Exposure Draft USPAP 2018-19 - Appraisal Foundation

[Ken B]

And yet, they seem to be making great effort over an extended period of time to codify into USPAP that thing that they acknowledge not only exists, but is a necessity, but which you would deny because you are afraid of its abuse.

We can't make bad people harmless by making good people helpless.

The people who would do misdeeds don't care about the rules.

 

[DWiley]

The challenge I have is that some of "good" people don't really seem to be so good. I have had several admit to me that they are pushing for this basically because they don't want to "face the music" when the "draft" reports a value of X and the final report says the value is 2X ....or 1/2 X. I happen to think they should have to face that music. There well may be a legitimate reason for X vs 2X, but I don't see how public trust benefits from hiding what actually happened.

 

[Ken B]

Which is why people who are vehemently fighting against codification of draft reports are shooting themselves in the foot.

The first step to regulating something is to first formally acknowledge its existence. USPAP, as written, does not regulate draft reports. They tried to do so this cycle so that they could formalize record retention requirements for the product, but when the revision got tabled, so did the regulation of draft reports.

All the huffing and puffing and chest beating that some like to do will not solve the problem. It only perpetuates it.

 

[George Hatch]

I strongly disagree.

SR1 applies to appraisals regardless of what they're called, and SR2 applies to appraisal reports regardless of what they're called.

Within the context of an appraisal standards discussion....

That someone may be using different nomenclature for a service or workproduct is irrelevant. That people may have been doing it for a long time is irrelevant. That they may never have gotten caught or penalized for it is irrelevant.

If a tweet that isn't labeled an appraisal report can be an appraisal report then how can a document that calls itself an appraisal report the entire way through and which contains far more info than can be conveyed in any tweet be considered to be something other than what it says it is?

I don't think the professional resolution of this conflict requires changing the standards; I think it would be far more consistent for the people who want to provide this document to do a better job of identifying the different set of intended users and intended uses and whatever additional disclosures, assumptions or limitations are involved in that document prior to sending it out.

Moreover, if the incorporation of the draft review is part of their SOW then maybe those appraisers should acknowledge that. If the client's input affects their SOW then maybe THAT should be disclosed.

In other words, I think they should do a BETTER job at complying with the reporting standards, rather than the profession changing those standards to sanction the practice of bad reporting.

 

[George Hatch]

As for what USPAP does or doesn't recognize, that's based on the actions and expectations, not the verbiage. USPAP doesn't "recognize" comp checks or BPOs or Evaluations when performed by an appraiser but it sure as heck has requirements that apply to those actions and services. That USPAP doesn't explicitly address a (fill in the blank) doesn't alter the fact that if that service includes the elements of an appraisal then we consider it an appraisal and if it meets the definition of an appraisal report we consider it an appraisal report.

The whole purpose of using non-appraisal terms to describe appraisal services has been an attempt to disassociate those services from the professional standards that apply to them - which we as a profession have categorically rejected and with which the appraisal regs have adopted.

 

[Ken B]

lol...yeah, there's only three FAQs regarding "comp checks" in the back of the manual that also includes the 2016-2017 USPAP.

How many of the FAQs address "draft reports?"

 

[George Hatch]

That's your response to the point that USPAP applies based on the action and not the verbiage or nomenclature?

You gots to let that go. IMO


Otherwise, you're advocating the equivalent of me setting out to perform appraisals and submit appraisal reports that are labeled otherwise and citing those labels as my sole defense if/when there's a problem under the guise that "USPAP doesn't address that".

They set USPAP up to apply based on the action precisely to prevent appraisers from deploying the semantics dodge. Or the tradition dodge, for that matter.

 

[Ken B]

The problem is that you use the term "appraisal report" in a context that is inconsistent with the USPAP definition.

This isn't a case of "knowing ****ography when you see it." An appraisal report has a specific and clear definition. That some do not agree with that definition is a different problem.

Don't hate the messenger. Hate the system.

 

[gregb]

What are the positions of ABA, AI, NAR on this issue?

 

[jay trotta]

Since there are very few that need to be held accountable in the Lending Industry, just curious as to the amount of language revisions that are necessary to entrap appraisers ?

A profession that requires this many language changes and/or interpretations, since the "Greatest Depression" makes me wonder about the "intent" of those writers.