Supplemental Standards Rule Elimination

[Fred]

Steven,
So you don't think a client condition carries any weight unless it is published?

In the 2006 edition, "published" is one of the criteria.

Outside that, the "weight" a client condition carries varies with any number of variables, not the least of which, is that some clients are dishonest and regularly invite us to break the law.

There is some separation between business practice and appraisal practice. The Ethics Rule does not (and probably should not) prohibit everything the client might consider breach of contract or failure to perform.

There are a number of examples of what have been ethical canons in the appraisal organizations, that may even be societyal norms, that are in the psyche of the appraisal profession, but that are not part of USPAP. I can think of several such gaps. For example, false advertising is explicitly against the code of several organizations, but where does USPAP cover that? Several orgainzation have had canons against harming the reputation of another appraiser by malice (and other through other acts), but a reviewer, under USPAP, seems to be able to carve the original appraiser to pieces, even to the point of defamation of character. Bottom line - I just don't see where USPAP rules out many acts that appear to be actionable, civil infractions.

Applying those ideas to the SSR discussion, I am saying that failure to comply with every client request is not and cannot be a USPAP violation. Take the SSR out of USPAP, and "failure" to comply with what used to be supplemental standards, is going to turn on, among other things, whether the request is for service "necessary to produce credible results." Other things it might turn on are, the preconceived notions, biases and emotions of the person doing the judging.

 

[Lawrence R.]

Take any stupid supplemental guideline for example. I believe under the SSR (2006 edition), the appraiser has to comply with it. However, in the 2008 edition, you can tell them to go fish. The market can stop hiring you because of this, but since there is no “law” or “regulation…having legal force” to compel the appraiser to exceed the scope necessary and perform the unnecessary as well, there is no USPAP violation.

This is what I come away with, too. This puts the burden of taking assignments that conflict with USPAP/your Conscience right where it belongs...on the appraiser.

We should be in control of what extra crap we are willing to take. This also puts more emphasis on what "your peers" will be doing.

For those of you who have no peers, it should be easy.

 

[Carnivore]

This change will from purely an operational point of view effect three groups the most.

1. Residential Appraisers
2. AMC's
3. The Quick, lean and Cheap Crowd lenders

The problem will revolve around the "One Size-One Price Fits All" Attitude and the 'Quick Turn Time'!

The current severe lack of communication between residential appraisers and middlenman AMC's will rear its ugly face first.

The silver lining just may be the actual market correction to the TAF constant de-stabilation of the appraisal profession will eventually come into the picture. The three participants above just may finally agree to use as SOP for example Fannie Mae selling guide, FHA 4150, VA as the best Standards of Practice for all residential mortgage appraisals reports.

That will fit right in with Don Clarks one liner!

"This appraisal report is intended to comply with and meet the requirements of_________________________________________, contained in such laws, regulations and guidelines as may be applicable at the time of the assignment".

In some cases, it may be prudent to state more than one entity in what I show as a blank space.

So hopefully the market forces will ignore USPAP and raise the bar above it out of pure necessity.

 

[Brad Ellis]

Steven,

For example, false advertising is explicitly against the code of several organizations, but where does USPAP cover that?

Lines 251-252 in the Ethics Rule under Management prohibits false, misleading or exaggerated advertising. (2008 version for this reference but it has been in there for a long time)

just not sure I have the semantics right in your statement and am aware this is out of context- but it is specific enough I think.

Brad

 

[CANative]

Steven,

This is what I was trying to say in my previous posts. I just couldn't spit it out.

 

[Carnivore]

Brad,

Can you attached your published Guidelines/Requirements for all of us to save in our computers?

If you dont mind can you invite all your Chief Buddies to post all their Guidelines/requiremts also!

 

[Don Clark]

Brad,

Can you attached your published Guidelines/Requirements for all of us to save in our computers?

If you dont mind can you invite all your Chief Buddies to post all their Guidelines/requiremts also!

Carney,

That is not only a dumb request, it is, as you well know, not necessary as not only I, but many others have pointed out in this thread. All you are trying to do is demean and bait Brad. That is not only unprofessional but beneath the intent of this forum.

 

[Fred]

Steven,

This is what I was trying to say in my previous posts. I just couldn't spit it out.

I had enough trouble spitting it out. It took more than one post.

Lines 251-252 in the Ethics Rule under Management prohibits false, misleading or exaggerated advertising.

Thanks Brad. I flubbed that because I was pre-occupied with Zaio's advertising claims and the comment section of the rule that seems to create several escape hatches.
"In groups or organizations engaged in appraisal practice, decisions concerning finder or referral fees, contingent compensation, advertising may not be the responsibility of an individual appraiser, but for a particular assignment, it is the responsibility of the individual appraiser to ascertain that there has been no breach of ethics,"

 

[Carnivore]

Carney,

That is not only a dumb request, it is, as you well know, not necessary as not only I, but many others have pointed out in this thread. All you are trying to do is demean and bait Brad. That is not only unprofessional but beneath the intent of this forum.

I dont mean to demean or bait, Brad. The issue is that the client must tell the appraiser what their Guidelines/requirements must be met prior to assignment acceptance. Since Indymac is a Financial Institution where quality and consistency are important, itseems this would enhance the timely delivery of reports to Indymac. This helps speed up time in UW and close loans quicker then his competition. Seems reasonable to me if he chose to get a jump on this issue.

How is asking about quidelines/requirements from Chief appraiser of a Large bank like Indymac dumb?

 

[Don Clark]

I dont mean to demean or bait, Brad. The issue is that the client must tell the appraiser what their Guidelines/requirements must be met prior to assignment acceptance. Since Indymac is a Financial Institution where quality and consistency are important, itseems this would enhance the timely delivery of reports to Indymac. This helps speed up time in UW and close loans quicker then his competition. Seems reasonable to me if he chose to get a jump on this issue.

How is asking about quidelines/requirements from Chief appraiser of a Large bank like Indymac dumb?

Carni,

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought you wanted all that so you could put it in your reports. My Bad! But, I can blame it on age, which could also include poor eye sight, and any number of excuses. You have every right to ask about guidelines/requirements.

For others. I am really enjoying all the input and comments. It is my opinion that the elimination of the SSR actually relagates all such guidelines and requirements to the same level as all other client requirements and does not put GSE's and others in a greater position than any other client.

It now becomes a SOW issue.