TAF Partnered With REVAA

[George Hatch]

We recently saw the Appraisal Subcommittee potentially committing a felony, and some responses on the forum were typical. Some are essentially saying, “Well, they were instructed to do it by the administration,” which implies that if your superiors tells you it’s okay to break the law, then it’s acceptable to do so. It’s clear that for some, it’s less about doing what’s right and more about self-preservation, which explains all the pandering.

The felony in question apparently consists of paying for input and advice from a party they're not allowed to pay. Most likely under political pressure and duress. In which case THAT conflict doesn't accrue to anyone among the IACs membership, but possibly from TAFACs membership. Or the ASC.

Nor does that input have anything to do with any appraisal-related business making more money off of consumers or off appraisers. At most we would call that political meddling by the Federal Govt.

That's your example? Try again - TAFs mission is Appraisal Standards and Appraiser Qualifications. And appraisers are subject to the vagaries of state and federal laws and legal liabilities related to the Civil Rights Act and Fair Lending and Equal Credit Opportunity and such. We're in no position to operate in isolation of those laws and their current applications.

 

[Mejappz]

Ouch, Sandy and the AI are taking a beating on LinkedIn. Several people are demanding an audit of what was spent on the rebranding and PAREA. And someone posted the AI's tax returns from 20, 21, and 22. Ouch. Maybe the AI should have a mandatory reputational risk every cycle.

Keep in mind that they also accepted a 'grant'—essentially a kickback—from TAF, which other educational providers did not. This might be one reason why Mcksicook decided to discontinue the program.

 

[George Hatch]

Keep in mind that they also accepted a 'grant'—essentially a kickback—from TAF, which other educational providers did not. This might be one reason why Mcksicook decided to discontinue the program.

TBH I'm a little surprised you didn't lead with PAREA or adding loopholes as an alternative to mandatory degree requirements for licensing as being the result of IAC influence. That's the one move TAF has done that can be characterized as being oriented to the monetary interests of business. Even though there are other types of entities like the Appraisal Institute who have also advocated for PAREA.

I was waiting for you to pick up on the most obvious possibility, but you didn't. Instead, you went for something TAF paid for, not something that TAF may/may not have gotten paid to do for some appraiser or other player in the market for services . You've done that twice, now. First for the DEI-related grants and services, and secondly for the PAREA-related grants. In those examples TAF is paying, not getting paid.

 

[RCA]

Not one word of which includes any reason TAF could cite - under their bylaws - for cutting off the undesirables. Which that is the topic of this particular tangent.

"undesirables" -- please be a bit clear about who you are talking about. Then define what you mean by "cutting off".

If I have to guess, then you mean by "undesirables" AMCs, or more specifically REVAA. And what you mean by "cutting off" is "not taking any input"—not allowing them to be partners. There were 12 partners, all appraisal organizations. REVAA is the first AMC organization to be made a partner, I guess it will be #13! This gives them voting rights to the BOT. So, this is a big deal. It gives the AMCs a big foot in the door to TAF policies. NO! This should not have happened. It is a well known fact that AMCs are more interested, by and large, in low fees than in quality. So, this is a gigantic conflict of interest. It is corruption .....

In my experience, not all AMCs are undesirable. I give Kairos an A, and UWM a B- or C+, - and only because I got a few screwball mortgage brokers I had to turn assignments down on. TAF should listen to the public, but with appropriate weighting. They appear to be "in bed" with the AMCs with this decision.

When you appraise a property and the property owner expresses their opinion of the value or presents you with comps they think are relevant to the valuation, that action can be considered "advisory" in nature.
You might consider that advice and accept/reject part or all of that advice; or you might totally ignore that advice and do what you were going to do anyway. But simply allowing them to provide their input doesn't equate to submitting to their demands. It doesn't necessarily lead to the outcomes they might want. Unless you actually do submit to them, which I prefer to think that you don't do that.

Sure.

That's what we're looking for in this discussion: some indication that any of TAFs boards have transitioned from merely "considering" IAC advice to "submitting" to them in conflict with the underlying concepts and principles.

I am not sure what you are really talking about now. The issue is TAF making REVAA a partner, one of I guess 13 partners with voting rights for the BOT.

 

[Mejappz]

Here you go one of TAF's partners is currently being sued by an appraiser for pressuring them to violate USPAP standards and refusing to pay.

 

[RCA]

Ouch, Sandy and the AI are taking a beating on LinkedIn. Several people are demanding an audit of what was spent on the rebranding and PAREA. And someone posted the AI's tax returns from 20, 21, and 22. Ouch again. Maybe the AI should have a mandatory reputational risk class every cycle.

PAREA is a good idea, gone bad. It had potential. But the leaders made a mess out of the idea. PAREA will only work if you get highly qualified college grads with a good set of mathematical/statistical, data mining, and programming. Give me that - and that is something to work with. And get some grads from tier-one university departments in math or computer science.

The entrenched bureaucracy does not want competition. In fact, the problem really is that top tier universities probably want to keep their distance from them. In fact, Traditional Appraisal and Academia is Oil and Water, especially in this day and age. They simply will not mix. They self-destruct when combined.

On the other hand, you can't just ditch TAF or the AI. We need to grow a new infrastructure in parallel and sit back and laugh as TAF and the appraisal organizations do their window dressing with AI-this and AI-that.

The only solution is to create a new parallel ( in the sense of existing side-by-side) system for what you might call "Valuation Engineering," based on strict protocols, mathematical constraints, and data mining.

 

[George Hatch]

I am not sure what you are really talking about now. The issue is TAF making REVAA a partner, one of I guess 13 partners with voting rights for the BOT.

This isn't the first time for that and I'm confident it won't be the last.

As for REVAA
The BOT consists of individuals, not companies. I count 22 members on the BOT. Based on their bios none of whom work for REVAA.
The IAC consists of companies, not individuals, which are directly involved in the valuation businesses of one type or another. 35 members of the IAC.
TAFAC consists of govt and non-profits. 67 members. One of which is REVAA itself.

How REVAA gets amplified to being some existential threat to the operation of TAF apparently goes without saying because nobody can say it.

 

[RCA]

This isn't the first time for that and I'm confident it won't be the last.

As for REVAA
The BOT consists of individuals, not companies. I count 22 members on the BOT. Based on their bios none of whom work for REVAA.
The IAC consists of companies, not individuals, which are directly involved in the valuation businesses of one type or another. 35 members of the IAC.
TAFAC consists of govt and non-profits. 67 members. One of which is REVAA itself.

How REVAA gets amplified to being some existential threat to the operation of TAF apparently goes without saying because nobody can say it.

You can't read. I never said that REVAA was part of the BOT. I said it had voting rights, i.e. it can vote who gets to sit on the BOT. That is a big foot in the door. Read the link below.

A lot you don't know.

Legislation to Regulate AMC's & Protect Consumers Opposed by REVAA

Even states with existing AMC legislation are introducing stricter, more precise legislation. Why is this happening in all 55 jurisdictions?

appraisersblogs.com

 

[jay trotta]

Here is a Link you all should take a peek at;

https://appraisersblogs.com/apprais...ce-council-exposes-disturbing-AMC-violations/

 

[RCA]

Here is a Link you all should take a peek at;

https://appraisersblogs.com/apprais...ce-council-exposes-disturbing-AMC-violations/

Try this link:

Appraisal Regulation Compliance Council Exposes Disturbing AMC Violations

According to the Appraisal Regulation Compliance Council, the median average AMC fee charged to borrowers was 65% of the appraisal fee.

tinyurl.com