USPAP actually require appraiser to inspect subject?

[DMZwerg]

In the context of the question, the report CAN be USPAP compliant. USPAP does not require any property be physically inspected. It only requires that the appraiser have adequate information about the property to report credible conclusions about the property.

<snip>

And I don't even have a math degree. I've just got an analytical mind and a bit of common sense.

That assumes we were given the entire CONTEXT surrounding the question. If we were the most correct answer is "yes", if we weren't then things are not so black and white.

Example: "Here we deal with mortgage transactions on Fannie Mae forms such as the 1004. If the appraiser has not inspected the subject property nor the comparables, and states precisely that in the appraisal report, can that situation be in compliance with USPAP?"

Now, given additional context is the only possible answer the same?
Well, the answer then depends on how you answer it, such as: "USPAP does not require inspection ... but Fannie Mae form 1004 does and the SOW statement ..."

So heck yeah I am reading more into it because the OP did not state "The head appraiser asked ..." nor any other relative context information. My point is that the correct answer can vary based on the context in which the question was asked.

 

[residentialguy]

I read the question, but am pointing out that we have insufficient context.

No we don't. The question (can that situation be in compliance with USPAP?") was one of possibility.

The only answer to this is Yes, it is possible.


But if you are talking about the title, then you are correct. It depends.

 

[DMZwerg]

Who is on first?

For clarification...my answer was to the question...does USPAP require an inspection. No.

Can a report be USPAP compliant with out an inspection? Yes

The other Mike, in my opinion, has the most correct answer:

"If the appraiser has not inspected the subject property nor the comparables, and states precisely that in the appraisal report, can that situation be in compliance with USPAP?" Anyone know the answer?


Yes; contingent upon Scope of Work Rule Compliance including Disclosure Obligation

see USPAP 2008 Pages U12 & U-13

"Yes; contingent upon ..."

So even just answering the question with an absolute "Yes" is not entirely correct. Content & context of the answer (and of the question) is also important.

Not just "content" (aka, "wording") but "context" (as in what all was surrounding the question).

 

[Ken B]

There was nothing "surrounding" the question except perhaps imaginary conditions superimposed by the reader. Imagine that if you can.

Given a choice of "Yes" or "No", the most correct answer to the question (not the title) is "Yes."

 

[residentialguy]

So even just answering the question with an absolute "Yes" is not entirely correct.

Yes it is. They asked if it was possible, not in what situation would it be possible. To explain how it may be possible doesn't make your Yes answer any more correct.


Can a cheetah run faster then a human. Yes

Saying yes, if it is breathing and has all four legs attached doesn't make the answer more correct.

 

[DMZwerg]

In regards to the following posts:

The question again was

"If the appraiser has not inspected the subject property nor the comparables, and states precisely that in the appraisal report, can that situation be in compliance with USPAP?"

There is only one correct answer to the question as presented.


Reading may be Fundamental, but COMPREHENSION is severely lacking!

Actually there are multiple correct answers and context of the answer is everything. How one words one's answer is as important as the context surrounding the question, possibly even more so.

No we don't. The question (can that situation be in compliance with USPAP?") was one of possibility.

The only answer to this is Yes, it is possible.


But if you are talking about the title, then you are correct. It depends.

You aren't getting it ... what is the CONTEXT of your "yes"?
Is DISCLOSING sufficient or do other things also play an important part such as identifying in SOW "the extent to which tangible property is to be inspected".

The question again:

"If the appraiser has not inspected the subject property nor the comparables, and states precisely that in the appraisal report,can that situation be in compliance with USPAP?"
​

So, stating it is the report "states precisely that" is not necessarily sufficient. The answer could as well be "No, because unless the statement indentifying the extent of inspection is defined in the SOW then it is not sufficient and would be in violation of USPAP" or even "It depends based on where the statement of the extent of inspection is located" could as well be correct answers and thus I stand by my statement that only Mike Kennedy has sufficiently answered the question by providing sufficient additional context for his answer.


Does comprehension start to come?

 

[Ken B]

Comprehend this: you are adding parameters and making assumptions that do not exist in the question. By changing the nature of the question, you change the appropriate response. The very fact that the OP attempted to qualify the question and the interviewer refused to provide that qualification indicates that there were to be no assumptions or additional information to be consider in the response.

You can argue yourself blue in the face about the subject, but that does not change the fact that the simple question has a simple answer. That answer is "yes."

I'm out.

 

[DMZwerg]

There was nothing "surrounding" the question except perhaps imaginary conditions superimposed by the reader. Imagine that if you can.

Given a choice of "Yes" or "No", the most correct answer to the question (not the title) is "Yes."

How to you conclude that the only possible answers are "yes" and "no"?
By turning the context and examining the phrasing precisely in different contexts both simple answers of "Yes" and "No" can be shown to be incorrect.

Can it be done? "Yes", so "No is incorrect if one references SOW Rule on that extent of inspection can be defined by the appraiser.

Is just stating it sufficient? "No", so "Yes" is incorrect if one references SOW Rule and the extent of inspection is not declared in the SOW because the exact location of the statement can be important.

So, both simple "Yes" and "No" answers may well be incorrect based on the context under which the question is asked and what exactly the person asking the question is looking for. Refer back to your USPAP test and look how the answers are worded. They all include additional text stating exactly the context in which the answer is correct.

I am glad to have seen this question come up as it has brought me to think more in terms of context when dealing with USPAP questions, both the context of the question and the context of the answer. Thank you Mike Kennedy!

 

[Michigan CG]

"If the appraiser has not inspected the subject property nor the comparables, and states precisely that in the appraisal report, can that situation be in compliance with USPAP?"

There is the original question posed to the person being interviewed.

The simple answer to the question is YES.

However it could be construed as a trick question if we limit the question to the mindset of residential 1004 and 2055 thinking folks then it would be a violation of USPAP in that the certifications signed state that the appraiser did inspect and those forms specifically state the certifications cannot be changed or altered.

 

[Calvin the Airedale]

I be interested in knowing how the OP answered the question.

There are a number ways to answer if one doesn't know the answer.

Given what most HR people know about appraisers, the best way to answer (assuming one didn't know) would've been to spill your coffee on the interviewer's desk and apologize profusely while grabbing any papers off the desk to help wipe up the spill.

This technique would firmly establish you as a klutz, which is closely aligned (and often confused) with a geek. Most HR people believe that appraisers are geeks, ergo your actions would fulfill their preconceived notions thus type casting you as a typical appraiser.