July 2008 ASC Q&a- Wink Wink Comp Comp

[Hamlet]

How would you provide court testimony? Would that not be considered an oral report? Could it be considered an oral report?

They are illegal in Michigan, how do appraisers in Michigan handle court testimony? If I were to give testimony in court, would I not be speaking about the opinion I already gave, not giving a new one?

 

[William K]

Steven,
I agree that they used it as a slang term, however once they did, it now tends to give it (Comp check, Full Appraisal) validity as a type of document/ report.
(Full appraisal? as opposed to what? a Partial Appraisal?)

I think they should have stayed on the path of stating , an appraiser may perform an appraisal in compliance with USPAP, and it is each appraiser's choice of whether to charge or not to charge. An appraiser may not transmit a value or range in value any other way than meeting the reporting requirements found in USPAP.

 

[Webbed Feet]

To All,

What I find amazing is all the utter lack of comments about the very first part of that questions and answers from the ASB.

I also find it amazing the ASB provides technically correct answers all the while ignoring the parts that require appraisers to do things that appraisers cannot do in any practical sense. So technical compliance is demanded when in the real world it cannot be accomplished. THAT is the essense of the failure of the ASB in these questions and answers. Engaging in a debate regarding a purely technical level of correctness or not, per USPAP, is a fools debate. Of course the answers are technically correct. The entire problem here regarding the "comp searching" is that these answers, to these questions, simply were not needed by anyone in the industry that has been paying one iota of attention to much of anything during any USPAP class. In my opinion, one cannot claim much of an accomplishment after truncating out the tough parts of questions so one can hand out technically correct answers that pretty much solve nothing for anyone in an industry desparately seeking help.

The above is why I will maintain my opinion that, given the role and affect the ASB has when publishing things like this, that the mission of the ASB is incorrect or a new agency with a proper mission and authority to implement it needs to be created. It is NOT enough to say "Here are all your standards... now comply with them regardless of if the vast majority of you have no idea how to do so and remain in business under the current reality of what is going on in the market place for appraisers." At some point an agency of authority must publish what we are to do that IS workable given the realities of what is really going on, not the wishful thinking that a set of standards that depends on a perfect world to cooperate in order for them to be workable.

Case in point. The first part that nobody here is mentioning is transmittal of appraisals using web portals or conversion programs that might be altering the appraisal reports into being misleading. (why in the hell aren't any of you discussing this???????) ... The ASB answer places the onus on the appraisers to determing if this is taking place in the appraisers computers before transmission or some other method out of the appraisers control outside of the appraiser's computer. Gosh, isn't that just nice? .... Tell me, anyone ...... who of us has successfully demanded and received hard cold evidence as to what any of these portals or conversion programs are doing exactly where? .. In our computers, or outside of them at some web site and then being reflected back at us from out of our control? .. How many of us get a copy of the end results, of what we send, back to us so we can see exactly how what "WE" sent ends up looking like BEFORE the other end tears it apart and possibly turns it into something misleading? Like sure! .... All appraisers are computer experts that these web portal and conversion program companies disclose all their computer code to, for analysis, in order for each and every appraiser to be able to make such determinations as to exactly where the conversion is taking place!

Thanks ASB..... that was helpful. Why didn't you just publish that if these web portal and conversion program companies will not 100% disclose their proprietary computer code, and we all don't individually hire computer programing experts to analyize said code....... that all web portals and conversion programs cannot be used? .. You might as well have said that. .. Because most appraisers have no idea how to determine what you just said we must.

But it was all technically correct per USPAP of course!

Webbed.

 

[Hamlet]

William,

I have to agree, while I don't think USPAP is the vehicle to end the comp check controversy, it certainly didn't help matters with the latest Q&A. While it may be crystal clear to ethical users of USPAP, it certainly isn't going to clarify anything for the requestors of those comp checks. They will see the word yes and take it from there.

Your suggested wording is much more clear and to the point.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

Might have been a good time to develop their definition of a comp check, for starters. :icon_idea:

The problem is that their no uniform definition. That is evident from reading comments from appraisers right here on this forum. The ASB could come up with a definition, but what's the point? A contingent assignment is a contingent assignment, regardless of how you want to define comp check. Providing some definition for something that that lies outside of appraising (MB slang) provides no clarity in the Q&A.

The answers provided give an insight as to how far away, from in the trenches appraising, they are. :blush:

Not necessarily...it seems to me that they don't jump into the mosh pit with everyone else.

Thanks for playing.

No problem...peace out.

 

[Carnivore]

Question: Can I do comp checks for free.

Answer: If you want to, USPAP does not involve itself with business matters.


QUESTION: Do I have to disclose in a follow-up report on the same property the fact I completed a prior preliminary comp check report for free.

Answer: No, since these two assignments were engaged seperately they are not related insofar as USPAP is concerned.

reminder:

If you are licensed in a USPAP mandatory state you must insure a you comply with USPAP in the above assignments.

 

[DWiley]

Webbed,

You must have gotten a different version of the Q&A than I got. The one I received says that the appraiser is responsible for (1) understanding the report generating software and (2) reviewing the report before sending it to make sure it is not misleading.

It goes on to say that once the appraiser has transmitted the report the appraiser has no responsibility for what the client does or how they use the report.

The obligations you are asserting are not in the Q&A and they are not in USPAP.

DW

 

[Mike Kennedy]

Putting them in quotes, as the ASB did, indicates to me they were using the same slang the people asking the questions use. It's the same slang thrown around on this forum.

USPAP's existing definitions already have it covered.
1. You can send raw data (whether called a comp check or not).
2. You can send the report of an appraisal (whether called a comp check or not).
3. You cannot agree to hit or hit a predetermined result.
No other information is necessary to answer the questions, but there are some who just don't like the answers.

4. You cannot accept an assignment which is clearly contingent upon a value or direction in value rendered to obtain it.

Whether "raw data", (which demonstrates a range of values), or a report of an appraisal in verbal or written format (which demonstrates a point or range of values) delivered to an existing client or a prospective client for the SAME loan, intended use, borrower and client -

a so-called, "ballpark guess", "first appraisal", "pre-lim appraisal", "comparable value check" et al AUTOMATICALLY makes ACCEPTING the second "actual/full/real" appraisal order a Violation of the USPAP and, in many states, State Law.

Period.

No too difficult to comprehend the reality of the Residential Fiasco which has been allowed to disgrace the entire Industry. To pretend the SECOND order originated in such a manner is NOT contingent is self-delusional, preserves the Status Quo, and does a disservice to Ethical Appraisers and Consumers.

p.s. ASB ....revoke AO-19 after delivering to the Congressional Oversight Committee your demand for revised Language in Title XI to END THE GAME. Thanks.

 

[Stone]

4. You cannot accept an assignment which is clearly contingent upon a value or direction in value rendered to obtain it.

Whether "raw data", (which demonstrates a range of values), or a report of an appraisal in verbal or written format (which demonstrates a point or range of values) delivered to an existing client or a prospective client for the SAME loan, intended use, borrower and client -

a so-called, "ballpark guess", "first appraisal", "pre-lim appraisal", "comparable value check" et al AUTOMATICALLY makes ACCEPTING the second "actual/full/real" appraisal order a Violation of the USPAP and, in many states, State Law.

Period.





No too difficult to comprehend the reality of the Residential Fiasco which has been allowed to disgrace the entire Industry. To pretend the SECOND order originated in such a manner is NOT contingent is self-delusional, preserves the Status Quo, and does a disservice to Ethical Appraisers and Consumers.

p.s. ASB ....revoke AO-19 after delivering to the Congressional Oversight Committee your demand for revised Language in Title XI to END THE GAME. Thanks.

Number 4 is already covered under number 3.

 

[George Hatch]

a so-called, "ballpark guess", "first appraisal", "pre-lim appraisal", "comparable value check" et al AUTOMATICALLY makes ACCEPTING the second "actual/full/real" appraisal order a Violation of the USPAP and, in many states, State Law.

Period.

The absolutism of this assertion is what makes it incorrect. Period.


I realize a lot of people would like it to be absolute, but it just isn't. In those cases where accepting the 2nd assignment is prohibited, the reason for the prohibition is not because there was a prior assignment but because there was an improper contingency for the 2nd assignment. That improper contingency can be established with or without the 1st appraisal, so that right there tells you the variable is not the fact that there was a prior appraisal.

Unfortunately for your opposition to multiple assignments, the ASB uses a multiple assignment scenario in their training materials as an illustration of how the SOWR requires different levels and types of development for different uses and/or users. It was not an accident nor an oversight on the part of the ASB, but is in fact something that happens on a regular basis. You might perform an appraisal for one use - like a mortgage - and then get approached to do another appraisal for a different use - like a divorce or estate use.

It's too bad if you don't like it. It is what it is. If I received a "comp check" request that didn't have those strings attached, I absolutely could render an appraisal in full compliance with USPAP, and depending on what the client's criteria are for moving forward I absolutely could render the second appraisal in full compliance with USPAP. That is to say, that if I came across new information that was not available during my prior assignment and it affected my value conclusion I wouldn't have any problem coming up with the different conclusion.

I daresay there are a lot of appraisers, including you, who would do the same if faced with two assignments on the same property each having a different SOW. The fact that it can happen is all the reason we need to disprove the absolute assertion that it never happens.

And while we're at it, I can also review a sales contract without allowing that knowledge to contaminate my appraisal, and I'm sure I'm not the only appraiser who can do it.

Where you folks are going wrong is in trying to read things into these sections of USPAP that aren't there.