New 1004

[djd09]

you wont need to worry about filling them out...

 

[djd09]

You're an idiot with a JGrant level of reading proficiency. Read the passage again in context. The "before" refered to therein was pre-USPAP and pre-licensing when the reviewers were always right strictly as a function of their job title, not because they were actually right. A reference to a lawless environment that prevailed prior to bringing everyone under regulation per a common standard.

I haven't changed. It was wrong 35 years ago for lenders to dictate the meaning of MV and it's still wrong today. That's nowhere on the same planet as a user having additional requirements that they think are meaningful to their usage.

you dont have to whine and cry to remind me you are a lap dog...

 

[George Hatch]

You're the form monkey who is constantly freebleeding over the demise of your MB-based business model. Tampon-free.

 

[djd09]

just keep rolling over for the clients political whims...how is it working

 

[George Hatch]

"Meaningful and not misleading to intended users". Not "highest possible value you can get past a reviewer" which is exactly what many of your MBs demanded. And got, because they controlled payment.

And since you ask, I'm busy. Even though I probably kill more deals than you and any 5 appraisers you know.

 

[djd09]

for the appraisers best interests...it would be best to create your own report form and f them

 

[djd09]

"Meaningful and not misleading to intended users". Not "highest possible value you can support" which is what many of your MBs demanded. And got.

GH -The creation of the Appraisal Subcommittee (ASC) by Congress was a direct response to the S&L bailout of the 1980s. The federal government and the American Taxpayers were forced to protect the assets of depositors of failing lending institutions. The former model of market-driven appraisal regulation, which relied solely on client preferences, was proven to be a spectacular failure.

 

[George Hatch]

Read it for what it says, not what you want it to say. "Relied solely on client preferences" means there were literally are no other applicable standards prior to licensing; that application having a directly conflicting effect when compared to "meaningful and not misleading to intended users". Starting with the point that the clients sometimes are not the only users. Sometimes they're not even among the intended users at all. None of the MBs you ever worked for were intended users of those appraisals; or if they were then their usage is an off-label and unintended use. Often in direct conflict with the intended use of the appraisal and in conflict with the legitimate interests of the actual intended users of those appraisals.

I don't understand what would make you think you could keep up with me in any discussion about appraisal standards . You know you don't have the competency with the material to do it. Everyone knows that.

 

[djd09]

client wants...client gets

 

[Dublin ohio]

The reason I keep chipping on the forms is because I think a lot of appraisers work to the forms (SR2 drives the SR1). As opposed to making the forms work for them. Therefore, promulgating better forms has the potential to result in more analyses and/or better analyses.

Fully agree. Alway room for improvement when it comes to form design and content. No form is perfect. Sometimes more is not better. But for the most part less is just less and most times insufficient