Certification 25 3.6

[djd09]

Yes, I understand that. Such an argument shows a lack of understanding regarding USPAP. TAF said it quite well.

View attachment 112290

There is no other answer they could have given.

are they saying signing prewitten certs are not part of the SOW....

 

[George Hatch]

In your professional development you should have outgrown the superficial form-monkey phase a long time ago. The SR2 form doesn't drive the SR1 appraisal, it communicates it.

The SOW decision is about the SR1 development of the appraisal. How the appraiser developed their analyses, opinions and conclusions. The SOW decision has nothing to do with the SR2 report criteria. The only references to the report in the SOWR involve disclosure of that SOW.

The user-driven requirements for the assignment are set forth in their expectations whether conveyed orally or in writing (Fannie's written policies being an example of the latter). Those *assignment* requirements include which of their forms to use to SR2 report the SR1 appraisal on. The SR2-related reporting criteria are a subset of the assignment requirements but are not a subset of the SR1-related appraisal criteria.

 

[chad hampton]

It’s not surprising that the usual suspects all stick together. They’ve been passed around these appraisal organizations more often than most of us change underwear. It’s a big club. Cindy called them out on it and she was promptly fired. That’s when you know you’re over the target.

Still makes me laugh, an ethics professor took one look at this profession and within a few months had the scam figured out.

 

[George Hatch]

The personal smears don't alter the facts. And just to repeat, I have never been a member of any appraisal organization or any corporate entity other than a few fee shops and an appraisal dept at a commercial bank - all of those associations other than the bank ending prior to licensing. Even when I was teaching that was a 1099 situation same as all my appraisal assignments; I was never an employee of the appraiser who owned that operation. So when you're talking about me you should keep the (deliberate and malicious) lie that I have some conflict of interest out of your mouth.

Heck, if you have ever been a member of the AI then that puts your professional associations a lot closer than me to the vast corporate conspiracy you're alleging.

Here's the fact you refuse to acknowledge on this issue. The last half of the sentence directly contradicts your interpretation of the front half of the sentence. The front half does not provide consent, and has been repeatedly explained to you, the appraiser's obligations WRT confidentiality are limited to the appraiser-client relationship or as otherwise stipulated in the existing law, rule or regulation relating to privacy.

“Any of the foregoing persons or entities who receive this appraisal report may choose to store, copy, reproduce, analyze, use and distribute the data in the appraisal report for internal or external purposes without having to obtain the appraiser’s or supervisory appraiser’s (if applicable) consent.”​

​

Doesn't anybody read for content anymore? That sentence explicitly separates the appraiser's conduct and consent (prior to delivery) from the user's conduct (after delivery).

Apart from the appraiser's own original analyses opinions and conclusions, what other information in a GSE-type appraisal report can be considered "assignment results" or assumed to be "confidential" without explicit instruction of that by the client? Most of the subject and comps info you use is derived from other sources - as in, not by your own development. And we have already taken note that the subject's physical characteristics are not part of the assignment results as that term is used in the confidentiality section. So what else is left that only the appraiser knows - and which has been identified by the client as confidential? The same client who controls the initial distribution of the report and of which everyone is fretting their subsequent actions after receiving an appraisal report.

If the people who disagree with me want to come here and say it to me directly then I'll run them into the ground just like I'm doing to you. I can do this all day because the facts are an easy sell; its the arcane creative reimaginations that take more effort. Just tell them in advance of your invite that they had best come prepared to deal with the various definitions as they exist, not as how someone might feel about those definitions.

 

[chad hampton]

I could care less about certification 25 or any other of the certifications. They are all worthless. Verbal throw up on paper.

I’m sending runners to inspections and using AI to fill in my reports. Just like the AMCs at the breakfast club do. They are the poster children for how the GSEs, TAf, and all other orgs want appraisals to be done. Just following their lead.

 

[George Hatch]

LOL
AI isn't any different from using a calculator or a spreadsheet. Your opinion occurs when you agree or disagree with the results and form your own conclusions.

Your apparent advocacy of the false certification of personal inspection for those assignments certifying such - presumably to exploit the economic advantage over your own peers - is distressing but somehow not surprising.

 

[chad hampton]

At least They’re all getting wealthy off the corruption.

You should ask for a check. I bet they’d send some your way for doing your part in helping them destroy this profession

 

[George Hatch]

Whereas the constant virtue signaling whilst simultaneously stabbing your peers in the chest by lying about personal inspection is somehow a stronger moral position than reading the standards as they are actually written?

That's some warped reasoning you've got going. My conduct is entirely consistent with providing instruction and explanation of the material as written. Regardless of its effect on the bottom line of the one niche in professional appraisal practice (including my own interests as a fee appraiser). In the ethos of self-employment it is inherently on the individual to adapt to the realities of the market, not on the market to adapt to the interests of the vendors.

 

[George Hatch]

Since these discussions are always about the money, I'm curious what alternate outcome you believe could have occurred? No matter what, the technology and its own discrete effect on the mortgage origination business would have still occurred. No matter what, the corporate interests would have continued to exploit the economy of scale and market aggregation. The loan sales types would have eventually be cut out on the SFR side the same as previously occurred on the FRT side all those years prior. No matter what, the lenders and the GSEs would have eventually figured out that they don't need a conventional 1004 for every loan decision and would have sought out their alternatives. No matter what, the demand for conventional 1004s would have declined. No matter what, the oversupply of appraiser productivity that the appraisers grew - by their own hand - in the 2000s would have undermined their leverage in the market.

I think the timing might have been delayed but it's difficult to envision an alternate sequence of events that would not have eventually led us more/less right back at where we're going to be in 2030. Especially so if the market declines coming in the future don't get attributed to appraiser misconduct. If it comes to pass that the outcome indicates to "no apparent problems" that outcome will not prompt for or result in reforms in the market for appraisal services.

Have you considered yet what your arguments will be for "different" if the status quo isn't proven to lead to additional economic losses in the RE markets than was present prior to all this? Because if the "low cost appraisers" aren't proven to add to the losses then that's going to gut the argument that appraisers need to be protected from the ravages of simple supply/demand.

 

[chad hampton]

It’s important to call out corruption when you see it. Like the ethics professor, I saw it too.