Revision Request

[djd09]

WF opened millions of accounts without permission, so what is a little influence between lenders and appraisers. wink wink.

 

[Meandering]

In addition to the first paragraph of the PREAMBLE and the COMPETENCY RULE and the SOWR and SR1.4.a and the first paragraph in SR2 (meaningful and not misleading to intended users) - all of which are part of USPAP proper, the FAQs are based on the ASB's understanding of USPAP. You would need some solid reasoning in order to disagree with them on their own turf.

Thanks

 

[Meandering]

In addition to the first paragraph of the PREAMBLE and the COMPETENCY RULE and the SOWR and SR1.4.a and the first paragraph in SR2 (meaningful and not misleading to intended users) - all of which are part of USPAP proper, the FAQs are based on the ASB's understanding of USPAP. You would need some solid reasoning in order to disagree with them on their own turf.

Thanks

My USPAP says FAQs are included with, but are not a part of, USPAP.
And since the ASB does not enforce USPAP, i don’t really care what they”think” after the fact of what they wrote as a standard or comment, because, if what they offered of advice was what they meant for the standard to say or mean, they should have wrote that as the standard, or the comment, or even as the interpretation of the standards and comments.

But no they specifically wrote that the FAQs are just advice they’ve given out and are not interpretations.

.

 

[George Hatch]

They're providing the info for appraisers to better understand the source material and its applications in certain specific situations, not to introduce new requirements.

I'm curious what leads you to assume their explanation of the application is inconsistent with the source material upon which its based? Particularly when their example so closely fits the description of an ROV.

I mean, if you thought you understood the material better than the ASB you might be in a position to make that assumption, but I've seen you in action over the years and we both know that's not the case.

 

[Eli]

I'm pretty sure I understand your position.....
I was just disagreeing with Eli placing you on a pedestal ...

That’s alright. Paybacks are hell sometimes. Are we even?


Res has layed it out and has good points. I already knew you agreed with him on points. I have your number.

 

[Meandering]

They're providing the info for appraisers to better understand the source material and its applications in certain specific situations, not to introduce new requirements.

I'm curious what leads you to assume their explanation of the application is inconsistent with the source material upon which its based? Particularly when their example so closely fits the description of an ROV.

I mean, if you thought you understood the material better than the ASB you might be in a position to make that assumption, but I've seen you in action over the years and we both know that's not the case.

They are providing FAQs to get lobbyists out of their offices.

These reference materials are forms of “Other Communications” provided by the
ASB for guidance only and are not part of USPAP.

People can write lots of crap that isn't enforceable. But the only thing that matters, is what is enforceable.



An appraiser must not accept an assignment, or have a compensation arrangement for an assignment, that is contingent on any of the following:
1. the reporting of a predetermined result (e.g., opinion of value);
2. a direction in assignment results that favors the cause of the client;
3. the amount of a value opinion;
4. the attainment of a stipulated result (e.g., that the loan closes, or taxes are reduced); or
5. the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the appraiser’s opinions and specific
to the assignment’s purpose.

.

ROV is a 'subsequent occurrence related to the appraiser's opinions.

Present data and questions, upfront, at the time the appointment is being set.

.



.

 

[Eli]

WF opened millions of accounts without permission, so what is a little influence between lenders and appraisers. wink wink.

That depends.

It will be somebody interested in public trust that is the lion. Like La or appraisers, govt, etc.

 

[George Hatch]

They are providing FAQs to get lobbyists out of their offices.

These reference materials are forms of “Other Communications” provided by the
ASB for guidance only and are not part of USPAP.

People can write lots of crap that isn't enforceable. But the only thing that matters, is what is enforceable.



An appraiser must not accept an assignment, or have a compensation arrangement for an assignment, that is contingent on any of the following:
1. the reporting of a predetermined result (e.g., opinion of value);
2. a direction in assignment results that favors the cause of the client;
3. the amount of a value opinion;
4. the attainment of a stipulated result (e.g., that the loan closes, or taxes are reduced); or
5. the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the appraiser’s opinions and specific
to the assignment’s purpose.

.
ROV is a 'subsequent occurrence related to the appraiser's opinions.

Present data and questions, upfront, at the time the appointment is being set.

.
.

An ROV is an event or result related to the appraiser's opinion AND specific to the assignment's purpose, huh? How would you go about writing that up?

First off, all assignments are contingent on the appraiser performing the service they said they would perform. "If you will perform this assignment I will pay you for it" "If you will agree to perform this assignment I will assign it to you." There's nothing inherently wrong with the existence of a generic or standard if/then contingency. Literally all commerce is based on if/then agreements.

It's only contingencies that involve *improper* and unethical assignment conditions that are prohibited.

The difference between
"If you will do zzz I will pay you for it"
vs
"If you will do zzz + yyy I will pay you for it"

is only a matter of degree unless there's something improper about yyy.


So in order to connect the dots between an improper assignment condition and the dreaded ROV you would need to be able to identify what that improper expectation or result or direction in value actually was, how it was conveyed to the appraiser, and what the benefit or penalty was that was that the client offered as an inducement or threat. Where is the "if you'll do this I'll do that", and exactly how was it articulated so the appraiser would be able to understand it as such?

Use your words, Mr Appraiser. Show us on the doll where the bad banker touched you.

 

[Eli]

An ROV is an event or result related to the appraiser's opinion AND specific to the assignment's purpose, huh? How would you go about writing that up?

First off, all assignments are contingent on the appraiser performing the service they said they would perform. "If you will perform this assignment I will pay you for it" "If you will agree to perform this assignment I will assign it to you." There's nothing inherently wrong with the existence of a generic or standard if/then contingency. Literally all commerce is based on if/then agreements.

It's only contingencies that involve *improper* and unethical assignment conditions that are prohibited.

The difference between
"If you will do zzz I will pay you for it"
vs
"If you will do zzz + yyy I will pay you for it"

is only a matter of degree unless there's something improper about yyy.


So in order to connect the dots between an improper assignment condition and the dreaded ROV you would need to be able to identify what that improper expectation or result or direction in value actually was, how it was conveyed to the appraiser, and what the benefit or penalty was that was that the client offered as an inducement or threat. Where is the "if you'll do this I'll do that", and exactly how was it articulated so the appraiser would be able to understand it as such?

Use your words, Mr Appraiser. Show us on the doll where the bad banker touched you.

If there is a pattern GH in ROV requests based on refinance amount or contract price? See how that could get real sticky?

Another fine reason govt should manage it all on appraisals for federally insured institutions.

They should engage, provide the forms (not gse’s), delivery platform, etc.

 

[Meandering]

An ROV is an event or result related to the appraiser's opinion AND specific to the assignment's purpose, huh? How would you go about writing that up?

And the "purpose" of an ROV is????

directly related to the appraiser’s opinions and specific to the assignment’s purpose.

First off, all assignments are contingent on the appraiser performing the service they said they would perform. "If you will perform this assignment I will pay you for it" "If you will agree to perform this assignment I will assign it to you." There's nothing inherently wrong with the existence of a generic or standard if/then contingency. Literally all commerce is based on if/then agreements.

Commerce???
Get outta town.
The entire commerce for residential lending appraisals is dictated by law and government rule and regulation. That's not commerce, that's called fulfilling government and legal obligations.



Simply because you get to pick which provider, it does not make it "commerce" nor "trade".

It's only contingencies that involve *improper* and unethical assignment conditions that are prohibited.

Nope.

It is very clear.

An appraiser must not accept an assignment, or have a compensation arrangement for an assignment, that is contingent on any of the following:
1. the reporting of a predetermined result (e.g., opinion of value);
2. a direction in assignment results that favors the cause of the client;
3. the amount of a value opinion;
4. the attainment of a stipulated result (e.g., that the loan closes, or taxes are reduced); or
5. the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the appraiser’s opinions and specific
to the assignment’s purpose.

No contingency for "improper" or "unethical", because it's always "improper and unethical".

Very straight forward, can't do it Notice it says MUST and not sometimes???

So in order to connect the dots between an improper assignment condition and the dreaded ROV you would need to be able to identify what that improper expectation or result or direction in value actually was, how it was conveyed to the appraiser, and what the benefit or penalty was that was that the client offered as an inducement or threat. Where is the "if you'll do this I'll do that", and exactly how was it articulated so the appraiser would be able to understand it as such?

Use your words, Mr Appraiser. Show us on the doll where the bad banker touched you.

George,

You shouldn't make stuff up. You're not that good at it, no matter what Danny tells you.

All that fluff is rainbows and unicorns that do not exist in USPAP nor in any state board that is regulating appraisers.


AMC FINAL RULE







Oh look
It doesn't say
anything about Dodd Frank,

But specifically mentions the Truth in Lending Act.

Imagine that.

.



.