Bill_FL
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2002
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- Florida
Mike - the answer I was looking for. (And by the way, I agree completely with your last sentence. I know of many).
So, we agree that ethical appraisers can actually know of a sales price but not let it influence them. That is because we are ethical. There are others who without that direction of value would be out of business. All they can do is complete a form to a desired result.
IF we agree that we can do that ethically, why can we not also agree that an assignment done yesterday, lets say a drive-by for a lender, could also not influence our opinion of value today when we are asked to go do a "full" appraisal on the property? Mike, I think you could do that. I think you would have no problem calling it like you see it. Most of the people with whom you are arguing with in this thread would call it like they saw it too. There are some posters here I do not know now, because of the name changes. Many I do. Those that I know of here, I have great respect for and think they would all not let the previous assignment influence them at all.
That is the whole point of the thread. Ethical people act ethically. Unethical people do not. You can change laws, make new ones, it does not matter. They don't care about the law that says they can not do it now - they wont care about a law that says they really cant do it now. So rather than focus on changing the law, lets change who gets to do the appraisals.
Mike, we do agree on some points. I think the ordering of the appraisal should be taken away from the originators and given to a non-biased party. I think the originators should have no knowledge of who the appraisal will go to. I think on these fronts we agree. I simply do not see a reason to change USPAP to make something that is illegal now more illegal.
