How long the comps we can go back?

[Carnivore]

No different in application than the internal requirements of any fee shop. Or any "supervisor" signing for a trainee. Or what any individual appraiser chooses for themself.

GH, I get that. I started in a fee shop and the Principle had certain requirements. It is his shop. I left that shop on good terms and went out on my own. I think where I had the issue is that they(AMC) were purposely deceptive. Had they shown those extra requirements up front during the fee/turn time quotes...well I would have priced higher. or I may have priced lower depending on where it was located or the subject economic characteristics.

This is really not that big of an issue.

 

[George Hatch]

IMO if they sprung an off-label requirement on an assignment after the fact then that's definitely a problem. That's where I think it becomes reasonable to negotiate a spiff to cover the appraiser's costs.

It's one thing for an appraiser to not anticipate the probability of a request for clarification for a dangling chad which occurs during their analysis; but quite another for a client or their agent to apply new and unusual modes of scope creep on-the-fly.

 

[sputnam]

I respectfully disagree with you.

The AMC is not my client nor are they my supervisor of my firm. In the case I cited they did not add those additional requirements in a prominent way. Those additional requirements were at the bottom of a legal length sheet.

FTR in later assignments they removed those additional requirements from the LOE.

What I speculate they are attempting to do is make all reports fit the needs of all their clients and bypasses that re-addressing issue. Certification say any lender can use the 1004/1073 no matter who the named/identified Client is in the report. something like that. Maybe orne of our USPAP AQB members will chime in on this topic/disagreement.

'our' appraisers comes across as if I was their employee. I know 'our' is a determiner its possessive.

1. 1.
   belonging to or associate

Whether the AMC is the Client or not depends. You can look at it two ways and both are okay in USPAP. The AMC is either the Client or the Agent of the Client. The simplest and most straight forward way to handle it is to view the AMC as the Client and add additional Intended Users. That complies with the definition of 'Client' as the entity that engages you and takes away any potential question regarding confidentiality when the AMC wants to talk about or have you change something. That's my preference and that's the way I write my reports. Never been an issue for anyone. On the other hand, treating the AMC as the agent of the Client is not wrong.

 

[George Hatch]

One way to handle it would be to say that Moonlight Auto Supply AMC engaged me to perform this appraisal as an agent of Fly-by-Night Bank, NT&SA.

 

[Sadie]

Whether the AMC is the Client or not depends. You can look at it two ways and both are okay in USPAP. The AMC is either the Client or the Agent of the Client. The simplest and most straight forward way to handle it is to view the AMC as the Client and add additional Intended Users. That complies with the definition of 'Client' as the entity that engages you and takes away any potential question regarding confidentiality when the AMC wants to talk about or have you change something. That's my preference and that's the way I write my reports. Never been an issue for anyone. On the other hand, treating the AMC as the agent of the Client is not wrong.

I think that USPAP addressed the AMC as a client issue a while back. I think they said that the AMC is not a client or intended user, but acts as an agent for the client. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[sputnam]

I think that USPAP addressed the AMC as a client issue a while back. I think they said that the AMC is not a client or intended user, but acts as an agent for the client. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Actually, it says the AMC can be either one. You can handle it either way and be compliant. Of course that's just my reading and interpretation of USPAP. Other AQB Certified USPAP Instructors may see it differently.

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

Whether the AMC is the Client or not depends. You can look at it two ways and both are okay in USPAP. The AMC is either the Client or the Agent of the Client. The simplest and most straight forward way to handle it is to view the AMC as the Client and add additional Intended Users. That complies with the definition of 'Client' as the entity that engages you and takes away any potential question regarding confidentiality when the AMC wants to talk about or have you change something. That's my preference and that's the way I write my reports. Never been an issue for anyone. On the other hand, treating the AMC as the agent of the Client is not wrong.

Perhaps a stupid question but: Does an appraiser's Scope of Work include a determination who is the client? Wouldn't that specific information be provided presumably in the Engagement?

 

[George Hatch]

The SOW decision includes consideration of what it will take to meet the user's expectations per "meaningful and not misleading". So identifying the user and the use are the first step of identifying what they need.

Who is this for?
What are they trying to do?
What are their requirements?
What would the power users expect and how would my peers meet those expectations for this type of assignment?