Need help with WAMU

[jgordond]

Thanks Mr. Boyd for your comments regarding standard 3, but this was NOT a appraisal review assignment and in my opinion, the comment complies with USPAP. My problem was that I shouldn't have signed in the capacity of supervisor if I wasn't reviewing the report in it's entirety. I do understand the points with regards to the comment not conforming with the Fannie form. Thanks to all for the constructive criticism as I have learned a valuable lesson. I think we all can agree that the Fannie forms are terrible, need to be changed and that USPAP is extremely confusing. I just wish that those that post all day with hollow negative comments would keep them to themselves. We all know by now that those making the hollow comments are perfect business owners and appraisers. This forum is a conduit with which to better ourselves and our profession. Please keep the negativity to yourselves. I know appraisers who won't be bothered with this forum because of people like you!

 

[CANative]

but this was NOT a appraisal review assignment

THE SUPERVISORY APPRAISER HAS PERFORMED A DESK REVIEW

The description in your statement (which amounts to a scope of work) sounds more like appraisal review activity than supervisory activity. If you're now saying you didn't do a review, then the statement is misleading.

I wasn't trying to be harsh, but you need a serious wake up call on this issue. I'm not be judgmental because I make mistakes too. A lot of them apparently.

And I don't think USPAP is confusing.

 

[athome77]

Thanks Mr. Boyd for your comments regarding standard 3, but this was NOT a appraisal review assignment and in my opinion, the comment complies with USPAP. My problem was that I shouldn't have signed in the capacity of supervisor if I wasn't reviewing the report in it's entirety. I do understand the points with regards to the comment not conforming with the Fannie form. Thanks to all for the constructive criticism as I have learned a valuable lesson. I think we all can agree that the Fannie forms are terrible, need to be changed and that USPAP is extremely confusing. I just wish that those that post all day with hollow negative comments would keep them to themselves. We all know by now that those making the hollow comments are perfect business owners and appraisers. This forum is a conduit with which to better ourselves and our profession. Please keep the negativity to yourselves. I know appraisers who won't be bothered with this forum because of people like you!

Not to pile on, but I have to chime in here.

Why would anyone sign as a supervisory appraiser, include a disclaimer in the report suggesting no responsibility for the data contained in the report, admit to not reviewing the report "in its entirety," and then be disappointed about being admonished by his/her peers for failing to adhere to accepted practices?
Although I agree that personal attacks have no place on a professional forum, I would have been disappointed if the flawed practices of the OP had not been pointed out.


(My pink).

 

[Lost Cause]

Negativity is generally not productive. But this is a special case. Considering the license level and years of experience, it cannot be emphasized enough how wrong that disclaimer is.

 

[grizphan]

Why would anyone sign as a supervisory appraiser, include a disclaimer in the report suggesting no responsibility for the data contained in the report, admit to not reviewing the report "in its entirety," and then be disappointed about being admonished by his/her peers for failing to adhere to accepted practices?

Never mind.

 

[Non Sequitur]

I do understand the points with regards to the comment not conforming with the Fannie form. Thanks to all for the constructive criticism as I have learned a valuable lesson. I think we all can agree that the Fannie forms are terrible, need to be changed and that USPAP is extremely confusing.

This isn't Fannie or USPAPs fault. You can't scope or disclaim away your responsibilities as a supervisor. If you don't want to supervise then don't.

Please keep the negativity to yourselves. I know appraisers who won't be bothered with this forum because of people like you!

No one called you any names, but if your feelings are hurt pass along the scenario to the ones who "can't be bothered" and see what they have to say.

 

[Mike Boyd]

“UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON REPORT, THE SUPERVISORY APPRAISER HAS NOT PERFORMED AN INTERIOR INSPECTION OF THE SUBJECT, AS WELL AS COMPARABLE SALES AND LISTINGS PRESENTED IN THIS REPORT. ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED (INCLUDING THE INSPECTION, DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS AND VALUE ESTIMATE) IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHO SIGNED AS APPRAISER. THE RESEARCH UPON WHICH THE APPRAISAL IS BASED HAS NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE SUPERVISOR. THE SUPERVISOR HAS RELIED ON THE APPRAISER TO PROVIDE ACCURATE, COMPREHENSIVE INFORMATION ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND OTHER PRIMARY AND SECONDARY DATA PRESENTED IN THIS REPORT. THE SUPERVISORY APPRAISER HAS PERFORMED A DESK REVIEW LIMITED BY THE DATA PRESENTED IN THIS REPORT. THE REPORT WAS REVIEWED FOR SPELLING, MATHEMATICAL ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, AND COMPLIANCE TO STANDARD APPRAISAL PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES”.

Common sense would dictate that I had NOTHING to do with the final opinion of value!

I'd love to hear some experienced appraisers thoughts.

[]

THAT is why you are unacceptable. All supervisors must accept responsibiity for the work of their trainees or subordinates. Your statement would seem to be inconsistent with USPAP. If you do not accept USPAP, they don't want you. I don't blame them! Although if I had reviewed it I would insist that you go back out and do a full inspection of the subject, drive by and take fresh comp photos then remove that clause then resubmit the report. Or, I would not pay you because of the violation. Depending on the lender's policies, I might simply require that you re-submit the report without that disclaimer. I might also send the report with your state appraisal board along with a complaint.

 

[Non Sequitur]

Thanks Mr. Boyd for your comments regarding standard 3, but this was NOT a appraisal review assignment...snip...

But that's not what your boiler plate stated;

THE SUPERVISORY APPRAISER HAS PERFORMED A DESK REVIEW LIMITED BY THE DATA PRESENTED IN THIS REPORT.

 

[Michigan CG]

Common sense would dictate that I had NOTHING to do with the final opinion of value!

Here is the problem. The supervisor is responsible for the value. That is what supervisors do.

 

[jgordond]

Negativity is generally not productive. But this is a special case. Considering the license level and years of experience, it cannot be emphasized enough how wrong that disclaimer is.

The disclaimer is clearly wrong. I have eaten that humble pie, but for those who believe that my ability as a Certified Appraiser is less than adequate because of that statement is not harsh criticism, is simple egotistical one-upmanship. One could contend that all of our reports could similarly be scrutinized to the tenth degree. The bottom line should be the final opinion of value is accurate with regards to the scope of work. I agree with athome77 in his assessment as the reason I opened up and posted this information is exactly that.....I WANTED constructive criticism. There are a lot of great minds here and lets use this forum as a tool and not a hobby.

I am moving on and truly appreciate the help on this topic.