ASA fired off quite the letter

[djd09]

the SOW cannot be limited so not to produce credible results...you would think an USPAP guru would know this

 

[George Hatch]

the SOW cannot be limited so not to produce credible results...you would think an USPAP guru would know this

Enough so as to understand that our standards do not require perfection, and that what's credible for one use isn't necessarily the same as for all uses.


That "always measured" is performed by the intended users. Not by you. Or me or any other 3rd party. As evidenced by the Prime Directive of "meaningful and not misleading to intended users."

Not to mention (for the 100th time) that the acceptability of the appraiser's SOW decision is directly referenced in that same SOWR. Note the verbiage - the ASB is referring to intended users and appraisers for the same or similar assignment as a group, not as THIS user or THIS appraiser.



You will never be capable of spinning these standards to support your warped interpretation of what is/isn't expected of appraisers.

 

[George Hatch]

Here are the questions many of you always dodge.

By the time we acknowledge that a conventional 1004 has a different SOW than a 2055 and a different SOW than a desktop appraisal assignment:

1 - Who are the intended users for that same or similar assignment?​

2 - What are their expectations for that same or similar assignment?​

3 - Who are the appraiser's peers for that same or similar assignment?​

4 - What are the actions those peers would take in that same or similar assignment?​

 

[djd09]

misleading is intentional or NOT...Mr. Dodger

 

[George Hatch]

misleading is intentional or NOT...Mr. Dodger

Is it your belief that appraisers are always responsible for errors regardless of the origin of those errors? That we are expected to operate in GOD mode at all times and to be omniscient regardless of the factual accuracy of the information we are using?

If public records is wrong and you cite that info are you responsible for that error? If a title company makes a mistake are you responsible for the outcome which occurs as a result of your usage of it?

I think it's safe to assume that back when you were an appraiser you passed along a number of factual errors without anyone ever being aware of them. Me too. Everyone else, too. Do you really believe we have all been exposed to the unconditional liability for using that information? Despite acknowledging those assumptions and limitations in every report we sign.

 

[djd09]

savejg....

 

[Meandering]

Is it your belief that appraisers are always responsible for errors regardless of the origin of those errors? That we are expected to operate in GOD mode at all times and to be omniscient regardless of the factual accuracy of the information we are using?

If public records is wrong and you cite that info are you responsible for that error? If a title company makes a mistake are you responsible for the outcome which occurs as a result of your usage of it?

I think it's safe to assume that back when you were an appraiser you passed along a number of factual errors without anyone ever being aware of them. Me too. Everyone else, too. Do you really believe we have all been exposed to the unconditional liability for using that information? Despite acknowledging those assumptions and limitations in every report we sign.

Yeah but,

isn't that why appraisers have to buy E&O insurance to do that kind of work? But these inspectors, risk what? Not getting another $20 inspection someplace? If the tax office has incorrect info, their employee could be punished and/or lose their job. $20 for occassional inspections is not a "job", and if the AMC has a hold harmless agreement, but they are the ones "hiring" the "inspectors", well then who is responsible for the "accuracy" of these inspections?

Just wondering.

.

 

[George Hatch]

You can be 110% right about all of the above and it still won't change the appraiser's exposure to liability when compared to a conventional 1004. Except to remove that portion of liability that is attributable to an inspection away from the appraiser.

With that said, if an appraiser *has reason* to believe that information is actually wrong then that's a completely different situation. If public records says the house is 800sf and built in 1921 but the appraiser is looking at a new construction SFR of 3500sf then that's a perfectly valid reason to disbelieve the datapoint in public records and to look for better info, up to and including bumping their SOW to include a personal inspection or withdrawing from the assignment altogether.

I know you know this but I'll repeat the obvious for the gallery anyway. The use of assumptions is not unlimited or intended to function as a get out of jail free card. There are specific limitations:


I know this reference is to EAs but the same reasoning will apply to any other assumption. We can't develop most of our opinions and conclusion without using certain assumption (we need them); we need to have a reasonable basis for using any of these assumptions; and we believe that their usage will normally result in a credible analysis. Otherwise it would be unreasonable to use them.

There is effectively no such thing in our work as a no-assumption SOW. There are only less assumptions vs more assumptions. And the limitations which go with those assumptions. Some assignments have more, some have less.

 

[Meandering]

I was just asking a question.
I don't have any USPAP books, so I have no clue, just curiosity.

 

[George Hatch]

Again, my comment is in response to your post but it's directed at everyone.