The New USPAP

[Tom D]

Just hypothetically speaking, what if the public trust has been eroded beyond repair by distributors, and continuing to alter the appraisers specific rules has become meaningless? Where is the continually evolving rules for management companies and other appraisal order distributors? Where is the ethical requirements for these people whom likely already outnumber appraisers? The end draws near.

it's hard to swallowing USPAP when the politicians have become totally corrupt. laws are good for thee, but not for me. USPAP is very generic, so you can be pinched on anything when they want to get you. the rulers don't have to follow USPAP's advice. show me the appraiser and i will show you the crime. am i on the right thread, is this the ussr USPAP thread.

 

[Surf Cat]

the rulers don't have to follow USPAP's advice

Not only that....borrowers don't either. Let's say for example, a cash out refi and the borrower has decided to go with another lender. Trying to explain confidentiality, intended use, intended users, why it has to be a new assignment.... they just don't want to hear it.... they don't understand why you can't just switch the client name in the already completed report. Shoot, for that matter, AMC phone monkeys would do the same. "All the other appraisers do it...why can't you?"

It's hard to be the lone defender of public trust....

 

[George Hatch]

Different roles. Appraisers are expected to fill a specific role which is different than that of any of the other participants. I have argued for many years that the role is what we actually sell; it's the only aspect of what we do that nobody else in the transaction does. Everyone and their dog has an opinion of the value, so there's nothing special about that. Our work is not marketable outside of the users perception that we are meeting our assertions about that role. It's not just the clients that count, either; those users include our clients' trading partners who often have conflicting interests and perspectives.

There's no way to define that role other than to delineate it's intent, it's meaning and the boundaries for what is/what isn't about that role. There has to exist a line, that line has to be defined and somebody has to do that defining. And sooner or later, someone has to enforce those boundaries even if it's just the user deciding what is/isn't meaningful to their usage.

And I'm not seeing any way the work to establish and promulgate the specifics for that role can just complete itself on the human-free basis. Or the defect-free basis. There's better and then there's worse; but in no case is "perfect" one of the alternatives.

One thing about credibility is that the first step in getting there is to establish reasonable expectations which we think are actually possible to meet. Asserting ideals that are impossible for people to meet will invariably lead to undermining that credibility the first time the angel falters. As is so often cited in the criticisms we see about appraisers as a group, the profession as a whole and the standards of practice we assert. And sell.

That's why I keep asking - so far with no meaningful response - "worse compared to what?"

 

[djd09]

where did DW go...more then one example of useless USPAP was cited...cat got your tongue or are you too busy waiving the next appraisal

 

[George Hatch]

If you're referring to your Fail Army reference to "peers" (outside of its actual definition as used), I already drove you into the dirt on that one.

 

[djd09]

It's hard to be the lone defender of public trust....

public trust is very subjective...so watch your tongue

 

[djd09]

ao 16 was awesome...tongue crimes...word crimes...thought crimes

 

[George Hatch]

Not only that....borrowers don't either. Let's say for example, a cash out refi and the borrower has decided to go with another lender. Trying to explain confidentiality, intended use, intended users, why it has to be a new assignment.... they just don't want to hear it.... they don't understand why you can't just switch the client name in the already completed report. Shoot, for that matter, AMC phone monkeys would do the same. "All the other appraisers do it...why can't you?"

It's hard to be the lone defender of public trust....

I never refer to USPAP in that discussion. Our licenses are subject to regulation by the state, this is a licensing issue. We do not have the discretion to shotgun stuff out to everyone who wants it. It's not a matter of will/won't, but of can't. Can't do it. Not legally permissible outside of the original client's specific direction to do so. Would probably get disciplined for it if the state caught us doing it.

Same with the mindless re-address. We are required to match the service with the (new) user expectations, not proceed off the assumption that one size fits all. It's the Q&A that counts there, not necessarily the length of time or effort it takes to ensure that what we send out really is sufficient for that user.

 

[Mejappz]

It's hard to be the lone defender of public trust....

Right public trust is a two way street not a one way road.

 

[DWiley]

where did DW go...more then one example of useless USPAP was cited...cat got your tongue or are you too busy waiving the next appraisal

The claim was that USPAP was nebulous and hard to understand. I saw some post disagreeing with certain things in USPAP, but no one has yet posted a passage they appear to not understand. Still waiting for that.