July 2008 ASC Q&a- Wink Wink Comp Comp

[Elliott]

I don't know, but maybe ASB asks the the big banks how they'd
like these pesky appraiser questions to be answered. Probably
the real question was, "Can I do a paid comp check?" And ASB
and the banks decided it would be better to phrase it as,
"Can I do free comp checks?"

 

[Mike Kennedy]

http://appraisersforum.com/showthread.php?p=1648244#post1648244

So appropriate for this to show up. I stated earlier that BOA and Wachovia have similar programs.

How many more Big Box Banks do the same thing.

Interesting that the Cheif appraisers have so little influence over what happens at there own bank.

SEE POST 6 IN CARNI'S LINK ............AWW CMON FOLKS.............of COURSEEEEE the first "comp check" and 'FULL' assignments have nothing at alllll to do with each other. NO PROB.


BULL.

 

[Fred]

but don’t wish to defend how they constantly “tweak” USPAP

That may be the first sound point anyone criticizing the QA has made. Has there been a change, and if so, when? And you give me a chance to put this all in one place for the other USPAP geeks. :icon_lol:

I would say this issue was subjected to one significant change rather than “constant tweaking.” Certain protocols are in the collective consciousness even if they were never part of USPAP, and some remain even after USPAP changes. In this case old Fannie forms created the collective consciousness by treating an “update” as a continuation of the previous appraisal, and up to a point, the ASB used the same logic, but that was subjected to a sudden change.

Key dates
1999 – USPAP adds a definition for “assignment”
2000 – USPAP adds a definition for “assignment results”
2002 – (summer) AO-3 revised again, ASB reverses it’s opinion that an “update” (appraising the same property for the same client) is an “extension of the prior assignment” to opine that an update is “simply a new assignment.”

In my veiw, the terms assignment and assignment results combine to make an important change that underlies many of the debates we have here (recerts, retypes, etc). USPAP CE and ASB “other communication” didn’t highlight this change and its effect (until the last rewrite of AO-3). The change came in piecemeal fashion, was not an obvious change to a “rule,” and may have gotten lost because in 1/03 the scope project sucked up the bulk of the attention.

If one looks at the timeline, it appears to have taken the ASB itself over two years to catch up to the effect of the change. The definitions of assignment and assignment result created a definite beginning and definite end to an assignment. Before that, one could argue, as the ASB did (in AO-3) that an “update” was an extension of the prior appraisal. There was no clear rule or definition basis for that opinion, so one could have argued the reverse. Somewhere along the line, the ASB figured out that the two new definitions created a definite end to an assignment, that AO-3 was contrary to the definitions, and that it had to be reversed. (IMO, it should have been retired, but that is another story).

So, at one time, absent a rule, and guided by an AO, the prevailing interpretation would have been that the “full appraisal” report had to refer to the “comp check.” That is because the report “must,” (well, according to older versions of AO-2) state the update can only be used parties familiar with the “original report” and “prior updates.”

The key points are
1. Nothing much in the answer to these questions would have been different 10 years ago. One difference is the answer that says the “full” appraisal report does not have to reference the “comp check” would be different than the 1998 AO-2.
2. I don’t believe it was ever the intent of the ASB to ban the practice of pulling a few comps for a client for quickie estimate. Comp checks, and before that look-ups or pencil searches, have been part of practice all along. For example, in 1994, as part of SMT-7, the board wrote that practice as always included limited appraisals and condensed reports, eg "letter opinion of value."

 

[George Hatch]

Please point out where I made that statement. Even if I said it, legality and ethics are not one and the same. I’m unsure if the “we” and “you” references were meant to be condescending, not that it matters. As far as who my post was aimed at, maybe it was meant for the ones who profit from the current system and are reading the thread, but don’t wish to defend how they constantly “tweak” USPAP in a manner that even the big “Z” would envy. Individual appraisers have shown their disgust with comp check abuse for years. If some posts are emotional and hit a nerve, too bad, besides, this is a message board, not an argument before the Supreme Court. Please don't confuse me with the Puritans in here, I stoop so low that I even accept exterior assignments.

As I see it, the operative term in your argument above is "if some posts are emotional and hit a nerve, too bad." That "more passion than reason" thing is exactly why you guys can't make an argument that will stick.

As has already been said at least 100 times on this thread, the ASBs Q&A is reflective of what USPAP says. They took on the comp check question and many of you just don't like the answer, so now you want to accuse them of working in concert with the crooks and the lenders on the subject.

In reality, none of you can word an explanation that would ban comp checks in the way you define them without either stepping on the definition of an appraisal or repeating the existing prohibitions on improper assignment contigencies. You are incapable of accurately drawing the distinction and you've allowed yourselves to become oh-so-emotional about it that you're blaming the ASB for not being able of doing it either.

So go ahead, explain for everyone how you would change USPAP so that comp checks could be banned forever.

 

[Mr Rex]

It seems that some appraisers are waiting for a self anointed Skippy Swaggert to provide them an acceptable interpretation of USPAP with requisite crocodile tears, that allows them to associate with known *****s while retaining their sanctimoniousness (send up the TC signal, I'm not sure its a word) as a FAQ.

 

[Hamlet]

http://appraisersforum.com/showthread.php?p=1648320#post1648320

The Miami Herald's investigative team reported on Sunday that the state has approved over 10,000 mortgage broker licenses for convicted felons since 2000; over 4,000 were issued to individuals who had been convicted of crimes such as fraud, extortion, racketeering, and bank robbery –

This is clearly the problem with the industry. Despite the fact that Florida prohibits the licensing of such individuals, they were clearly licensed and running amok.

It is a little difficult reading these articles and not getting somewhat emotional. I mean, are these people inept, lackadaisical in their duties, or are we the people being set up? We need to focus our collective energies where the problems in the industry really are.

This is not a USPAP problem.

 

[SANDY]

Sandy,



You seem to be thinking that the comment "USPAP is promulgated for appraisers and users of appraisal services" to mean that the ASB can enact standards for the conduct of the users of appraisals.

If so, the ASB would have to have the authority to compel users to comply with our standards. However, one look at structure of The Appraisal Foundation should put that notion to rest. TAF is not a governmental entity. It doesn't have the right or the ability to make, judge or enforce law or public policy. The only way USPAP becomes an enforceable standard is when a governmental agency or jurisdiction accepts or adopts it, when it's required by contractual agreement, or when the individuals decide to abide by it.

In short, the ASB doesn't force anyone to do anything. The state appraisal boards and the federal government do that via licensing requirements. The ASB just establishes appraisal standards that are used by other people, much the same way the Financial Accounting Standards Board establishes professional standards for the accounting profession. There literally is no USPAP police.

Instead, the term "for appraisers and users of appraisal services" means exactly what it says. USPAP is intended to delineate appraisal standards - how to conduct oneself while performing and communicating various appraisal services - for the benefit of appraisers and users of appraisal services.

It is obvious that the users of appraisals don't perform appraisal services, which is why USPAP does not apply to their conduct. The way that users benefit from USPAP is that it provides a set of standards they can use to see if the appraisal services they are getting conform to our minimum requirements and are thus suitable for their usage.

One example of how a user of appraisal services can benefit from looking at USPAP happens when they suspect an appraiser is pulling their chain about what they can and can't do. For instance, when an appraiser declines to accept an assignment with a contingent value requirement and cites the Management section of the Ethics Rule as their reason for not cooperating, that client can go to that section and read it for themself. In that way, they can determine that the appraiser is not just being stubborn or antisocial but does in fact have a legitimate reason for why they cannot do as the client originally requested.

The same can be said for any set of professional standards. When I go to get a haircut from a licensed barber who is abiding by their professional standards, I as a consumer am not subject to those standards, but I do benefit from them to the extent that I can demand that barber act in conformity with them.

Get it?

I find it incredible that anyone would think that I believe that TAF through USPAP could directly regulate the users. But they dam sure could indirectly regulate the users by using the back-door to pass regulations on appraisers that would have the effect of preventing them from using appraisers as there surogates for their shinanigens!!!!
Can anyone refute the claim that TAF has been sitting on the sidelines during this whole mortgage meltdown mess? Wouldn't this be the best ever time in many years for TAF to com eup with some changes that would give some real independence back to appraisers? Where the hell are they?

 

[Stone]

I find it incredible that anyone would think that I believe that TAF through USPAP could directly regulate the users. But they dam sure could indirectly regulate the users by using the back-door to pass regulations on appraisers that would have the effect of preventing them from using appraisers as there surogates for their shinanigens!!!!
Can anyone refute the claim that TAF has been sitting on the sidelines during this whole mortgage meltdown mess? Wouldn't this be the best ever time in many years for TAF to com eup with some changes that would give some real independence back to appraisers? Where the hell are they?

What changes could TAF make, exactly, that would give some real independance back to appraisers?

 

[Stone]

It seems that some appraisers are waiting for a self anointed Skippy Swaggert to provide them an acceptable interpretation of USPAP with requisite crocodile tears, that allows them to associate with known *****s while retaining their sanctimoniousness (send up the TC signal, I'm not sure its a word) as a FAQ.

That seems to be exactly what some are waiting for, as noted by several here in this thread.

Many seem to want to continue with their sleazy clients, yet have someone else put out some wording that makes everything better. Well, it ain't happening.

The other thing that is happening is several people have decided what the "real problems" are, and it is driving them nuts that the powers that be in appraisal land aren't reinterpreting USPAP in a manner that suits their little crusades. Actual interpretation of a document that already prohibits most of the behavior that some are so amped up about doesn't cut it. New interpretations, including new definitions are required to save us all.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

Can anyone refute the claim that TAF has been sitting on the sidelines during this whole mortgage meltdown mess?

That's nonsense.

FWIW, many people read their responses against their own biased backdrop. It if doesn't pass their own litmus test, it must be wrong, regardless of any logical reasoning.

If people are expecting TAF to take up their causes, they are seriously misguided. It would also demonstrate that their energies are focused in the wrong arena. You can throw as many punches as you want in front of you, but if your enemy is standing right behind you breathing down your neck, you'll never hit your target and exhaust yourself attempting to do so.

Wouldn't this be the best ever time in many years for TAF to com eup with some changes that would give some real independence back to appraisers?

Is the purpose of TAF to give independence back to appraisers?...if so, please cite the source.

The only people that can be blamed for giving up appraiser independence, cheap fees, free comp checks, and numerous other issues are appraisers. TAF won't change that.

Where the hell are they?

They're doing their job...what they are not doing is holding up the banner for people taking up causes, nor should they, nor will they.