July 2008 ASC Q&a- Wink Wink Comp Comp

[SANDY]

The Appraisal Standards Board promulgates USPAP for both appraisers and users of appraisal services. The appraiser’s responsibility is to protect the overall public trust and it is the importance of the role of the appraiser that places ethical obligations on those who serve in this capacity. USPAP reflects the current standards of the appraisal profession.

So if as you folks are claiming that USPAP is only for regulating appraisers--what the heck does the above statement mean to you.

Lee--- you don't get my point. If the ASB is not willing to adopt regulations designed to "protect the public" from the lenders bad practices because they don't control the lenders then I say they are obligated to adopt regulations on appraisers themselves that would have the back-door effect of stopping the lenders from continuing those bad practices through the appraisers or least give us support in stopping them ourselves by allowing for us to be able to say no because USPAP does not allow us to play the game the way you want us to.

 

[Lee Lansford]

They wouldn't have to address the definition issue if they hadn't stated YES.
Once they stated YES they have now opened up the flood gates.

All a LO has to do is on a Comp Check order state
Completion of this order does not ensure that an appraisal order will be made and furthermore no subsequent "full" appraisal order is contingent upon the completion or outcome of this Comp Check request

If they would have just stated
"NO, an appraiser may only render a value opinion or opinion of range in value in compliance with USPAP! To charge or not to charge for services is not regulated by USPAP"
there would be no wiggle room for the term Comp Check.

Then if that wasn't an opening enough they add the term "FULL" Appraisal!m2:

What is a "FULL"Appraisal?! ( talk about lender speak!)

I can hear it now," Yes I did complete a comp check, but the appraisal I completed after that was not a "FULL"appraisal as referred to by the ASB, it was a Summary Appraisal"!

William, anywhere and everywhere that I have looked within the USPAP (plus, Q&As), the ASB has ALWAYS indicated that the appraiser's communication of an opinion of price or value (or range thereof) is to be understood as the appraiser communicating an appraisal. Hence, subject to the USPAP (Std. 1 & 2 etc.).

 

[George Hatch]

As far as the problem never going away, I dunno about that. Compared to 10 years ago, I think a lot more appraisers understand that an "appraisal" is not just limited to a signed 1004/2055 form. We are making progress even though it doesn't seem like it.

 

[Bill_FL]

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?

The opinion you developed is covered under Standard 1. The delivery of that opinion, be it written or oral, would be standard 2. The "speaking" would be the delivery part. Not sure how they wrote that in Michigan.

 

[Lee Lansford]

...

Lee--- you don't get my point. If the ASB is not willing to adopt regulations designed to "protect the public" from the lenders bad practices because they don't control the lenders then I say they are obligated to adopt regulations on appraisers themselves that would have the back-door effect of stopping the lenders from continuing those bad practices through the appraisers or least give us support in stopping them ourselves by allowing for us to be able to say no because USPAP does not allow us to play the game the way you want us to.

Sandy, the ASB has done exactly as you ask!

Each and every appraiser who, being subject to the USPAP, COMPLIES with the USPAP, works to accomplish what you seek. Or, do you believe that it is the ASB's fault that people work to circumvent the USPAP?

We don't need more "laws" or "regulations"...we need more ethical, moral, and competent people. And...the ASB does not regulate "lenders" or any other class of client that appraisers might have.

Lee

 

[Bill_FL]

As far as the problem never going away, I dunno about that. Compared to 10 years ago, I think a lot more appraisers understand that an "appraisal" is not just limited to a signed 1004/2055 form. We are making progress even though it doesn't seem like it.

George,

Although I like reading your posts, I think you are wasting your breath, or would that be skin off your fingers? There are some here who simply will not take their blinders off. They see all appraisal practice as a 1004 with a very inclusive SOW (read: "full" inspection). Anything that anybody does otherwise must be some kind of shady, unethical practice that should be outlawed.

It took us at least 5 years to get most her to admit that an opinion of value is an appraisal and appraisals are not illegal. They can use any slang they like: pencil search, comp-check, or pre appraisal - the fact is its still an appraisal.

Now we come to the varying scopes of work, one of the best tools we have to provide good, ethical services for our clients. This same group wants to take it away from us. Only Skippy would do an appraisal with a less inclusive scope of work then they would right? So we might as well outlaw them.

Reminds me of an old George Carlin joke. When you are going down the interstate anyone driving slower than you is a moron. Anyone driving faster than you is an idiot.

Oh well, my guess is that within about 5 years we will be able to convince them that more than one scope of work is a good thing. That doing more than one assignment on one property for one client can be done ethically without any contingencies.

 

[Webbed Feet]

Mr. Wiley,

That is not my arguement and you should know that. I can leave my computer completely disconnected from the internet and open and control old appraisal files I have on my hard drive created by my appraisal software. They easily qualify for electronic work file copies.

Try that with a *.ENV file created by the AIReady converter. Try printing an old one out and seeing a year later what was sent to the client. Try proving a year or two after it was sent that you were able to determine it was not misleading at the time it was created and sent. Try proving what you sent.

When I create and send a PDF file I retain a copy of what I sent and it is an exact duplicate of what I created and what I sent. I can open that years later and print it out. Tell me how to do that with a *.ENV file on my hard drive that I uploaded to AppraisalPort in 2004, 2005, or 2006? .. I bet most appraisers don't even save those conversion files and don't have them, as most the appraisal software have these lovely ways to completely skip that step in order to be so nicely time saving! ... They cannot possibly duplicate what they uploaded.

You explain to me how they now prove they never uploaded anything misleading and any changes later made were out of their control and not what they uploaded. Explain if they even did save the *.ENV converted file how they get it to show what they uploaded to a state board. What are they supposed to say to a state board? "Here is a copy of the *.ENV file I sent on a CD. You figure it out." .. ??

Webbed.

 

[George Hatch]

Lee--- you don't get my point. If the ASB is not willing to adopt regulations designed to "protect the public" from the lenders bad practices because they don't control the lenders then I say they are obligated to adopt regulations on appraisers themselves that would have the back-door effect of stopping the lenders from continuing those bad practices through the appraisers or least give us support in stopping them ourselves by allowing for us to be able to say no because USPAP does not allow us to play the game the way you want us to.

Help me, I can't say "no"!! Seriously, that sounds like something an addict would say.


You're the one who isn't getting the point. The ends do not and ultimately cannot justify the means, and if you use indirect means your opposition will just work around them. Trying to "backdoor" a solution will only result in a backlash. You won't end up with a 70% solution or a 50% solution; it will still end up back at the 0% solution and all that will be left will be the 100% collateral damage resulting from the law of unintended consequences.

There are solutions to slow your clients down, but the only way to address their behavior is to approach it from their end.

When we wanted to stop the requests for "re-addressed appraisals" what method turned out to be the most effective? Was having the appraiser inform them that USPAP doesn't allow misleading reports effective? No it wasn't.

OTOH, shoving a copy of the letter at these MBs from the federal banking regulators and addressed to the lenders reminding them it was against federal banking regulations to accept re-addressed appraisals, well, that actually works quite well. I dunno about you, but when I use the right tool for that request it works 100% of the time AND I still get to salvage the client relationship.


As far as the public trust is concerned, the only thing that will improve that is when appraisers commit to saying "no" as appropriate, whether the pressure comes at the beginning, middle, or end of the assignment. Playing word games with "comp checks" is like rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. It will never solve the underlying problem. Ever.

 

[Ken B]

It's deja vu all over again.

 

[DWiley]

Try that with a *.ENV file created by the AIReady converter. Try printing an old one out and seeing a year later what was sent to the client. Try proving a year or two after it was sent that you were able to determine it was not misleading at the time it was created and sent. Try proving what you sent.

I have done more than try. On the portal thread I posted an AIReady report that I created 2 years ago just to demonstrate the fallacy of such claims.