July 2008 ASC Q&a- Wink Wink Comp Comp

[Bill_FL]

"It is unethical people acting unethically - participating in value shopping."

Title XI, and the ASC and ASB via AO-19 and this QA have enabled it and empowered it.

And throttle pedals enable people to speed, should they be banned too?

 

[Workbox]

And throttle pedals enable people to speed, should they be banned too?

This is a Niche market, I am sure such a project can be implemented. It just takes a couple of phone calls and emails. Just ask, you will be surprised what they say.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

And throttle pedals enable people to speed, should they be banned too?

Have a relevant question or comment?

 

[Mike Kennedy]

There is no gray in that. And there is no comp check either.

Look harder - you'll find it.

 

[Mr Rex]

The only way Mr K will be satisfied is if they modify USPAP to only allow interior residentail appraisals. No contract price, no contact with the outside world while performing the appraisal, or there may be meddling. No other types of assignments allowed, or there may be grey areas. As profesionals we can't be expected to act ethically on our own. It must be legislated. Wait, there already is a rule like that, I can't recall the nomenclature, but its something like the Ethics Rule.:Eyecrazy:

You commercial appraisers will have to get your own USPAP. There will be no room in the new narrower scope MK USPAP for you guys.

 

[Fred]

You commercial appraisers will have to get your own USPAP.

Amen, brother.

Look harder - you'll find it.

And you call that substance? I looked harder. It's still black and white, night and day. No gray. That was an explicit demand to hit a number.

You consistently see vaguery, that I can't find, starting with your opening post. Look at my post that "corrects" your opening post. You see - yes, no, maybe - in each response. But the ASB gave only one clear response to each question. I think the next question then becomes, has the ASB misinterpreted USPAP, and I don't see anyone producing any evidence of that.

As far as I can tell, you just dislike these responses, because they are based on standards that you dilike, rooted in some part in law (FIRREA) that you dislike. Part of why your opening post is misleading is that you create the impression that the ASB (who you call Brenan, and I know, typo) somehow crafted a defective opinion. However, the ASB didn't craft a defective opinion and you don't even try to show where they did. The fact is that you just don't like the way the world is. You are entitled to that opinion, of course. You are entitled to post in the appropriate forum. I don't think you are entitled to the inappropriate smears, though.

There is one place on these QA's that I find systematic problems. It's the part where they document says they are not "interpreting" USPAP. Of course, they are.

In March, I disputed a QA response. The crux was a definition based on what "exists." The ASB said "the" land exists. I said improved land exists, but vacant land doesn't. The ASB went on to say, when reporting this, the appraiser had to disclose that the improvements "exist." I remember thinking, that's my point, the improvements are what exist.

In any case, the March dispute created a substantive argument that would give the ASB reason to reconsider, because there is a reasonable argument that they are contradicting a USPAP definition - does exist mean exist. I still cannot find in this thread, amidst the perceived vaguery, the wildly-colored and punctuated posts, the inflamatory allegations, and attitude; the kernel of substance in your opening posts "rebuke" of the ASB that would give any rational person a reason to reconsider this month's QA responses. You have had 60 pages to work on it.

 

[PL1957]

You commercial appraisers will have to get your own USPAP.

One can only dream ...

 

[Michigan CG]

Some people need to put other people on ignore. If you are coming to the point of suicide, or trying to climb through your mouse portal to slap someone, ignore is the best tool. Keep it civil, on point, without personal insults please.

 

[Offshore]

Keep it civil, on point, without personal insults please.

Would it be too much to ask the privileged members who so fiercely defend the status quo to refrain from sweeping generalizations about those who oppose AO-19 abuse?

 

[Fred]

Speaking only for myself, not the "priveleged" -
1. What is AO-19 "abuse?"
2. Does it have anything to do with this topic?
3. Is it possible to "abuse" AO-19 without violating the Ethics Rule? (In theory, it should not be possible).