I'm Stunned - Is It Me?

[Mr Rex]

Mentor, zones start at $9k. Polaroid Instamatic appraisals that look like the real thing. Look it over, just don't look over 24 hours, the pumpkin has an expiration date.

 

[JSmith43]

Mentor, zones start at $9k. Polaroid Instamatic appraisals that look like the real thing. Look it over, just don't look over 24 hours, the pumpkin has an expiration date.

The joke part is fine, but what do you have to say about this train wreck? The train wreck I am talking about is a rush to immediate gratification that is leaving appraisers at the train station incrementally, so that most of them don't notice, I guess.

Why can't we even discuss the issue? In 1997 I stopped in to test drive an SUV. I had a back injury that was being aggravated by the firm seats, seating position and clutching activities while driving from assignment to assignment in my GSR. I was in pain and wanted to work.

I left that dealership in an SUV. The trade handled on the spot (must have been a skippy trade in specialist), financing, on the spot. The door hit me in the *** so fast I had to call them later to retrieve some appraisal stuff I had hidden in a secret compartment on my trade vehicle.

Nothing made it more clear then that transaction, that rightly or wrongly, the residential lending industry was headed in the same direction. And it will, with us or without us. I think it sucks for appraisers, and it will be harder on the appraisers that refuse to open their eyes.

I think it is in the best interests of appraisers to force clients to acknowledge there is a potential for reliability tradeoffs as turn times are reduced. Simple as that. If appraisers want to fall on their economic sword, I suggest turning down any assignment requiring less than 1 week turn time.

But, fall on your sword in a public square after alerting the press. It is almost expected in the AF grandstanding culture:icon_mrgreen:

 

[Couch Potato]

I found this question in another forum:

"I’m just curious, when the client requests a 24 hour turn time, do any of you include it in the SOW?"

My response was: <snip> ...no. My SOW is what it is and time restrictions are are no excuse for failing to complete the work required to produce a credible appraisal. I can't imagine trying to make the argument that I didn't do this or that because my client's time restrictions did not allow me to do so...<snip>

So another poster replied to my comment and this is what stunned me:

"I disclose the turn time requirement (implication – it is unreasonable) and disclose my best efforts to meet my clients requirement. If pressed (in Court) I would argue that my client was a sophisticated user of appraisal services and knew (or should have known) that 24 hours was not sufficient time to properly verify data."

That was written by a State-Certified Appraiser.

WTF was that?

I stated I'd like to see that one run by the ASB or his state board.

Any thoughts?

The comment is correct as far as it goes. It is a reasonable defense in court if one is sued, but it will not hold water in front of an appraisal board.

 

[Mr Rex]

The joke part is fine, but what do you have to say about this train wreck? The train wreck I am talking about is a rush to immediate gratification that is leaving appraisers at the train station incrementally, so that most of them don't notice, I guess.

Why can't we even discuss the issue? In 1997 I stopped in to test drive an SUV. I had a back injury that was being aggravated by the firm seats, seating position and clutching activities while driving from assignment to assignment in my GSR. I was in pain and wanted to work.

I left that dealership in an SUV. The trade handled on the spot (must have been a skippy trade in specialist), financing, on the spot. The door hit me in the *** so fast I had to call them later to retrieve some appraisal stuff I had hidden in a secret compartment on my trade vehicle.

Nothing made it more clear then that transaction, that rightly or wrongly, the residential lending industry was headed in the same direction. And it will, with us or without us. I think it sucks for appraisers, and it will be harder on the appraisers that refuse to open their eyes.

I think it is in the best interests of appraisers to force clients to acknowledge there is a potential for reliability tradeoffs as turn times are reduced. Simple as that. If appraisers want to fall on their economic sword, I suggest turning down any assignment requiring less than 1 week turn time.

But, fall on your sword in a public square after alerting the press. It is almost expected in the AF grandstanding culture:icon_mrgreen:

I think you may have read enough to know that some folks don't fall on swords, but recognize the danger of a guillotine. I see them in the past and the future. Frequency and acceptance of use of particular methodology marks market value of the opinions and/or conclusions.

 

[Don Clark]

It could also be a violation of USPAP to allow assignment conditions to affect one's ability to produce credible assignment results.

Absolutely correct.

 

[JSmith43]

Credible = worthy of belief, and whether you agree with it or not, we judge the credibility of a workproduct within the context of its intended use. That means that what's credible for one type of user doesn't necessarily translate across the board for all types of users.

The quote was from George Hatch, this April, regarding a thread on whether or not an appraiser should call the agent involved in every comp. sale.

USPAP Compliant also helped clear up some misconceptions in that prior thread.

Apparently, credible is a minimum, definable threshold. I bet some reports are more credible than others.

Verifying comp data on MLS might be more accurately accomplished by checking it against on line county records as a second data source, rather than an agent's recollections 3 months after the fact.

If someone is willing to pull an all nighter and also congers up forward thinking CYA, it is a bit premature, perhaps petty, to throw him under the bus. I think it is proper disclosure to reference the 24 hour turn time as long as it isn't used as a wild card to excuse minimum required assignment parameters.

I think he is saying to the client and UW, "Hey, you may get less verification than normal, perhaps I won't flesh out an interior sketch like normal, things may look a bit hurried, but I have the time to do the assignment per USPAP minimum standards. I didn't take up drinking, I'm not going through a divorce. It is that darned 24 hour turn time."

Credible, and more confidence inspiring, when put into context.

 

[George Hatch]

If you were unable to gain access for an interior inspection that was required for your assignment would you just complete the report anyway and throw in a big "King's X" that the reason for the omission was your client's turn time requirement? I would hope not.


In Scope of Work Rule parlance, the turn time for an assignment would probably fall under the category of "assignment conditions", particularly if your client or your company is spelling it out for you. It's similar to them calling out the degree of inspection or other expectations like the degree of verification.

If there's a conflict in the expectations of your intended users then your client or your intended users may have to make the call as to what their priorities are. The way I see it is that if they have conflicted priorities it's their problem, not your's.

If "credible" in your assignment means you have to go to City Hall to check the zoning and that's not possible between your Friday 5:00 PM engagement and your Monday 8:00 deadline then something has to give. The same goes for calling or emailing brokers.

As the SOWR says, you can either renegotiate the terms of the assignment or you can withdraw. USPAP doesn't say anything about trying to have it both ways. The SOWR also says that an appraiser can't allow assignment conditions to undercut the credibility of the workproduct, that credibility being based on the use/users.

You best defense is to know exactly what the requirements are of your intended users so that you can make an informed decision at the time of engagement. If there's an obvious conflict at that point you can make your renegotiate-or-withdraw decision then, before it becomes a problem for you.

If it's their problem then I let them call out their own priorities. No matter what, it's not my job to lie for them by saying I did something I couldn't do because they wanted it fast instead of honest.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

think it's good the appraiser put that in...the client requires 24 hr turn time, the appraiser deserves to comment that it could affect quality of report. Why do you guys object to that? I don't get it.

The anst is overblown, I'll agree. Frankly, as written it is not clear what actions he actually took - whether credible or not.

please show me the different "levels" of quality allowed by USPAP?

That was exactly what departure did and exactly what SOW CAN do...But if SOW is dictated by Fannie mae...then a short circuit may not be possible. Remember the old USPAP guff you had to add to a "departure" about the results could be less reliable, blah blah blah. Finally took it out when they realized how stupid it sounded?

Even tho the supplemental standards rule has been abolished, if you agree to certain performance requirements and fail to meet those, it could be considered a violation of your agreement with the client

logical...and if they did meet "certain performance requirements" did that statement violate USPAP?

The report may still be credible, but with reduced reliability.

Thank you Mentor...not all reports are created equal, nor require equal time nor the purpose of the report need of equal precision.

As the SOWR says, you can either renegotiate the terms of the assignment or you can withdraw. USPAP doesn't say anything about trying to have it both ways. The SOWR also says that an appraiser can't allow assignment conditions to undercut the credibility of the workproduct, that credibility being based on the use/users.

The key is if it is fannie mae compliant (mind you that 100% of all appraisals are NOT required to comply with fannie rules -ex-supplemental but still the same rules) and there are minimal (lesser) requirements than what might be necessary to comply with USPAP.

Allow me to pose a scenario. You have a 24 hr turnaround requirement. You find 4 sales in a subdivision that are reasonably similar but not great - say they are all from the 1970's, mostly remodels and average about 2200 sf. You find the closest sale (next door) appears to have been built by the same builder and is a mirror image design pre-addition. The additions appear to be similar age and size. BUT the MLS says there were concessions, unstated how much, and there is a basement. The public record shows no basement and you suspect that the Realtor has made a mistake. So, a call to Realtor sez "Sorry, we are attending a convention in Dallas. Back next Monday"....
So you substitute the 4th comp and omit the obviously more similar house appearing. Points -
-Just because it is more proximate and recent does not make the house more similar. You cannot know until you talk to the Realtor.
-You have 3 other reasonable comparables.
- You can wait til the Realtor comes back and likely it won't change your value should you use the other 3. You won't know.
- You can finish the report and state why you didn't use the 4th comp. - time constraint. Does that fact alone make your report misleading?
- Is the report LESS reliable? Is it still CREDIBLE? Have you met conditions of the client that would have otherwise been unnecessary had you had more time?
- Who gives a rat except a few fannie mae form monkeys that prefer form(s) over substance? This profession has become blessed with appraisalbabble and psuedolegalspeak language. It gets worse and all the time TAF is saying we are not being dictated to about forms, reports, etc. "The Department of Redundancy Department." Our reports are on the verge of collapsing under their own weight.

-did i say something wrong? Stunned again...

 

[Michael Tipton]

If someone is willing to pull an all nighter and also congers up forward thinking CYA, it is a bit premature, perhaps petty, to throw him under the bus. I think it is proper disclosure to reference the 24 hour turn time as long as it isn't used as a wild card to excuse minimum required assignment parameters.

It is my impression that the OP's concerns are the other appraiser's "wild card excuses". Reminds me of the Flip Wilson Show line, "The Devil made me do it."

We are required to prepare credible reports within the SOW of the assignment. If we cannot deliver a credible report under the client's stated contract requirements, we should either renegotiate or withdraw.

 

[Mike Phillips]

Terrel -

You can whitewash it any way you like. Here is the original quote:

"I disclose the turn time requirement (implication – it is unreasonable) and disclose my best efforts to meet my clients requirement. If pressed (in Court) I would argue that my client was a sophisticated user of appraisal services and knew (or should have known) that 24 hours was not sufficient time to properly verify data."

Sorry, but in court or in any other forum between men and women who are supposed to have half-a-brain, the statement that the client is a sophisticated user and should have known...the client, not the appraiser, who is supposed to be the expert, is just plain stupid.

They way I read it that fool is just another weasel who will hide behind his client, he'll dance around with intended use, intended user, SOW and on an on, and when that doesn't work he'll revert to the real truth:

yeah, your honor, my product was BS, but I only had 24-hours to deliver my product and my client should have known he was going to receive BS when he placed the order.

In this case, it doesn’t matter whether the guy exceeded his t-time to complete the work properly or he took unacceptable shortcuts to meet the t-time, he failed to deliver the product he agreed to deliver, and he sure as hell isn’t taking personal responsibility as the expert.