraisers can be used to govern the activities or language used by non-appraisers.

I undersand USPAP appled to the conduct of appraisers, but it also contains diviions of what appasial practice is and is not and uses terminlogy that is associated with appraisal praice.

PDC collectors can now inspect, but they must not offer an opinion as part of the inspection. Then stop calling it an inspection - they collect data. The GSE's must have been warned about this by legal, since they do call it a data collection; inspection is still used for it a good deal of the time and I bet $ taht when hey make an appointment with a borrower or RE agent to come out they say hey are coming to do an inspection. It is hard to imagine the reaction if the PDC person calls and says hello, I need to come out to your property to do a data collection.

Non-appraisers can still do the QC rote checklist thing; that would not change, I agree; a professional who stands for appraisal need not govern what these non-appraisers do. However, the language is important because it misleads the public, investors, and even some lenders.

Have a nurse practitioner alluded to as a doctor or their tasks blurred and see what happens. Every profession has specific and meaningful language and titles for a reason.

 

[J Grant]

Who do you think you are that you think you can tell lenders and other non-appraisers that they can't call their evaluation of an appraisal a review? This is a ridiculous argument.

It's not me personally, but it should be a USPAP consideration. Calling a QC check a review or a PDC collection an inspection can be misleading and favor the lenders and third parties' profit interests rather than enhancing the public trust.

 

[J Grant]

The word 'review' existed before USPAP and it had meaning. It still has those same meanings and people who aren't credentialed appraisers can use the word anyway they want to. Credentialed appraisers can use the word casually when it's not in the context of their professional practice.

Is fodder for confusion? Definitely.

Taht is my point.
It is fodder for confusion, but beyond that, it is fodder for misleading—to the public, the lenders, the investors, the borrowers—anyone involved in the transaction.

 

[alebrewer]

It is fodder for confusion, but beyond that, it is fodder for misleading—to the public, the lenders, the investors, the borrowers—anyone involved in the transaction.

Well, that didn't take long. I'm guessing you can support this opinion with proof?

 

[DWiley]

It's not me personally, but it should be a USPAP consideration. Calling a QC check a review or a PDC collection an inspection can be misleading and favor the lenders and third parties' profit interests rather than enhancing the public trust.

Perhaps it would help if you and others started using the proper terminology, Appraisal Review, instead of the generic "review," which is not defined in USPAP :0 Just sayin' If you really think it is coinfusing, then help clear up the confusion by using the proper term. Or, are you arguing that appraisers have some "right" to the generic term, even though it is not the one used in our Standards?

 

[J Grant]

Perhaps it would help if you and others started using the proper terminology, Appraisal Review, instead of the generic "review," which is not defined in USPAP :0 Just sayin' If you really think it is coinfusing, then help clear up the confusion by using the proper term. Or, are you arguing that appraisers have some "right" to the generic term, even though it is not the one used in our Standards?

I can endeavor to use the proper termilogy here on the board (though often an OP question does not specify what kind of review they meant )

It is not about it confusing Appraisers. It is about the use of the terms causing confusion and being misleading to the Public, Investors, and other parties.

 

[DWiley]

I can endeavor to use the proper termilogy here on the board (though often an OP question does not specify what kind of review they meant )

It is not about it confusing Appraisers. It is about the use of the terms causing confusion and being misleading to the Public, Investors, and other parties.

LOL. I think I can assure you that the investors are not confused on this issue. Most are probably more clear on the issue than many appraisers I know.