IVS (International Valuation Standard) vs USPAP

[RCA]

SR5 ends on page 31. 31 pages. You could have read those passages for content 10x over in the amount of time you've spent mischaracterizing them on this forum.

And for the last time, I've never sat on the ASB. I never applied to sit on the ASB. I'm just a loudmouth on the internet who is USPAP conversant.

USPAP 2020-21, SR5 ends on page 37 and is about 5 1/4 pages long. It covers Mass Appraisal. So, I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[George Hatch]

My mistake, I was referring to SR4

 

[RCA]

Back up, homeboi. Read that last sentence (line 300) in the first paragraph of the COMPETENCY RULE. That last line summarizes the operative requirement of the COMPETENCY RULE. Everything else in that RULE is a means toward that end.

View attachment 45864

What is true about USPAP is that it doesn't function as a recipe book for how to perform every single valuation problem an appraiser might run into. Nor was it ever intended to.

There is really no standard for competency given in the standard. Doesn't that seem strange? At best we might refer to passing some tests related to the knowledge of federal and state laws. One might say that is implicit: A test for knowledge at some point. What if I (or someone) said that at ANY point in time an appraiser had to be willing to answer a certain set of questions related to the appropriate subject matter? Now that would be something!

Search for the word "competency" in the IVS. You won't find it. Maybe because it is a FANTASY. It's not an either-or categorical thing people have or don't have. There is no pass-fail test for overall competency. I mean you can create a pass-fail test for anything. But it doesn't prove that the person getting a pass grade would necessarily be considered competent by everyone - because the test most likely can't adequately test all required skills. Yep, that's right, it is a pure fantasy that only idiots believe in.

Is someone like Musk competent? Like, he never screws up on anything?

Idiots usually know they are. For them, the smarter guy MUST be competent - like you are competent when you know how to feed yourself. Well, yea, when you feed yourself, you may too much, or wrong stuff, or maybe really bad stuff. Then of course, yes, you are competent in feeding yourself "something", but as we get into the details and talking about long term impacts and so on and so forth, questions begin to arise. - To the point, maybe you should just stop, you might be better off, at least for a while. In fact, maybe being incompetent in feeding yourself is really a kind of competence. See those skinny guys and gals running around? Bet they live a lot longer than you! Of course, they may have anorexia and throw up everything they put down. And they may die of that. We should think balance. So, they are not competent self-feeders - they are sick. Maybe that's what's wrong with some reviewers and underwriters, they are really sick and throw up all the time. OK, enough for the analogies and/or metaphors.

Anyway, the problem is that the people who wrote USPAP, WHOEVER THEY ARE, are incompetent at writing standards. Uh oh. I used that word. What do I mean:

Competence: This is an approximate measure of the degree to which an appraiser is expected to perform a task in a manner satisfactory to those who typically use such results while conforming to all requirements of the associated standard (e.g. USPAP, IVS). The measure may be in terms of an absolute grade or relative percentage. For example, A=Excellent Output, B=Good Output, C=Average/Satisfactory Output, D=Below Average/Unsatisfactory Output, F= Poor Output or, a 0-99% score based on the percentage of peers with an expected lower level quality of output. The expectations may be based on a combination of past history of reviews, tests of relevant knowledge, and length of experience, as well as other factors.

 

[George Hatch]

SOWR addresses the measure of acceptability of a SOW decision, and SR1 and SR3 lay out the requirements to perform those elements competently.

"What" is a competent Sales Comparison approach is not addressed in USPAP, only that it be performed competently. But by the same token, credibility of the assignment results is always measured internally (meaningful and not misleading to intended users), not based on an external benchmark. Which as I understand it, is your primary complaint. You want a rigid USPAP which spells out the explicit answer for every problem the way the Tax Code does and where the results can be defined as accurate or inaccurate. Not a USPAP which is oriented toward "meaningful to intended users" and is measured in terms of reasonable vs unreasonable.

 

[George Hatch]

There is really no standard for competency given in the standard. Doesn't that seem strange? At best we might refer to passing some tests related to the knowledge of federal and state laws. One might say that is implicit: A test for knowledge at some point. What if I (or someone) said that at ANY point in time an appraiser had to be willing to answer a certain set of questions related to the appropriate subject matter? Now that would be something!

Search for the word "competency" in the IVS. You won't find it. Maybe because it is a FANTASY. It's not an either-or categorical thing people have or don't have. There is no pass-fail test for overall competency. I mean you can create a pass-fail test for anything. But it doesn't prove that the person getting a pass grade would necessarily be considered competent by everyone - because the test most likely can't adequately test all required skills. Yep, that's right, it is a pure fantasy that only idiots believe in.

Is someone like Musk competent? Like, he never screws up on anything?

Idiots usually know they are. For them, the smarter guy MUST be competent - like you are competent when you know how to feed yourself. Well, yea, when you feed yourself, you may too much, or wrong stuff, or maybe really bad stuff. Then of course, yes, you are competent in feeding yourself "something", but as we get into the details and talking about long term impacts and so on and so forth, questions begin to arise. - To the point, maybe you should just stop, you might be better off, at least for a while. In fact, maybe being incompetent in feeding yourself is really a kind of competence. See those skinny guys and gals running around? Bet they live a lot longer than you! Of course, they may have anorexia and throw up everything they put down. And they may die of that. We should think balance. So, they are not competent self-feeders - they are sick. Maybe that's what's wrong with some reviewers and underwriters, they are really sick and throw up all the time. OK, enough for the analogies and/or metaphors.

Anyway, the problem is that the people who wrote USPAP, WHOEVER THEY ARE, are incompetent at writing standards. Uh oh. I used that word. What do I mean:

Competence: This is an approximate measure of the degree to which a person(s) is expected to perform a task in a manner satisfactory to those who typically use the result. The measure may be in terms of an absolute grade or relative percentage. For example, A=Excellent Output, B=Good Output, C=Average/Satisfactory Output, D=Below Average/Unsatisfactory Output, F= Poor Output or, a 0-99% score based on the percentage of peers with an expected lower level quality of output. The expectations may be based on a combination of past history of reviews, tests of relevant knowledge, and length of experience, as well as other factors.

You're a quant. I expect you to look at things this way.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

REFERENCING ADVISORY OPINIONS IN THE STANDARDS? THIS ACTUALLY MAKES THEM DE FACTO PART OF THE STANDARD. GOOD GRIEF.

Some judges do agree with that and thus AO's are USPAP...Q & A's...no so much perhaps.

 

[George Hatch]

I think happens when these issues are argued poorly in the courts. The AO publication itself includes 1/2 page of explanation of the point that this isn't new material and that these suggested solutions may not be the only solutions. The ASB's *advice* is based on the fundamentals of USPAP itself but that's the extent of it.

Every AO starts off with a summary of those disclosures.

 

[andrew81]

no one has time to read the entire USPAP, memorize it and check that every definition, rule and statement is adhered to every time they make a decision.

USPAP is a very simple and easy to follow document.

as a certified appraiser, all of your reports certify that you have read, memorized, and follow USPAP.

every two years you take a USPAP update course.

im sure, in a profession that requires you to follow the rules you certify to follow, you can find time to understand the content from the Definitions through Standard 2, its only 22 pages.

 

[andrew81]

it took me 15 minutes to read these sections and type the following summary. you have time to read USPAP and memorize it

definition: just read them

ethics rule: be independent, dont be an a**hole, dont be a liar, dont take bribes, be confidential

record keeping: make a workfile and keep it for at least 5 years plus 2 after disposition

competency: be competent, acquire it, or withdraw

scope of work: what does the client want, what steps can you take to meet their needs, report what you did

jurisdictional exception: follow state rules and disclose it in the report

 

[andrew81]

Anyone who can't see that USPAP is a piece of crap, which it is, ... well so be it. Now, I'm not saying USPAP hasn't done a lot of good over the years. But, there are NOW really stupid statements in it (SOW Acceptability Criteria is a Contradiction to the rest of USPAP [and please note the IVS avoids this by explicitly stating that the SOW must conform to IVS and nowhere implying otherwise), repetition (AO-28 has to repeat the SOW rule almost verbatim? ... We have to cross-reference all text to make sure it is saying the same thing?) and so on.

USPAP has MANY things that are ill-designed, poorly written, and illogical. It is a shame. It is a shame of the face of American Appraisal. It is a shame on the American Financial and Political systems. It is a shame to the intelligence of all.

Also, one might well argue that USPAP has loopholes that are an OPEN INVITATION to fraud, such as that idiotic statement about SOW acceptability. One that you yourself quoted to support one of your fallacious arguments some time back. So, in fact, if there is anything I am "still angry about", it is your use of that section of USPAP, which however is a glaring example of the failure of USPAP.

wow, you have a very negative opinion of something you admit to have not read.

are these your opinions, or opinions of others you are repeating?