Revision Request

[hastalavista]

If I'm providing additional data for the appraiser to consider, that is asking the appraiser to use their independent judgment.
If I tell an appraiser that they must use additional data (or substitute it for what was in the original report), that is not asking the appraiser to use their independent judgment.

But, Like I said: it seems that Tidewater is the mother of all TILA violations according to how some interpret reconsiderations.

Perhaps a complaint can be filed in Louisiana, where if it fails with the CFTB, the Louisiana Board can take it up.

 

[Meandering]

Slowly now Mr. USPAP instructor.

1. The Appraiser has already "made" the appraisal and signed the certification.

2. Have you noted "errors" in that appraisal?

If not,
then

If I'm providing additional data for the appraiser to consider, that is asking the appraiser to use their independent judgment.
If I tell an appraiser that they must use additional data (or substitute it for what was in the original report), that is not asking the appraiser to use their independent judgment.

But, Like I said: it seems that Tidewater is the mother of all TILA violations according to how some interpret reconsiderations.

Perhaps a complaint can be filed in Louisiana, where if it fails with the CFTB, the Louisiana Board can take it up.

What are you sending "additional data for?

If not an attempt at influence?

Or some other service to a borrower after the appraisal has been completed???


..

 

[Meandering]

You have "additional data" you need to send it to the appraiser, on the front end, with the letter of engagement,

Not on the back end, when someone does not like the appraiser's independent judgement.


.

 

[George Hatch]

It's almost as if appraisers have completely forgotten what external pressure looks like.

I find hilarious the attempts to equate any data-included ROV - prompted by any party operating under any motivations - with the type of external pressure that occurred on a daily basis for many appraisers prior to the HVCC.

"If you can hit this value you can have the assignment"
"If you don't hit this value I won't pay you"
"You ruined this deal so not only will i not pay you for it, I'm also not going to pay you for the other 10 appraisals I owe you for"

 

[George Hatch]

You have "additional data" you need to send it to the appraiser, on the front end, with the letter of engagement,

Not on the back end, when someone does not like the appraiser's independent judgement.


.

Or when they don't like the appraisers' incompetence. Or deception. 'Cause those issues never come up in appraisals, right?

 

[hastalavista]

Slowly now Mr. USPAP instructor.

I am not a USPAP instructor (just in case your reference was to me ).

Marion-
Please start filing complaints (however, I assume you get them so infrequently that another may never land on your desk) or advocate others to file complaints when appraisers receive such reconsiderations after they've submitted their reports.
I disagree with your interpretation (obviously and not surprisingly): so continue as you would as if I were never here.

 

[Meandering]

Or when they don't like the appraisers' incompetence. Or deception. 'Cause those issues never come up in appraisals, right?

Are you saying somebody's box wasn't clear?

Nobody vetted the appraiser for competence prior to engaging the appraiser?

incompetence would be demonstrated by the identification of errors within a report, which can be addressed, as errors.

Or are you saying that ROVs are only issued to incompetent appraisers?




Be wary of the hole you're digging for your "friends".


.

 

[George Hatch]

Here's the wrinkle with ROVs. Obviously they're often (but not always) motivated by a desire to get more value. However, there's a distinction to be made between a borrower simply trying to get what they want on the unethical basis vs one who actually disagrees with the appraiser's opinion because they're incompetent in appraising and because they actually do think price/sf is a meaningful unit of comparison or they aren't familiar with how the attributes of their comps relate to the subject.

One is an unethical rationale and the other is an incompetent rationale, and there's not much overlap between the two.

 

[Meandering]

Here's the wrinkle with ROVs. Obviously they're often (but not always) motivated by a desire to get more value. However, there's a distinction to be made between a borrower simply trying to get what they want on the unethical basis vs one who actually disagrees with the appraiser's opinion because they're incompetent in appraising and because they actually do think price/sf is a meaningful unit of comparison or they aren't familiar with how the attributes of their comps relate to the subject.

One is an unethical rationale and the other is an incompetent rationale, and there's not much overlap between the two.

Again,

The lender has the option of ordering a second report,
or,
of asking the appraiser to correct errors.

There is no open door policy for the owner, agent, broker, buyer, borrower, etc to "influence" the value until they get the "value opinion" that works for them,

That's why FIRREA required appraisals by independent appraisers.

Else you can go back to the borrower and ask them to borrow less, or up their credit score and get a PIW.

.

 

[George Hatch]

Are you saying somebody's box wasn't clear?

Nobody vetted the appraiser for competence prior to engaging the appraiser?

incompetence would be demonstrated by the identification of errors within a report, which can be addressed, as errors.

Or are you saying that ROVs are only issued to incompetent appraisers?




Be wary of the hole you're digging for your "friends".


.

I shall leave it to you to read into my comments elements that aren't there because I understand that to be your favorite form of argument. If I had meant either of those things I would have said so. Since I didn't say those things you should proceed under the assumption that I didn't intend to mean that.

Regardless of how qualified an appraiser is, we do not normally claim to be perfect nor do we claim that our work is perfect. Good appraisers do make mistakes. Competent and qualified appraisers have also been known to deal in deception. Moreover, you know as well as I that not every appraiser performs at the same rate, meaning some actually are worse than others - and a borrower has no way of knowing who is who.

Telling borrowers they have no right to even question an appraisal requires a level of arrogance and ego than not even a USPAP Instructor would normally possess. I disavow that level of arrogance, and IMO you should, too. Building credibility starts with establishing *reasonable* expectations, not laying claim to being infallible.

The appeal to authority is a weak move, and that's exactly what you're advocating. "You will respect my appraisal because I'm the appraiser and you aren't"; as opposed to making your case with your work.