USPAP 2006 Online

[Steve Owen]

My first impression was that this verbiage is included for those who still need a crutch or a cane after being hobbled for so many years by the departure rule.

Well, I've always stated what I don't do when I don't do something that I should. Maybe they will find that this is so muddled that they'll go back to a set of minimum standards that always must be done... no that would be too easy.

Still, I don't see much of a problem here. (Might be a catch-all for appraisers who use less than competent peers to determine what the normal course of business should be.) And, I don't know anyone who is really going to miss the departure rule.

 

[Fred]

Maybe they will find that this is so muddled that they'll go back to a set of minimum standards that always must be done... no that would be too easy.

Steve O,
The ASB thinks they were developing exactly that. Here is their stated "solution" to the problems with the departure rule.

"The most fundamental proposed change is to alter USPAP from being written from the point of view of a set of most complete Standards Rules that an appraiser can adhere to or depart from, to a set of minimum Standards Rules that an appraiser must adhere to in every assignment."

Not that they hit this target – but, in the old point of view, saying that you had “complete” compliance eliminated the idea that there were things undone that needed explaining.

Greg,
I think you found the core idea – which is a pretty good trick given how much extraneous matter surrounds it.

The scope-of-work USPAP is one big elastic clause without any boundary marks to indicate where the stretching can begin and where it must end. Even more malleable than who are your “peers,” is judging “credible” in the context of the intended use. That is, even if you can figure out who your peers are, you have to guess what they would do – not of their own volition – but relative to the intended use. Everything is daisy-chined to everything else and nothing ever gets linked to a fixed or external benchmark.

The 06 is very much a - say what you didn’t do - document. There are two related reasons. First, because there is no explicit or implicit requirement to produce a credible or accurate result, saying you did everything USPAP requires has no meaning. Because there is no imperative to create reliable and accurate results, doing what USPAP itself requires still leaves out a lot that both common sense and “generally accepted” practice might argue should be included. Second, USPAP is meticulous in its requirement for problem identification. However, it’s all windup and no pitch. All that labor in problem identification, with so little required for identifying and executing the solution, just enhances the idea that something is missing.

 

[Al Franke]

John and Marcia got it right. No need for the angst...it's telling the story of what you did (or didn't do) under Standard 1.

Al Franke, SRA

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Yes, we have no bananas today...the monkeys at TAF et them.

 

[Farm Gal]

they already moved it again try this
http://commerce.appraisalfoundation.org/html/2006 USPAP/toc.htm

George does your sig line refer to the computer error code?

 

[Fred]

Terrel
Thanks. I looked up “et” in the dictionary and it is an alternative to “ate.” Great, another chance to furthe vex my opponents in Scrabble.

Lee Ann,
One of those smiley cons is named the "leeann." That makes you an on-line legend.
----

it's telling the story of what you did (or didn't do) under Standard 1.

And/or telling the story under the scope-of-work rule.

Holy redundancy, Batman. In plain English, don’t these two excerpts say the same thing?
1) “an appraiser must:
identify the problem to be solved;
determine and perform the scope of work necessary to develop credible assignment results”

2) “an appraiser must identify the problem to be solved, determine the scope of work necessary to solve the problem, and correctly complete research and analyses necessary to produce a credible appraisal.”

In a way that’s a USPAP-for-Dummies approach. In case you miss it the first time, you might catch it the second time.

Since this draft was approved last year, I began compiling my please-fix-this list for the 2008 USPAP. I wonder if I should include a refresher on when to use hyphens. :icon_smile:

 

[hastalavista]

Yesterday was the first time I had a lender condition my appraisal because of my SOW addendum (which, granted, is long). This major lender (not a bank, located in SoCal) specifically stated that the addendum was in violation of Fannie's guidelines.

I tried to call the UW and ask her to point out where that citation was, because after reading the selling guide, I sure couldn't find it. Unfortunately, she was out. I did modify my SOW (cut it down to 5 pages from 9), and added some comment which referenced the UW specifically, along with Joe Minnich, etc.

I did hear in person Mr. Minnich state that it was Fannie's intent to notify their clients that long SOW's were not necessary and would be frowned upon (I think he did use the term "rejected").
Like it or not, I do not see how Fanine can argue this position after 06/06.

I was somewhat wondering why the people on the ASB were so quiet while Fannie was bellowing about what Fannie could and couldn't do; maybe there is a method behind the ASB's madness?

 

[CANative]

I was somewhat wondering why the people on the ASB were so quiet while Fannie was bellowing about what Fannie could and couldn't do; maybe there is a method behind the ASB's madness?

The folks at the ASB don't have as much funny money as the folks at Fannie Mae.

 

[Tina]

:icon_idea: I kinda wonder if fannie isn't trying to render the appraiser functionally obsolete???? Further I wonder if the ASB isn't already functionally obsolete???

This gobbility gook makes it really hard to function as an appraiser...:wacko:

TB

 

[Lee Lansford]

Denis,

9 page SOW?

Lee