USPAP 2006 Online

[George Hatch]

The Appraisal Foundation has posted an online link for the 2006 edition of USPAP. Hopefully it will stay on this page of their website and not get moved around 6 times in the next 18 months.


http://www.appraisalfoundation.org/s_appraisal/sec.asp?CID=3&DID=3

 

[CANative]

Thanks George. I'm reading it now.

Side by side between 2005 / 2006... I have a question.

In 2006, 2-2 ( b ) (vii)

Comment: Sufficient information includes disclosure of research and analyses performed and might also include disclosure of research and analyses not performed.

Since SOW has changed reporting obligations from a negative ("I did not do X") to a postive reporting obligation ("I did do Y & Z") what does the bolded verbiage above mean? How many items and type or items not researched and analyzed would we be expected to disclose?

 

[Farm Gal]

GAK!

Greg I hit the same place at about the same time... and have the same question...

The only answer I can come up with is that the bolded line must entertain the CYA factor: if another appraiser might think you shoulda then you need to explain why you didn't which means as usual VERY fuzzy logic.

I guess this will all have to settle out over time and woe betide the appraiser who isn't in contact with his/her REAL peers.

 

[Tina]

Well, this is a fine can of worms!

TB

 

[Mr Rex]

Sounds like the reason there will be changes to the 2007 USPAP. To go back and clear up the muddied water created in 2006, and 2005 and 2004 and 2003 etc ad nauseum. I just wish USPAP and my state would get on the same 2 year schedule with updates to USPAP and CE. They can issue all the Advisory Opinions they want or as required to clear the mud in the odd year(s). USPAP is too important to be looked at through vasoline covered glasses (as it seems the ASB & AF try so awfully hard to make it) or for it to be a moving target. If they need the money, I'll send them the cost of the publishing a new book every year if they would agree to only make "signiifcant" changes every 2 years. There are ways to avoid the annual "updating" that seems to make things SOO much clearer and better, but it might put somebody out of a job.

 

[CANative]

GAK!

Greg I hit the same place at about the same time... and have the same question...

The only answer I can come up with is that the bolded line must entertain the CYA factor: if another appraiser might think you shoulda then you need to explain why you didn't which means as usual VERY fuzzy logic.

I guess this will all have to settle out over time and woe betide the appraiser who isn't in contact with his/her REAL peers.

GAK! LOL you're dating yourself with that old exclamation by the colonel from the old comic strip.


if another appraiser might think you shoulda

That's what concerns me. This takes on additional importance since the actions of an appraiser's peers is one of the two tests of whether the scope of work you choose for an assignment is considered acceptable (the other test being intended users.)

The definition of "appraiser's peers" looks like it was changed by the elimination of the phrase "..in the same or.."

 

[CANative]

We may need one of the "USPAP Instructors" to clear this up.

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.

 

[Austin]

Can Of Worms Is Right

I just read the section explaining the changes and standard 1. Generally I like what I read but I can see this thing is going to open a whole new can of worms. I read it, I can perceive what they want, and I am prone to always do what is expected of me. Unfortunatly, many people don't view things that way. You know, the Comp check, update, recertification, love BPO & Realtor crowd. They read this thing and say: "Hell, I can do it my way now. Realtors and mortgate monkeys will love me now! I don't have to use any of the approaches, I can just invent my own." I can name you a few right out of the shute. One just had a magazine article published on the objective and subjective nature of appraising.
This 2006 version should give us enough rocks to throw for at least the next two years or so. :new_sleeping:

PS: Greg? You must be kidding. USPAP instructors are the ones that muddied up the water and you expect them to clear this up! Sheesh!

 

[Marcia Langley]

Greg,

This is just my initial reaction but, like Lee Ann, I think this is the CYA opportunity to explain the things that an appraiser does not do without having to use the dreaded HC or EA.

For example, this gives the appraiser the opportunity to say they did not move personal property, ice, snow, leaves, etc.

This falls in line with the overall philosophy of the 2006 USPAP that it is the appraiser's obligation to present a fully developed scope of work regardless of client wishes to the contrary.

 

[John SRA]

The main thrust of the disclosure requiremnts in the new SOW Rule is that intended users must be able to understand the scope of work that was performed. The passage causing angst is merely a statement that full understanding of the scope of work might require an appraiser to disclose things not done.

An example might be those who currently state they "did inspect" when in fact they only looked at photos. For an intended user to truly understand the scope, one would have to disclose that the "inpsection" did not involve actually visiting the property.

Have a good day

JC