New USPAP Q&As published March 6, 2025

[DWiley]

Same with Danny Wiley. I would love to see it.

Let's see these USPAP compliant URARs with quantitative adjustments for all differences with the evidence.

Just show me one with your signatures on it.

If I recall USPAP correctly, showing you a report like that would be a violation of the ETHICS RULE No?

Besides, it would prove nothing, because USPAP does not require the support to all be in the report. In addition to the report, you would need access to the company's old analytics library where we kept that stuff.

 

[Joe Flacco]

If I recall USPAP correctly, showing you a report like that would be a violation of the ETHICS RULE No?

Besides, it would prove nothing, because USPAP does not require the support to all be in the report. In addition to the report, you would need access to the company's old analytics library where we kept that stuff.

 

[timd354]

Far be it from to disagree with this academics, but in this case I would have to. So, to summarize that position, an opinion of value can be expressed as a specific amount ($x), as a range of numbers($x-$y), or as a relationship to a numerical benchmark(>$x), but an opinion of contributory value must only be a specific amount ($1,000) or a range of numbers ($0-$1,000), but it can never be a relationship to a numerical benchmark (>$0).

I am not sure how you are reaching this conclusion. No one argues that an opinion of contributory value must only be expressed as a specific amount or range of numbers (unless doing so is an assignment condition). You can certainly express an opinion of contributory value in a qualitative manner by stating something along the lines of "inferior", "equal", "superior" etc. or by writing a narrative explanation however, expressing an opinion of contributory value in such a manner in no way amounts to an adjustment to the comaprable sale price. Anything that actually is an adjustment to the comparable sales price (whether it is expressed as a specific dollar amount, a range, a percentage, etc.), quantifies the opinion of contributory value and, by definitiuon, is a quantitative adjustment.

 

[Mejappz]

Do the GSEs put out the USPAP Q&As now?

They might as well, since they run the whole place anyway.

 

[Mejappz]

Same with Danny Wiley. I would love to see it.

Let's see these USPAP compliant URARs with quantitative adjustments for all differences with the evidence.

Just show me one with your signatures on it.

Good luck with that.

 

[Mejappz]

The simple answer is that, yes, you would have to have support for zero adjustment in cases where there is a signifcant difference between the subject proeprty and a comp regarding an important proeprty attibute. Here is are some easy examples that I see all of the time:

subject property is located across the street from a commercial buidling, the comparable sale is on a residential street nowhere near any potentially negative external infleunce and the appraiser makes no adjsutment for location or view
Subject property is on a 1 acre lot and the comparable sale is on a 2 acre lot and no adjustment is made for site.

I am not saying that an adjustment is warranted in either one of the above cases in all markets, but the appraiser should have analyzed these differences and have support for the lack of an adjustment in these types of cases that consists of something more than their experience.

That's all fine and good, but the appraiser needs to be fairly compensated, given adequate time, and be competent in their analysis. The simple answer is that, yes, support is necessary for a zero adjustment when there is a significant difference between the subject property and a comparable sale regarding an important property attribute. And if the client doesn’t understand the results, that’s on them—if they can’t grasp basic appraisal principles, they should go back to school.

 

[TerryRohrer]

I do know that my opinion on that topic is driven entirely by what the data shows.

Has anyone outside the GSEs seen the data?

 

[Joe Flacco]

The issue at hand is not about compensation or adequate time. Big differences that impact value should be supported by data and evidence regardless of the compensation or time the appraiser agreed to.

The problem with what he is arguing is that he is saying that based on cert 9 in the URAR, all differences require quantitative adjustments with data and evidence.

I take issue with his assertion that "adjustments" = quantitative adjustments, that it has always been quantitative adjustments, and if you were not making quantitative adjustments for all differences then you have been doing it wrong the whole time.

It is really funny when these former appraisers from back in the day start wagging their finger at you when they have never in their life developed a USPAP compliance report based on their own new interpretations.

 

[DWiley]

Adjustments are inherently quantitative. A "qualitative adjustment" is an oxymoron.

Adding a "+" or a "-" is not adjusting the price. Hence, it is not an adjustment; rather, it is an indication of how that price will be considered, relative to the subject and/or other sales that are considered in the analysis.

The window example provided earlier is a mix of quantitative and qualitative analysis.

 

[timd354]

And if the client doesn’t understand the results, that’s on them

Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes the client is at fault, but sometimes the client does not understand the results because the appraisal report is crap.