July 2008 ASC Q&a- Wink Wink Comp Comp

[Ken B]

Ok boys and girls--you all want me the lowly trainee to give you the ultimate answer/solution to the problem? Then here it is-------ready------


Appoint the two smartest people here as CZARS over the entire process with the power to make and enforce any and all rules over the entire industry.

I leave it up to you folks to determine who those two people are!!!

And don't just say no to my idea---- just say yes!!!!

George Hatch and Mr. Santora have already answered your questions. Would appointing them Czars give their responses more credence in your mind? If so, why don't you just pretend it has been done.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

I vote for Abbott & Costello - given how seriously (aahhh)praisers and the "Users and Abusers of Appraisal Services" take federal law they'd do a "credible" job.

 

[DWiley]

So if I decide that my SOW is given more credibility by including a table of contents (it shows all the pieces to my report, so that the reader knows they have a complete and true copy), then being told to not include it by a client would that not make my reporting unethical?

I won my bet with a fellow forumite!!:new_multi: It was soooo obvious that was going to be the follow up question.

Scope of Work is defined as

The type and extent of research and analysis in an assignment.

How does including a TOC fit into that definition? It doesn't. Report content is not part of the Scope of Work as the phrase is defined in USPAP.

 

[woodyva]

I won my bet with a fellow forumite!!:new_multi: It was soooo obvious that was going to be the follow up question.

Scope of Work is defined as



How does including a TOC fit into that definition? It doesn't. Report content is not part of the Scope of Work as the phrase is defined in USPAP.

It was a softball. You are splitting hairs now, it does not matter what I am talking about, it is still an appraisers right to establish a scope of work. If I decide that is to be included , someone else can not tell me that it is ok to not inlcude it.

You are right that report content is not included, but neither are comp checks. We all have the right to establish our own view of what we think USPAP means to how we go about our jobs. For you to tell me that I can not establish my workfile, or my report presentation seems to be a mighty big step.

 

[DWiley]

For you to tell me that I can not establish my workfile, or my report presentation seems to be a mighty big step.

I am not telling you anything about your reports. I am saying that if you want to build a valid argument that something violates you USPAP you cannot build it by changing the definitions in USPAP.

As far as telling you what has to be in your reports, plenty of people already do that - Fannie requires use of certain forms. Banks require copies of enegagement letters, etc. Some of my clients specifically tell me not to include a cover page, TOC, etc. On Friday I accepted an assignment for an attorney with the stipulation that the report must be delivered by courier, not by email. None of these have anything to do with my scope of work or the credibility of the assignment results.

 

[Fred]

You are splitting hairs now,

Hairs? The distinction between developing and communicating is the pillar on which USPAP requirements are built.

If I were going to get on TAF's case, it would not be for answering those comp-check questions correctly, it would be that in 2008 we still have appraisers who cannot consistently distinguish between developing and reporting. The current regime of USPAP education and continuing education has not worked. I am leaning toward the idea that all appraisers should have to pass the equivalent of the USPAP instructor's exam.

In fact, I would volunteer for the oppurtunity to refine the exam, giving the test-takers ample oppurtunity to confuse USPAP with the Fannie guidelines.

 

[Fred]

On Friday I accepted an assignment for an attorney with the stipulation that the report must be delivered by courier, not by email. .

I think I worked for them, too. Was that the firm of Paranoid, Obsessive-Compulsive, and Weintraub?

 

[woodyva]

steve:

go hide your head in a hole. I care less what you have to say at this point.

Danny:
Valid points. Each appraiser can base his/her acceptance on whether or not they feel those things apply. Point being that if an appraiser feels something must be put in the report, then that is their perogative to do as they see fit.

Just being cute really, and yes I am grabbing on facets of truth, not unlike others here. The solution to all of this comes back to what is decided by a state board

In regards to the trainee's questions, she has been told many many times, but does not hear. In regards to portal info, the solution will lie in sending the converted file for tha data lifting, and a copy of the appraiser's report in PDF. Simple solution, makes everyone happy.

 

[Workbox]

Woodyva, it is very obvious that the other thread is still on some folks mind, they can't let it go, maybe they are getting confused or want to bring it up again unscrupulously.

As for comp Checks, just say NO,........... and also, try saying NO, to having a secret bank account for a non-profit organization. We all have to say No to that which hurts us and our fellow American neighbor.

 

[DWiley]

Woodyva, it is very obvious that they other thread is still on some folks mind, they can't let it go, maybe they are getting confused or want to bring it up again unscrupulously.

Perhaps you should read more closely. It was Woodyva who pulled the other thread into this thread in his post 416.