California Licensing Fees Increased to $1,030 Every Two Years

[nstanbru]

But no one seems to want half an appraisal.

Correct, but they do want half price.

 

[RCA]

That's already handled. The SOWR already requires appraisers to identify and meet the needs of their intended users, which by definition means different effective requirements for different types of users. The fact that too many appraisers actually believe in the fire-n-forget boilerplate that will be universally acceptable to 100% of their mortgage lending clients is the result of appraisers not actually understanding the SOWR. It is not the result of the SOWR not being sufficiently explicit about the requirements of fitting the service to the user.

If you're looking for the ASB to dictate the specific recipe of ingredients that will be universally applicable to all mortgage lending appraisals regardless of which lender then you're completely missing the point that our prime directive is to identify who our users are and what their expectations are. In no case can the ASB dictate a self-contained one-size-fits-all recipe for mortgage lending. The ASB doesn't dictate to the mortgage lenders what they are and are not allowed to ask for. That's not their role, nor should we want it to become their role.

Your response here indicates only a very partial understanding of the problem. Certainly there are different types of users who have different requirements. But, the point is:

1. Most users actually don't know whether what they regard as "requirements" are appropriate and acceptable. That is really left to the appraiser's judgement. Not all appraisers are going to analyze a given customer's stated requirement and come to the same conclusion. That leaves the appraiser at risk. It would be far better to agree upon the acceptable types of clients/users, and the corresponding set of requirements that are acceptable and how such requirements should be handled.

2. In no way should appraisers be subject to handling an infinite set of requirements from an infinite variety of clients/users.

The central issue here, is that clients need to make do with what appraisers can legally provide. It may very well be that the client/user has adapt to what the appraiser has to offer rather than the appraiser needing to provide the client/user with exactly what they demand. Does that make sense?

 

[George Hatch]

Your response here indicates only a very partial understanding of the problem. Certainly there are different types of users who have different requirements. But, the point is:

1. Most users actually don't know whether what they regard as "requirements" are appropriate and acceptable. That is really left to the appraiser's judgement. Not all appraisers are going to analyze a given customer's stated requirement and come to the same conclusion. That leaves the appraiser at risk. It would be far better to agree upon the acceptable types of clients/users, and the corresponding set of requirements that are acceptable and how such requirements should be handled.

2. In no way should appraisers be subject to handling an infinite set of requirements from an infinite variety of clients/users.

You're the one who would flunk the course. No assignment has an infinite number of clients or users, nor an infinite set of requirements. But neither have appraisers ever been able to assume only one set of requirements, even for the one use of mortgage lending.

Short of somebody asking for less than or in conflict with our minimums there is no upper limit to what they can ask for - or expect us to deliver if we agree to it. We are in no position to dictate terms of what kinds of questions a client or user can ask.

So yeah, I do 20 questions with every user from the outset so that I can know what they expect. I never rely on a widget. You shouldn't either. That doesn't mean I reinvent the wheel with them on every assignment, but I do take the time and effort to understand what they're looking for before I submit even one report to them.

And you're right - a lot of users don't know what to ask for and they do leave it to the appraiser's judgement, but once they make the decision to leave it all to the appraiser they can't come back later and say the appraiser was wrong about their decision. Nobody gets to have it both ways.


USPAP has NEVER sanctioned the one-size-fits-all widget produced in isolation of the user expectations. Nor would it have ever made any sense for such a standard to exist.

 

[RCA]

You're the one who would flunk the course. No assignment has an infinite number of clients or users, nor an infinite set of requirements. But neither have appraisers ever been able to assume only one set of requirements, even for the one use of mortgage lending.

"Infinite" is a mathematical term synonymous with "unlimited". There is no limit on the number of requirements or the number of types of users/clients that appraisers must deal with. This is a question of not having a college level education in mathematics. I assume, of course, my audience does. So, your deficiencies in this regard are run-of-the-course, on-par, .... Do you understand?

Short of somebody asking for less than or in conflict with our minimums there is no upper limit to what they can ask for - or expect us to deliver if we agree to it. We are in no position to dictate terms of what kinds of questions a client or user can ask.

Ambiguous. Is the "somebody" the appraiser or the client/user? What minimums? What upper limit. Deliver what? BS.

We are in no position to dictate terms of what kinds of questions a client or user can ask.

That is my complaint. We should be in charge here, we are the experts on appraisal, not the clients. This is one of the idiocies in the profession, promulgated by "certain" lackluster individuals in the profession who have their head up their royal you know what!

So yeah, I do 20 questions with every user from the outset so that I can know what they expect.

So, now it seems you are contradicting yourself. If you are asking the questions, how is it they are telling you what to do? Aren't you already guiding the process?

Me. I'm thinking of that damned client who insists from the outset what I should do.

Clear your head. What exactly are you frigging talking about? Get your thoughts straight and please stop contradicting yourself. Again. ....

I never rely on a widget.

Well, believe it or not, there are a trillion widgets. Far more than I can count. And just as many different types. This forum software has gobs of widgets. So, who knows what you are talking about. Yea. What widget?

That doesn't mean I reinvent the wheel with them on every assignment, but I do take the time and effort to understand what they're looking for before I submit even one report to them.

Yea, OK, you can make life as difficult for yourself as you want. Not that this is exactly the point. "Them/They're" is, I assume the client/user. And the problem is that if they are looking for a certain value to close a loan, why the F____ would you need to understand that? WHY?

And you're right - a lot of users don't know what to ask for and they do leave it to the appraiser's judgement, but once they make the decision to leave it all to the appraiser they can't come back later and say the appraiser was wrong about their decision. Nobody gets to have it both ways.

AMCs can be regulated through some kind of consensus to accept only certain kinds of requests and for each of those types of requests they can further agree as to how they should be handled. Easy enough to do for both commercial and residential.

I actually don't think you bend over backwards for clients so much, simply because your clients don't know what they need to know and you know that. But your attitude, and in fact the attitude of the profession is causing problems and INEFFICIENCIES.

USPAP has NEVER sanctioned the one-size-fits-all widget produced in isolation of the user expectations. Nor would it have ever made any sense for such a standard to exist.

I never said anything about one size. If you use general/abstract terminology, you can probably talk about a hierarchy of types of requests, where the types could be organized into a couple of pages.

What is most important is the perspective here. Appraisers, it should be widely understood, only accept certain approved types of requests. At one of the earliest stages of SOW analysis, the appraiser should attempt to identify those requests that need to be rejected or modified. In fact, a defensive mechanism should be setup to very quickly and efficiently filter and map requests into the acceptable area, in order to save the appraiser from wasting time and getting himself into trouble. But, in order to do this, more work needs to be done on USPAP.

 

[George Hatch]

I don't think asking a lender what their requirements are amounts to a heroic effort. I think it's common sense to figure out what they need and ditch anything they don't need.

The whole process about identify the elements that go into a SOW decision can include asking the questions. Identifying what they consider to be meaningful shouldn't be construed as them telling us what to do; they just telling us what they want and need. Aside from making the inquiry, how else are we supposed to figure out what they need? Osmosis? And FTR, I did qualify what I meant identifying requirements and I didn't say anything about soliciting a target value or outcome; you just chose to blow that off

"Short of somebody asking for less than or in conflict with our minimums there is no upper limit to what they can ask for - or expect us to deliver if we agree to it. We are in no position to dictate terms of what kinds of questions a client or user can ask."

Reading is fundamental. If I say something, you should assume that I meant to say it that way and refrain from trying to load your own baggage into it.

 

[RCA]

I don't think asking a lender what their requirements are amounts to a heroic effort. I think it's common sense to figure out what they need and ditch anything they don't need.

And FTR, I did qualify what I meant identifying requirements; you just chose to blow that off

"Short of somebody asking for less than or in conflict with our minimums there is no upper limit to what they can ask for - or expect us to deliver if we agree to it. We are in no position to dictate terms of what kinds of questions a client or user can ask."

Reading is fundamental. If I say something, you should assume that I meant to say it that way and refrain from trying to load your own baggage into it.

I regard your statement as extremely ambiguous and difficult to read - "minimums" and "upper limit"? OF COURSE, we can't dictate what the clients or user can ask CURRENTLY. But that is my point, we could give them a list of the things they can request. In fact, in other countries, this is often the case. The Germans, for example, you can be quite sure, are strict in this regard.

I think that, effectively, we do indirectly restrict what users can request, in many cases. The problem is that USPAP has worded the SOW crap such that it gives the opposite impression. So, again, it is the attitude that is important here. The SOW cannot be unlimited. It in fact, officially needs to be constrained - at least at some level that cover's all AMCs and lenders. Alterations should be allowed - only after agreement by various boards or some authority - after extensive review.

 

[George Hatch]

It is limited - to what that intended user thinks is meaningful, to the best of the appraiser's ability to identify that.

How would a user go about criticizing an appraiser for not meeting a requirement they never communicated? Especially after the appraiser made the good faith effort to identify the user requirements?


If you're looking for the 1000-page engineering standard for mortgage lending work which dictates the upper limit of what kinds of questions and issues they can ask then you have chosen the wrong occupation. IRL a large percentage of the content we put into appraisal reports is user driven.

 

[TRESinc]

I regard your statement as extremely ambiguous and difficult to read - "minimums" and "upper limit"? OF COURSE, we can't dictate what the clients or user can ask CURRENTLY. But that is my point, we could give them a list of the things they can request.

so when you go into a restuarant do you give them a list of where they can buy their beef and vegetables from that you will order from them?

 

[djd09]

more client bias propaganda.

 

[TRESinc]

more client bias propaganda.

luckily you never have to worry about that, right?