Third Exposure for USPAP changes expected

[Francois K. Gregoire]

The Appraisal Foundation is funded by the registery fees, sales of printed materials (is, USPAP books) and certain grants. Most who serve on either the ASB (standards) or ABQ (qualifications) do so by appointment and are, in fact, unpaid.

There is no 3rd draft at this time.

63% who sit for the USPAP Instructor's examination...pass.

Mike,

Two clarifications. One concerning compensation. From the Appraisal Standards Board - Appraiser Qualifications Board Candidate Fact Sheet:

Compensation

Members of the ASB and AQB are paid an hourly consultant fee for their services. In addition, members are reimbursed for travel and expenses associated with their official responsibilities.

The other concerning the Third Exposure Draft. From the Appraiser Qualifications Board Public Meeting Summary - July 19, 2002:

Once the exposure period concludes, on August 15, the Board will carefully consider the comments received and re-expose the proposed Criteria revisions, with edits. A third exposure draft is likely to be published in September or October of 2002.

Documents furnished upon request.

Austin, I was already drafted once, do not wish to be drafted for the Second Time, never mind the Third. Thirty years later, I can look back and consider it a valuable experience. It sure was not viewed similarly in 1972.

 

[Austin]

Frank: It wasn't viewed that way in 1968 when I was drafted. It made me so mad-I joined up. Graduated from college one day and got a draft notice the next. Spent the summer at Fort Bragg, NC, singing the airborne ranger song. "I wanta be a airborne ranger living on guts and danger- airborne-ranger-all the way every day....."

 

[Mike Garrett RAA]

Well....as of the meeting in Denver, August 16,17,& 18...no third draft according to the Chair of the ASB, Ken Kaiser. I am sure they were paid to put on the course too!

 

[bradellis]

Mike,

Hope you enjoyed the USPAP instructor course.

Ken Kaiser is no longer chair of the ASB- he already served two terms. it si now Danny Wiley of TN.

Brad Ellis, IFA, RAA

 

[Mike Garrett RAA]

Thank Brad and Frank, I stand corrected! I was under the opinion he was to serve through the end of the year but I guess that is not the case.

In any event, he was interesting to listen to. The other instructor was Carla Glass. Their teaching styles were totally different. I certainly got a different perspective on USPAP from the course, if nothing else it has furthered my education. The test was difficult, to say the least, 120 questions with many worded very similarily. 4 out of 10 do not pass the first time. Hope I don't have to travel to take it again.

 

[mikegoff]

Florida Board has approved distance learning for appraiser CE credits. How will this fly with the new USPAP exam requirement? Won't this reduce demand for USPAP instructors. Will be interesting to see how this influences CE courses. Maybe Frank has all the answers.
The last draft (1969) taught me how to fly, silver lining in major thunderstorm.

 

[Fred]

I certainly got a different perspective on USPAP from the course,

Could that be because USPAP has changed?

 

[Mike Garrett RAA]

Could be Steven but most likely I just didn't view it in the same light as presented at this course. Most of what I was teaching in my class was the same information but now I will be stressing Intended User, Intended Use, and Scope of work.

Look for things like Complete, Summary, and Limited to go by the wayside. Also Departure is going to be re-written. One of the things they said was a 2055 is a complete appraisal which is contrary to what the form it's self says.

As far as correspondence USPAP, we won't be seeing that in Colorado according to the Director of the Appraisal Board who also sat through the class. The ASB doesn't want that either but it is up to each individual state as I understand it.

 

[Austin]

The best appraisal education I ever had was in the following order.
1. AI classes that lasted one week with saturday exam.
2. Time spent on the appraisal forum.
3. Time spent on my own reading and researching.
4. AI on-line courses.
5. AI CE classes.

I can honestly say I have only had one CE class out of about 18 that I ever gained one single thing from. Total waste of time. Having said all of that: Mike and other USPAP instructosrs, why don't you lay some smoke on us forumites and save us the grief? This is a much better forum for getting this stuff across. We are big boys and girls and we all can read. We can debate or question the fine points here.

 

[Fred]

Mike posts:
"I just didn’t view it in the same light as presented at this course. Most of what I was teaching in my class was the same information but now I will be stressing Intended User, Intended Use, and Scope of work"

New light or new material
You will stress, scope of work, but that phrase does not appear in any pre-1999 edition USPAP. SR 1 now mentions it seven times.

You will stress intended use. Appraisal literature has uniformly found that purpose drives the appraisal process; that standard of value (part of purpose) defines methods. The instructors manual argues that intended use drives the appraisal process. They could at least acknowledge the detour and the reasons for the detour, instead of just claiming that the rest of us are just mistaken.

USPAP Instructors Manual, page 57
<span style='color:darkblue'>"There are many misunderstandings about the concept of intended use. The most common is the notion that intended use is irrelevant. It is claimed that an appraiser only needs to know the purpose of the assignment and all that it entails in regard to the type of value, subject property, and effective date to provide a solution to the assignment problem. Those who hold this view fail to fully understand how relevancy is driven by intended use. It is true that one could develop an opinion of market value on a given property as of a given date without knowing the clients intended use. But one could not know whether that opinion was adequate or appropriate to the clients intended use."</span>

Why? Does Market Value vary with Intended Use?

The following passage in from the USPAP Instructors Manual, page 58. It refers to one appraiser, one property, market value, multiple appraisals and multiple conclusions.
Still another variation of this notion is the belief that an appraiser can provide the services requested in the illustrations so long as the same value opinion is developed in each assignment. This is truly an unrealistic concept since the assignment conditions in each illustration do not allow or require the same discovery or use of information. The information that is adequate or insignificant in the first illustration is less than what is adequate in the second or the third illustrations, given their intended uses.

For many years appraisal literature has considered the forces that create and affect value. I have never before seen intended use listed as one of them.