USPAP 2022-23 Second Exposure Draft - Proposed Changes

[Mike Kennedy]

ShareFile

appraisalfoundation.sharefile.com

 

[ramrcdk]

ShareFile

appraisalfoundation.sharefile.com

Thanks Mike, appreciated!

 

[Lee Lansford]

ShareFile

appraisalfoundation.sharefile.com

I was pleased to see that the ASB has returned to the 2 reporting options--Report and Restricted--when in the 1st exposure draft they were proposing a single minimum. Good for the ASB (in that they agreed with me ).

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

What worthless piffle...

● the impact of current technology in creating uncertainties about what constitutes a “true copy” of a report in the RECORD KEEPING RULE and about where signatures are required.
MAKE A PDF OF IT PERIOD.
● report labels and continuing discussion about a possible single set of minimum reporting requirements authorizing the appraiser to decide what extent of reporting (beyond the minimum) is appropriate for each appraisal.
EVENTUALLY THE LABELS NEED TO GO AWAY
● whether the personal inspection (“I have or have not”) disclosure in the Certification is adequate or should be broader.
GIMME A BREAK. YOU 'INSPECTED' IT OR YOU DIDN'T
● whether the topic of significant appraisal assistance should be reviewed, including whether to require disclosure of significant assistance provided by non-appraisers.
THAT'S A REAL LANDMINE. ARE WE GOING TO VET THE ENGINEER PREPARING THE FOUNDATION REPORTS? THE ARCHITECT'S BLUEPRINTS AND SPECS? OUR SECRETARY INSERTING THE PICTURES FOR US?
● whether any DEFINITIONS should be added, subtracted, or modified.
MISLEADING SHOULD GO AWAY.

I grow entirely too weary of the constant changes in USPAP and the attendant unintended consequences of these changes to care anymore.

 

[Elliott]

Since this 22-pages of legalize and its Friday, I shall have my on-line attorney review it and he'll give a pdf response.

Wow, so quick:

http://media.straffordpub.com/products/audit-response-letters-and-disclosures-in-house-counsels-role-in-balancing-auditor-demands-and-company-privileges-2017-03-30/reference-materials.pdf

 

[Mark K]

Same ol', same ol.

Add unnecessary crap. Next revision, modify unnecessary crap. Next revision, try to clarify the modified, unnecessary crap. Next revision, remove some of the modified, unnecessary crap and replace it with different unnecessarily ambiguous crap. Repeat every few years.

I recently took the useless class for hopefully the last time.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

What worthless piffle...

● the impact of current technology in creating uncertainties about what constitutes a “true copy” of a report in the RECORD KEEPING RULE and about where signatures are required.
MAKE A PDF OF IT PERIOD.
● report labels and continuing discussion about a possible single set of minimum reporting requirements authorizing the appraiser to decide what extent of reporting (beyond the minimum) is appropriate for each appraisal.
EVENTUALLY THE LABELS NEED TO GO AWAY
● whether the personal inspection (“I have or have not”) disclosure in the Certification is adequate or should be broader.
GIMME A BREAK. YOU 'INSPECTED' IT OR YOU DIDN'T
● whether the topic of significant appraisal assistance should be reviewed, including whether to require disclosure of significant assistance provided by non-appraisers.
THAT'S A REAL LANDMINE. ARE WE GOING TO VET THE ENGINEER PREPARING THE FOUNDATION REPORTS? THE ARCHITECT'S BLUEPRINTS AND SPECS? OUR SECRETARY INSERTING THE PICTURES FOR US?
● whether any DEFINITIONS should be added, subtracted, or modified.
MISLEADING SHOULD GO AWAY.

I grow entirely too weary of the constant changes in USPAP and the attendant unintended consequences of these changes to care anymore.

"If at first you don't succeed - try try try try try try again" - perhaps one day soon they'll get it right. oh wait - no stipends then ..............<< scratch that idea

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

I said more when I commented to ASB...

 

[djd09]

all changes should be voted upon by the independent appraisers.