hastalavista
Elite Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2005
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- California
There's nothing "phased" about this assignment.
There are two different assignments, two different purposes, two different intended users, two different scopes of work, two different effective dates, and a host of different EAs.
What surprises me is this: Many who rightfully point-out that changing the name of a client on a report when nothing else changes constitutes a new and different assignment will argue that a desk-top vs. a 1004 is not a different assignment. I find no logic to the reasoning and no citation (as in USPAP, Fannie, court cases, etc) to support it.
Even the state regulatory agencies, such as Oregon (which is one of the better, IMO) states what is required if one does complete a desktop. So, there is no fancy footwork required here to dance around USPAP; this dance is done within and to the music of USPAP, like it or not.
For some, it has been pre-determined that anyone who does a desktop appraisal does not have the ethical wherewithal to stand up to demanding B/C clients. Such a generalization reflects a narrow viewpoint, and I find it sad. I conclude two things from such views:
A. Such a person hasn't met an ethical appraiser who can stand-up to B/C clients.
B. Such a person fears he may not be able to stand-up to B/C clients if pressured.
Others have brought into the discussion something I really didn't think about, and that is because I've had my license since 1992 at the beginning of mandatory licensing: A desktop appraisal was something that was routinely done prior to licensing by many appraisers who, I would argue, were (and remain) ethical and upstanding. They didn't fall victim to some "dark-side" of mortgage lending pressure. But, again, the narrow view is that it is impossible for such a person to do so today. Perhaps Joyce and TC should be considered heroes for being able to navigate such treacherous waters and maintain their ethics; apparently, according to some, that ability no longer exists.
The best reason I've ever heard against the desktop appraisal is the return on investment argument. This is one I agree with. When it is busy, we don't have the time to do these, and we don't. When it is slow, if we have the time and the inclination to do them, we do. If it takes more than 10-minutes to complete the valuation from the desk, I'll usually stop and tell the client a mortgage appraisal is needed; no credible desktop valuation is possible. Ditto for 2-4's or vacant land. Ditto for complex assignments. But, I work in a urban/suburban market, so data is plentiful and most value questions are not the complicated.
My comments should not be construed as saying that there is no such thing as comp check abuse. I am not saying this, and agree 100% with those who have this concern.
Some appraisers use a "comp check" as a way to bid on a job. This is wrong. I regularly review appraisals for clients where the only reason I can see that the particular value was concluded was that it achieved some pre-determined requirement.
And, there is a danger that the honest appraiser, unwittingly, may fall into a pressure-trap by a client if a desktop appraisal is completed and the mortgage finance appraisal is less than the first assignment; that scenario is real. But, my horse isn't so high that because I fear this, I will make a general statement,
"No one has the ethical ability or moral backbone to withstand such pressure. Therefore, if you do a desktop, you must be doing it because you want to be unethical! You are a disgrace!"
As this topic goes, I think this was one of the better discussions, so I am encouraged.
Lastly, Mark R.-
I treat a desktop the same as I do any other appraisal, with complete record retention, etc. etc. I also require the client to order the service on one of my pre-printed order forms which outlines the assignment engagement and what it can and cannot be used for. I do not provide a written reply; it is an oral report, with the summary retained in the work file. Pam's observation of the desktop + AVM showing up as lending valuation has merit. Give your valuation as a verbal, and you make it difficult for anyone to use your results for fraudulent purposes.
In fact, here's a bit of my general experience. It isn't that easy to get a desktop valuation from me. You have to:
A. Call, fax or email the office.
B. You have to hear from the office that such requests need to be made on our engagement form.
C. You have to then get our engagement form (from us) and fill it out and re-send it to us. In the meantime, you are told that-
(i) All orders are paid prior to or at inspection time.
D. You may have to wait a day (sometimes two) to get your answer.
E. When you get your answer, it is verbal and expressed as a range.
How many crooked loan agents are going to go through this process to get a value bid when others will just tell them in 20-minutes what the value is that they can hit with no, "fuss or muss"? Not many, for a fact. Long term existing (or potential) clients will go through this process because their intention is not to achieve something that isn't legitimate. It is to obtain a restricted-use valuation so they can determine if it makes sense (at the begining) to start the loan application and submission process. My point being is that if you set of the procedure where the client (or potential client) has to invest some of their time into the process as well as making it clear that all orders are to be paid up-front regardless of what the valuation result is of the mortgage finance lending appraisal, you are not going to have to deal with the fraudsters who are out there trying to shop for a value. For some, this simple fact may be too far removed from the perch they've placed themselves on when judging others, that they've never considered it; but, this is consistent with "narrow mindedness".:new_smile-l:
Good luck!
There are two different assignments, two different purposes, two different intended users, two different scopes of work, two different effective dates, and a host of different EAs.
What surprises me is this: Many who rightfully point-out that changing the name of a client on a report when nothing else changes constitutes a new and different assignment will argue that a desk-top vs. a 1004 is not a different assignment. I find no logic to the reasoning and no citation (as in USPAP, Fannie, court cases, etc) to support it.
Even the state regulatory agencies, such as Oregon (which is one of the better, IMO) states what is required if one does complete a desktop. So, there is no fancy footwork required here to dance around USPAP; this dance is done within and to the music of USPAP, like it or not.For some, it has been pre-determined that anyone who does a desktop appraisal does not have the ethical wherewithal to stand up to demanding B/C clients. Such a generalization reflects a narrow viewpoint, and I find it sad. I conclude two things from such views:
A. Such a person hasn't met an ethical appraiser who can stand-up to B/C clients.
B. Such a person fears he may not be able to stand-up to B/C clients if pressured.
Others have brought into the discussion something I really didn't think about, and that is because I've had my license since 1992 at the beginning of mandatory licensing: A desktop appraisal was something that was routinely done prior to licensing by many appraisers who, I would argue, were (and remain) ethical and upstanding. They didn't fall victim to some "dark-side" of mortgage lending pressure. But, again, the narrow view is that it is impossible for such a person to do so today. Perhaps Joyce and TC should be considered heroes for being able to navigate such treacherous waters and maintain their ethics; apparently, according to some, that ability no longer exists.
The best reason I've ever heard against the desktop appraisal is the return on investment argument. This is one I agree with. When it is busy, we don't have the time to do these, and we don't. When it is slow, if we have the time and the inclination to do them, we do. If it takes more than 10-minutes to complete the valuation from the desk, I'll usually stop and tell the client a mortgage appraisal is needed; no credible desktop valuation is possible. Ditto for 2-4's or vacant land. Ditto for complex assignments. But, I work in a urban/suburban market, so data is plentiful and most value questions are not the complicated.
My comments should not be construed as saying that there is no such thing as comp check abuse. I am not saying this, and agree 100% with those who have this concern.
Some appraisers use a "comp check" as a way to bid on a job. This is wrong. I regularly review appraisals for clients where the only reason I can see that the particular value was concluded was that it achieved some pre-determined requirement.
And, there is a danger that the honest appraiser, unwittingly, may fall into a pressure-trap by a client if a desktop appraisal is completed and the mortgage finance appraisal is less than the first assignment; that scenario is real. But, my horse isn't so high that because I fear this, I will make a general statement,
"No one has the ethical ability or moral backbone to withstand such pressure. Therefore, if you do a desktop, you must be doing it because you want to be unethical! You are a disgrace!"
As this topic goes, I think this was one of the better discussions, so I am encouraged.
Lastly, Mark R.-
I treat a desktop the same as I do any other appraisal, with complete record retention, etc. etc. I also require the client to order the service on one of my pre-printed order forms which outlines the assignment engagement and what it can and cannot be used for. I do not provide a written reply; it is an oral report, with the summary retained in the work file. Pam's observation of the desktop + AVM showing up as lending valuation has merit. Give your valuation as a verbal, and you make it difficult for anyone to use your results for fraudulent purposes.
In fact, here's a bit of my general experience. It isn't that easy to get a desktop valuation from me. You have to:
A. Call, fax or email the office.
B. You have to hear from the office that such requests need to be made on our engagement form.
C. You have to then get our engagement form (from us) and fill it out and re-send it to us. In the meantime, you are told that-
(i) All orders are paid prior to or at inspection time.
D. You may have to wait a day (sometimes two) to get your answer.
E. When you get your answer, it is verbal and expressed as a range.
How many crooked loan agents are going to go through this process to get a value bid when others will just tell them in 20-minutes what the value is that they can hit with no, "fuss or muss"? Not many, for a fact. Long term existing (or potential) clients will go through this process because their intention is not to achieve something that isn't legitimate. It is to obtain a restricted-use valuation so they can determine if it makes sense (at the begining) to start the loan application and submission process. My point being is that if you set of the procedure where the client (or potential client) has to invest some of their time into the process as well as making it clear that all orders are to be paid up-front regardless of what the valuation result is of the mortgage finance lending appraisal, you are not going to have to deal with the fraudsters who are out there trying to shop for a value. For some, this simple fact may be too far removed from the perch they've placed themselves on when judging others, that they've never considered it; but, this is consistent with "narrow mindedness".:new_smile-l:
Good luck!
Last edited:
