Interagency Guidelines, FDIC and AS IS Values

[CANative]

I missed you on the Craven Bundy thread.

 

[Ken B]

Please excuse my limited participation lately. I'm trying to finish up a report draft that's due to the client tomorrow. Since I am sitting in one of those thrill a minute AI USPAP update courses tomorrow, I'm hoping it will be out of review by noon tomorrow so I can email it to the client during lunch break...assuming we get one.

I do hope the quality of the student in this cycle's USPAP update course is better than the last one. I was severely disappointed by the questions being asked last time. It opened my eyes to the watering down of the membership that occurred when AI went on its last recruiting spree...something which they recognized afterwards as a problem and which they have taken steps to resolve.

There, that should be fodder for the next couple of threads.

 

[CANative]

I cringe and fidget in my chair resisting the urge to raise my hand in USPAP classes.

 

[Ken B]

I cringe and fidget in my chair resisting the urge to smack people upside the head when they ask a question that has already been answered three times.

 

[mark hurlock]

Nice try at the diversion.

An appraiser failing to identify and satisfy the known and knowable minimums for an assignment is in violation. If that process ends up providing more in the assignment than what the client knows they need then that's the way it goes.

In this case these minimums have been published. Whether the banks employees I've actually dealt with all understood how the appraisal end of those requirements worked or not I was still obligated to know and comply.

I wasn't speculating about some of those employees not understanding some of those requirements, I was speaking from experience. That you find their lapses astonishing is kewl and all, but it doesn't alter that.

My guess is that if you were getting your AMC assignments from clerks in Mumbai you wouldn't find the possibility that they may not know as much about what you're doing as you do so astonishing.

Other than in your imagination, show anywhere in this thread I have failed to identify or comply with minimums.

You are becoming too ridiculous even for this forum.

 

[mark hurlock]

These are banking requirements, which means the banks are required to get appraisals that include these elements - whether the employees getting them understand those requirements or not. Their regulators aren't (mostly) going to come directly after the appraiser who failed to meet those requirements in their assignments; instead they'll discipline the lender for those violations.



How often have you had to explain why you did something in an appraisal to a client who wasn't appraisal-savvy? It's not really such a rare occurrence.

Where does it say appraisers must educate bank employees?

 

[mark hurlock]

I think most of our regulars understand what it means when I quote an AO from the ASB or relate war stories about what I've seen from the regulators over the years. Only some of the comments I've been making represent any original thinking of my own. Me (and others) toeing the party line is not me inventing or imposing personal standards of my own on you.

USPAP minimums are not some lofty and unachieveable goal that nobody can meet in their work. They're bare bones minimums that we expect everyone to meet. It's just not that complicated or difficult to understand that we must do what we say and say what we do.


As for the chip on my shoulder, I generally don't hold grudges from one discussion to the next. These disgreements happen all the time - someone strongly disagrees with me on one thread but I end up on their side in another. I freely acknowledge that I'm sometimes wrong, even sometimes when my opinion ends up prevailing.

There aren't any unified teams on this forum and the support we give each other in a thread is always conditioned on actually agreeing with the position being argued. Opponent in one exchange is often ally in another. That's pretty standard.

I take unpopular positions on certain topics on this forum on a regular basis and I generate my fair share of opposing viewpoints. But these gunbattles usually only get snarky when someone starts that, which is to say a lot of these debates pass without any of that. But by the same token I expect that if I get testy there's almost nobody on this forum who will put up with that for any length of time without returning it in kind. That's why when I start something like that I don't then claim shock or disappointment when that individual picks that gauntlet up and slaps me back.

You seem to have a habit of going to snarky early and often. Maybe you think you're being so subtle about it that you can claim some plausible deniability when people call you on it. If so then I fear you are either greatly overestimating your own writing skills or greatly underestimating other peoples' reading comprehension. Either of those being a fatal flaw in what goes on around here. Suffice it to say you're not the first appraiser to come here and engage in that mode of discourse and you're not even the most skilled troll we've ever laughed off the island. Those people some of these regulars are comparing you to but you don't know who they are? Where do you think they went and how do think they left?

I'm curious what you think it means when most every thread you engage in generates responses from various posters accusing you of being: (a) not nearly as smart as you seem to think you are; and (b) a possible troll because nobody could be that dumb and stubborn IRL.

Please stop your insanity.

 

[mark hurlock]

Could you please expand on your comments George?

No please don't.

 

[George Hatch]

Other than in your imagination, show anywhere in this thread I have failed to identify or comply with minimums.

You are becoming too ridiculous even for this forum.

Back at 'ya.

Show me where I accused you of that. If I did accuse you of that it was not my intention to do so and I'll apologize for my clumsiness.

If I qualify a comment with an "if" or a "some" that should be interpreted just the way it reads.

 

[CANative]

You're one of those types who goes on and on making a fool of himself by continuing to struggle after being called out for being wrong.

If a client asked you to do a "house and five" appraisal because they don't lend on properties with lot sizes more than 5 acres would you just do it?