Intimidation....I Will Not Be Silenced

[glenn walker]

I wonder what would have happened if a bunch of appraisers had gone to TAF and the appraisal boards and tried to get it approved to send anyone they wanted out to do appraisal inspections? Maybe some of those guys that ran FL and CA sweat shops just said I’m tired of paying trainees. I want to use someone even cheaper I wonder how TAF and board would have reacted.

Probably would depend on who they paid to lobby for them.

The larger fee shops became AMCs and bypassed trainees by using fully licensed appraisers to work cheap and that eliminated the problems.

Fee Shop or AMC someone was always taking a 25% to 50% cut but turning into a smaller AMC just solved the entire trainee problems.

Why train people when you can just use fully licenced and independent fee appraisers who need orders.

 

[Zoe]

The larger fee shops became AMCs and bypassed trainees by using fully licensed appraisers to work cheap and that eliminated the problems.

Fee Shop or AMC someone was always taking a 25% to 50% cut but turning into a smaller AMC just solved the entire trainee problems.

Why train people when you can just use fully licenced and independent fee appraisers who need orders.

If fees were separarated on truth in lending disclosures, the whole ballgame would change. It would change the market structure.

 

[George Hatch]

I wonder what would have happened if a bunch of appraisers had gone to TAF and the appraisal boards and tried to get it approved to send anyone they wanted out to do appraisal inspections? Maybe some of those guys that ran FL and CA sweat shops just said I’m tired of paying trainees. I want to use someone even cheaper I wonder how TAF and board would have reacted.

Probably would depend on who they paid to lobby for them.

Just so we're clear here, it looks like what you want is for the ASB to add an inspection requirement of some sort to SR1, which an SR will apply to all Real Property appraisal assignments regardless of property type, intended use or intended user.

Add to and expand upon the requirements and to reduce the appraiser's options and flexibility. MORE meddling with the appraiser's discretion, not less. And you need TAFs intervention to limit the GSEs alternatives because you only want to sell to them what you want to sell, and not what they want to buy.

 

[Zoe]

Just so we're clear here, it looks like what you want is for the ASB to add an inspection requirement of some sort to SR1, which an SR will apply to all Real Property appraisal assignments regardless of property type, intended use or intended user.

Add to and expand upon the requirements and to reduce the appraiser's options and flexibility. MORE meddling with the appraiser's discretion, not less. And you need TAFs intervention to limit the GSEs alternatives because you only want to sell to them what you want to sell, and not what they want to buy.

I don't think so. I just want separation of fees on truth in lending disclosures and public trust. What the client wants to buy should be public trust. Separation of fees would support public trust.

 

[DWiley]

I wonder what would have happened if a bunch of appraisers had gone to TAF and the appraisal boards and tried to get it approved to send anyone they wanted out to do appraisal inspections?

As the old joke goes, "I don't believe I would have told all that" - because once again you demonstrate how little you understand about the standards for appraisal practice and the difference between the standards and user requirements.

No lobbying of TAF would have been necessary. Sending someone else has ALWAYS been permissible under USPAP. Under USPAP SR 1-2, one could always send someone else to the property, with the only stipulation being that one had to then certify that they did not personally inspect.

That is the one key thing that you cannot seem to wrap your head around - personal inspection was a GSE requirement, never a USPAP requirement. USPAP has ALWAYS allowed a "no inspection by the appraiser" appraisal. All the appraiser was ever required to do by USPAP was to gather data, not personally inspect. The AO was not changed because of any GSE or AMC lobbying. It was changed because it was just plain wrong.

The GSEs have changed their mind about how important personal inspection by the appraiser is (or, was). Hence, that user-driven (not USPAP driven) requirement has changed for many assignments.

 

[Zoe]

As the old joke goes, "I don't believe I would have told all that" - because once again you demonstrate how little you understand about the standards for appraisal practice.

No lobbying of TAF would have been necessary. Sendi9ng so0meone else has ALWAYS been permissible under USPAP. Under USPAP SR 1-2, one could always send someone else to the property, with the only stipulation being that one had to then certify that they did not personally inspect.

That is the one key thing that you cannot seem to wrap your head around - personal inspection was a GSE requirement, never a USPAP requirement. USPAP has ALWAYS allowed a "no inspection by the appraiser" appraisal. All the appraiser was ever required to do by USPAP was to gather data, not personally inspect. The AO was not changed because of any GSE or AMC lobbying. It was changed because it was just plain wrong.

The GSEs have changed their mind about how important personal inspection by the appraiser is (or, was). Hence, that user-driven (not USPAP driven) requirement has changed for many assignments.

Disclose it on truth in lending disclosures and I am good with it.

 

[alebrewer]

I don't think photos from a property data collector are sufficient to produce the most accurate results. I feel the appraiser should be inspecting the subject property. But what do I know. Credible? Sure... it'll be within the range of the most similar sales.

So let me get this straight: you're ok with doing a 'drive by' and reconciling at something less than the upper end of value (even though you have absolutely zero information about the interior of the subject), but you're not ok doing a hybrid - even though you have significant information about the interior of the subject?

 

[J Grant]

I believe the majority understand that it is the GSE's required the personal inspection as an assignment condition. Appraisers are having trouble understanding why they dropped the requirement. It served them well for decades, and replacing the appraiser with a non-appraiser who took a 5-6 hour online course to go instead...why?

 

[chad hampton]

I believe the majority understand that it is the GSE's required the personal inspection as an assignment condition. Appraisers are having trouble understanding why they dropped the requirement. It served them well for decades, and replacing the appraiser with a non-appraiser who took a 5-6 hour online course to go instead...why?

Didn’t you read above, they removed it because it was wrong

These guys are such pieces of work. I needed a good laugh on a Friday. I wonder if they ever sit down and really think about how much damage they’ve done to this profession?

 

[Surf Cat]

So let me get this straight: you're ok with doing a 'drive by' and reconciling at something less than the upper end of value (even though you have absolutely zero information about the interior of the subject), but you're not ok doing a hybrid - even though you have significant information about the interior of the subject?

First off....I'd be perfectly fine doing a hybrid.....but they just don't pay. It's a full 1004 sans the inspection. In my area they (the AMC's) only pay $100 to $125.

What I was trying to convey is that if I did do them, I'd treat them just like a drive-by. I would do everything that I laid out in my prior post and be within the range of the most recent, similar sales. Not the upper end though.... Why should I stick my neck out and have my license, signature and E&O insurance on the line to just check it out...... it's just a more thorough drive by to me.

I posted many times on that my mentor used to do these things. "Used to" being the keywords there. I know that DW touted in this thread that property data inspectors are more accurate than appraisers....my mentor couldn't handle the discrepancies of the PDR's data in comparison to the subject's prior MLS and or public records..... they didn't line up, there was no one to call to verify. So he stopped doing them.