Are online "valuations" reliable or legal?

[Mejappz]

Agin your dodging. You said TAF has no say or influence. I gave you an example where they were publically lobbying the state legislature, and you ignore it. Doesn’t it pique your curiosity the least bit that a former high ranking employee at TAF all of a sudden lands a high paying job at a company that happens to be on the IAC?

 

[George Hatch]

I'm not dodging at all. TAF advocates ("lobbies") for appraiser qualifications and appraisal standards. Bunton wouldn't have been doing his job if he didn't advocate the merits of appraiser qualifications and appraisal standards.

As for "lobbyists" passing from a non-profit to a for-profit I guess there's some evil there, but you're treating the situation as if you think:

a) that company is significantly dependent on Bunton advocating their interests to TAF,​

b) that Bunton has any say in which companies can/can't join the IAC​

c) that merely being a member of the IAC will result in changes to appraiser qualifications and appraisal standards.​

​

Sure, every member of the IAC has their own interests, but so what? The IAC members include fee shop operators like Miller Samuel (and you, potentially) who also pay to participate. And in that article that was quoted earlier in this thread, Mr Miller just provided an example where his membership didn't result in his desired outcome. He voted against the admission of Zillow but ended up getting outvoted by the other members. Thereby directly disputing the very point he's trying to make: that merely being an IAC member (like him) results in them getting what they want. That sausage he's complaining about? He's just as much one of its ingredients as any other IAC member.

Not that it bothers me in any way if Miller Samuel participates or not. Or that I disagree with his opinion that Zillow isn't an appraisal entity and doesn't have any legitimate interest in the content of our appraisal standards. But realistically, if Bunton had gone to work for Miller Samuel you would be in the same position of criticizing the move into that for-profit business, too.

You have clients and 3rd parties "lobbying" you to do their bidding all the time, but in your role as an appraiser you have no problem hearing and then ignoring those appeals, right? The only way anyone could legitimately accuse you of doing something wrong on their behalf in those assignments is if you actually did something wrong to benefit them at the expense of the other parties who are involved with the situation.

That's why I keep asking for - but never receiving - any examples of TAF conduct which favors these AMCs. Mere association doesn't cut it, any more than who your clients are can be considered indicative of whether or not you can be trusted as an appraiser.

 

[Meandering]

That's why I keep asking for - but never receiving - any examples of TAF conduct which favors these AMCs. Mere association doesn't cut it, any more than who your clients are can be considered indicative of whether or not you can be trusted as an appraiser.

FAQs
Student Handbook based on FAQs.

And really, how is there any frequently asked questions about a change in USPAP in the very same publication that USPAP is changed, before anyone else has the opportunity to ask any questions? Oh but those frequent answers to the new change are already published with the change.


.

 

[George Hatch]

The FAQs have accumulated over time - I'm not aware of any of the "Q"s about any changes being raised or addressed prior to the exposure of those changes. Maybe they are; maybe questions are occurring during the exposure period. But regardless of the timeline with these "Qs" their purpose and usage is still to provide examples of the application of the principles involved, not to create new principles or new concepts or new appraisal standards or even new applications.

A question on pg 394 of "How does this change on pg 5 relate to this situation?" does not create that change on pg 5, it merely addresses an example of how to apply it.

Besides which and within the context of the allegations of corruption or mission creep or whatever else people are calling it, which FAQs do you think indicate to USPAP being dorked in favor of lenders or their AMC lackeys at the expense of "impartial and unbiased", let alone appraisers?

Problem identification always comes first, and yet WRT to allegations that the IAC members are "writing USPAP" we seem to have completely skipped that step. If there's a problem with the "sausage" then we would need to first identify that problem before we would be attribute its origins to any misconduct. Because so far all I'm getting from some of you is "there's problem with USPAP and although we have no idea what that problem is we do know it happened because TAF operates an IAC and charges would-be members a fee to join that IAC." Which, needless to say, is not a persuasive argument.


Which elements of USPAP do you think favor the interests of any of the users over any of the legitimate interests of the appraisers? Which elements of USPAP do you think put you at an unfair position with respect to your clients or users?

I ask because (TO ME) "Bunton went to dinner with reps from Clear Capital and didn't pay his own tab" doesn't automatically translate into USPAP getting dorked to favor CCs interests.

 

[Meandering]

Which elements of USPAP do you think favor the interests of any of the users over any of the legitimate interests of the appraisers? Which elements of USPAP do you think put you at an unfair position with respect to your clients or users?

The FAQs have accumulated over time

Answered your own question.

USPAP has been reduced while FAQs continue to grow, along side the non-existent inflation impact on the price of the classes and books.


.

 

[George Hatch]

Answered your own question.

USPAP has been reduced while FAQs continue to grow, along side the non-existent inflation impact on the price of the classes and books.


.

In what way does the existence or size of the FAQ publication indicate an anti-appraiser bias? Would you feel better about it if TAF stopped responding to questions with a publication? Do you think reducing the page count of the publication is going to significantly reduce it's printing and distribution costs?

I think most people would agree that the 2yr cycle is excessive and that a 5yr cycle would suffice. Maybe the ASB and AQB should cut back on how often they meet. But none of that touches the nature of these complaints. Some appraisers simply don't like the fact that there are minimum appraisal standards to which they must adhere.

 

[djd09]

"IAC = Pay to Play. In order to see how the sausage is made, members pay $2,500 per year to buy access to TAF executives, board chairs, and various staff.

no really why don't they buy a book and email TAF like the rest of the peons.

 

[sputnam]

Reliable? No. Legal? Unfortunately.

 

[Meandering]

In what way does the existence or size of the FAQ publication indicate an anti-appraiser bias? Would you feel better about it if TAF stopped responding to questions with a publication? Do you think reducing the page count of the publication is going to significantly reduce it's printing and distribution costs?

I think most people would agree that the 2yr cycle is excessive and that a 5yr cycle would suffice. Maybe the ASB and AQB should cut back on how often they meet. But none of that touches the nature of these complaints. Some appraisers simply don't like the fact that there are minimum appraisal standards to which they must adhere.

Well let's see.

Only certified/licensed appraisers are responsible to adhere to USPAP.
No one else.

AOs and FAQs don't interpret USPAP nor do they set new standards, says so on page 1.

And they are not USPAP, says so on page 1.

But you pay for a USPAP class,
are not being taught USPAP,
but rather,
are being taught the opinions of interested parties,
posed as answers to specific questions,
where the specifics are not fully addressed,
and the answers are composed by people not responsible for USPAP adherence,
but rather,
are taking advantage of a pay to play scheme,
to direct the appraisers interpretive thinking
in a direction that the interested parties like.

It does not need to exist, at all.
write USPAP to contain all the "meanings" that the AOs and FAQs seek to impose
Let the ASC sign off on it,
as that is what the country really "needs" from appraisers,
to preserve the "public trust" in the practice of appraisal.

Otherwise,
it's just plain old corruption for the sake of money
with no other reason to exist.

.

.

 

[DWiley]

Well let's see.

Only certified/licensed appraisers are responsible to adhere to USPAP.
No one else.

AOs and FAQs don't interpret USPAP nor do they set new standards, says so on page 1.

And they are not USPAP, says so on page 1.

But you pay for a USPAP class,
are not being taught USPAP,
but rather,
are being taught the opinions of interested parties,
posed as answers to specific questions,
where the specifics are not fully addressed,
and the answers are composed by people not responsible for USPAP adherence,
but rather,
are taking advantage of a pay to play scheme,
to direct the appraisers interpretive thinking
in a direction that the interested parties like.

.

.

The matter of who does or does not have to comply with USPAP is dictated by law, not by TAF

As for the FAQ, they are composed by the ASB Not sure why you seem to think some other group writes those.