USPAP

[Farm Gal]

Originally posted by Steven Santora@Aug 1 2003, 09:14 AM
Doug,
FWIW, all that stuff and the rationale behind it were exposed in February and is available on the AF web.

Steve:

They were 'exposed for commentary' prior to 'adoption'
The difference is that I believe that they are now 'adopted' as well as exposed. bbbut I could be wrong: hence my careful phrasing. It is my understanding that no additional changes will be made prior to 'official' publication.

I am certain that the change to AO-3 is now officially 'official' given the officialese print on the bottom of the document I have in hand that SAYS so. The other 3 (new) AO's do not cite a specific 'adoption date' but it is my understanding that they are now official. Anyone have a clue about the unexposed AO24? officially?

The difference is that that in prior years we were lucky to find about any changes in Feb or March (or later ) as we finally plowed through the fine print in the new versions with the OLD version in hand to compare... and it never got slow enough in the last few years for me to spend time doing that, hence reliance on this very good source of the forum to catch 'hot' changes. :usa:

 

[Austin]

This is a very interesting thread that will probably survive in the achieves for years to come so I wanted to insert a related thread reference that appeared along the same subject lines. Right after this thread died a new thread appeared concerning the fact that the “Glossary” in USPAP was also not part of USPAP and that it too was fingered for removal. As this particular thread has pointed out, there is much confusion regarding what USPAP consists of and how the different sections apply, relate to each other, and what they mean even among leaders on the ASB.
The suggested solution in the second thread was to put the AO’s and The Glossary in a separate volume. To me that is like saying the following: “We have too many Biblically based religious factions in this country creating to much acrimony, so to solve this problem and return theological uniformity we will take the Bible and put the Old Testament in one volume and the New Testament in a second volume and the problem will be solved.”
In my view, that ain’t going to solve the problem. As long as you have people that make up their mind what they want to do or don’t really care what the Bible means so they interpret the Bible to justify their actions, or just go along with whatever it takes to be part of the group, it would not matter if each of the 66 books were a separate volume. Just read some of the posts in this thread. It has been clearly established that the AO’s are not part of USPAP and do not create rules, standards, or interpret USPAP because it says so right at the top of the AO’s in the USPAP book. But at the same time, we have knowledgable posters that have read this thread and are talking about when the new AO’s take effect and using the AO’s as addendums to standard 2, and ASB interpretations of the USPAP document. This is not a USPAP problem, this is a people problem, the problem being this attitude: “I just want to make a living. Whatever I have to put in the darn appraisals and whatever the authorities tell me to do I will do it. Whatever the hell it takes to keep the USPAP police off my back, then so be it.” This puts the problem right into the lap of the authorities that be. We all know what the problem is, so lets see some leadership to clear the waters of confusion. How about starting with suspending all USPAP state board enforce actions until such a time as we have some uniform understanding of what this thing means and better gauge when and how it applies in certain situations. You can’t enforce morality with rules and standards because you can’t define morality in a free society. Different gods for different folks, nor can you define ethics, confidentiality nuances, etc., for the same reason, different gods for different folks. One man’s ethical dilemma is another mans meal ticket being the inevitable result. If we accept any number of gods, who can say this is wrong and act on it?

 

[Karl]

A-MEN Austin

 

[Farm Gal]

1. State Appraisal Board employee:

Oh. Well, we just don't understand that USPAP stuff

2. Office consists of two people.

3.The above statement was followed by the sound of a forehead beating on door frame.
Actual sound representation: Thud-thud-thud-thud-thud.

4. I know, I was there.
(The bruises faded in about a week~ no permemant scars)

Your point is well made Austin...
WE DO need a new system...
I just do not know what that would be

No bible nor spoken word by ANY holy man or wise woman in history has prevented the occasional societal train wreck, when greed and averice overtakes generosity and the desire for the 'greater good'.

Do they continue to pay me, I will continue to speak/write my piece.
You cannot lead those who will not listen.

 

[jeff samolinski]

Lee Ann

Amen to that last line.

 

[Fred]

Austin posted

The suggested solution in the second thread was to put the AO’s and The Glossary in a separate volume. To me that is like saying the following: “We have too many Biblically based religious factions in this country creating to much acrimony, so to solve this problem and return theological uniformity we will take the Bible and put the Old Testament in one volume and the New Testament in a second volume and the problem will be solved.”

First off, the idea of physically separating the Standards from the Advisory Opinions is not a suggested “solution,” but a suggested improvement.

Next, not that I follow your analogy or have any expertise in the Bible, but I’d would lift from that there are only ten Commandments that fill a half-page and there are only two standard parameters per assignment (developing and communicating). So it would be my naïve understanding that one can live life not killing, not stealing and not bearing false witness, etc. and get to heaven without ever reading those parts of the testaments that might be, say, ‘advisory opinions.’ Similarly one can follow the two commandments of USPAP of 1) correctly employ recognized methods with diligence and care and 2) communicate with sufficient information and without misleading – and be just as pure. The ‘catch’ when it comes to the commandments is that you would actually have to know what killing and bearing false witness are to avoid doing it. In USPAP you would have to actually know what a correct method is and what misleading is

This brings us right to your statement
This is not a USPAP problem, this is a people problem, the problem being this attitude: “I just want to make a living.
Yes, and a related is component is whether just wanting to make a living means doing
1) competent-ethical work or
2) number-hitting or
3) non compos mentis work.
The people who claim the USPAP is an unintelligible mess fall into all three of those categories. IMHO, if you place yourself in the first category then you have some obligation that when you go public to blast the ASB or USPAP, you should have a “solution”, so that you are offering constructive criticism. Any moron can belly-ache.

Austin, I am surprised that someone of your advanced views would not support separating the wheat from the chaff. (And switiching metaphors) As the guy, who is always talking about muddying the waters, I would think you would be delighted to get the “mud” of “interpretation” away from the simple purity of the standards.

 

[Austin]

Steven:
Alas, we finally found something we can agree on; in your own words:

not that I follow your analogy or have any expertise in the Bible.

I couldn’t agree more, you have no expertise in the Bible. Your assumption that the 10 commandments constitute the substance of the Bible completely ignoring the following 65 books. All non-binding AO opinions that neither establishes new rules or standards nor interprets the 10 commandments. No reference to you personally with this statement, but one of those other 65 books teaches to never cast your pearls before swine, which is a teaching I bring up because it is never a good idea to bring religion or matters of faith into a debate unless it is a theological discussion. But having said that, can you have a debate about ethics and related confidentiality, abeyance to rules and standards, etc., without an implication of character traits in the people to whom the rules and standards apply? I think not. What are character and integrity but certain basic personal values and standards that we either possesses and adhere to exhibiting integrity by practicing what we preach or we don’t? With no universally acepted reference point in the image of a universal deity that personifies the value system, how would one know?

I say the above to set the stage for replying to your above points, one at the time:

1. Your solutions versus improvements statement. A play on words. You can’t have a solution without it being an improvement and you can’t have an improvement without it being a solution to some degree. I don’t think there can be a solution or improvement given the nature of the document and the situation it addresses. That is why I suggested that enforcement of USPAP by state appraisal boards be immediately terminated because looking at enforcement from a legal point of view the entire process is a travesty of justice. As this thread makes abundantly clear, at best the entire system is arbitrary and capricious. That is my first suggested solution.

2. Then you address the concepts of recognized methods and the act of misleading. Interesting points. Appraisal practices & methods recognized by whom and who is being misled? If the so called recognized methods are mathematically not correct and in conflict with the underlying recognized theory, would you not say the profession is being mislead by the enforcers of this vague USPAP document? Read standard 1-1A recently? It is my view as you very well know that the present accepted method of doing the sales comparison approach is misleading because it does not either recognized or reflects the underlying value influencing forces that I know exists. You and I spent the better part of last week on your very grim views of the cost approach, and so how in good conscience can you sit by and allow such a misleading method exist in your chosen profession without offering solutions? Between the two of us, that only leaves one viable approach and that approach does not apply in the vast majority of residential appraising. To be misled is a totally subjective and very personal dilemma that personifies arbitrariness and capriciousness. I guess it is better to me misled than to not be led at all. Ask any Democratic and he will tell you that.

3. You say I fall into one of 3 categories, which you don’t define, the one apparently being a chronic bellyacher that never offers any solutions to the problem. I think I have answered that question in this thread directly and by implication, but for your edification I will do so again.

First solution: Immediately stop enforcement of this USPAP document because doing so has proven to be a travesty of justice for reasons already stated. USPAP is a very vague value based ideal for the most part and we have to many value systems floating around in this country the principal one of which adhere to the tenet that “What is profitable is godly, and what is unprofitable is ungodly.” That is neither in the Old or New Testament by the way. That is one of those self-serving Biblical interpretations I referenced previously. No solution or improvement is possible I am afraid. Selfishness and greed are the roots of all-evil. Any solutions to improve that dilemma?

Second: USPAP being an ideal, it should be treated as such. It is an ideal that all conscientious appraisers should strive to emulate and incorporate into their professional development and by so doing and using UAPAP as a standard to eventually be conformed to its likeness as a model of the profession. The only way to enforce it is by peer review and an ideal professional role model that the document should personify. You don’t chop a person’s hands off for failing to meet the standard; you assume a mentor role and guide those below you in the right direction as you are guided by those from above in knowledge and experience. This doesn’t mean you ignore criminal actions like making up comps, creative data interpretation like cherry picking, or a myriad of other gross violations of basic legal standards.

Strangely, one of the best solutions I have heard that pretty much sums up my suggested solutions is the one you have stated a number of times; tell the truth and don’t mislead. I would add an appendix to that: Strive to emulate the model of perfection but don’t condemn individual appraisers to death for having a splinter in their eye especially since the powers that be have a plank in their eye. Forgive their indiscretions and let them begin anew and eventually they will be conformed to the likeness of the perfect model if that be their goal and desire. If a person does not have the correct goal & model to emulate, then no rule or standard can remedy that.

 

[George Hatch]

The Standards vs. the AOs.

It's not as if they are contradictory in nature. The Standards are written to apply to all appraisal practice, and therefore must be very generic in scope. The AO's are addressed to much more narrow circumstances. The AOs could never have been made binding for everything unless they were so comprehensive in scope and nature that they could address everything, at which point the collective rules of engagement would look like the Tax Code and require just as many volumes. As it is now, the AO's are advisory in nature because the ASB wisely recognizes that there are so many different appraisal situations that the one-specific-method advocated for one problem may not work that well for a different problem. Exceptions to the rules, so to speak. You can only make binding that which uniformly applies every single time in every single circumstance.

In appraisal practice, an appraiser is compelled to observe the Standards Rules at all times for all situations. The AOs, being much more specific, are written as advisory in nature yet were always intended to represent the mainstream of appraisal practice. In other words, if an appraiser is conducting their business within the scope of the AOs as well as the Standards, they have the whole weight of the mainstream of their peers behind them and can point to that as a legitimate justification for their practices. At whatever point an appraiser decides to go a different direction than recommended by an AO, they are on their own and have placed themself in a position where they would actually have to demonstrate why their method is 'better' than that recommended by their peers.

I guess it all comes down to this. If you are explaining and justifying your methods in court, are you going to be more comfortable relying on an AO that lays out a specific course of action for that specific situation, or are you going to be more comfortable trying to blaze our own trail and stand alone in disagreement with your peers? For most appraisers, I think it's going to be a lot easier, and much more comfortable when dealing with a specific situation that was addressed by an AO, to just go with that advice and use the recommended solution.

So no, the AO's are not now nor have they ever been binding requirements, applicable to every situation. But they have always been intended to be representative of the mainstream solutions to those specific situations to which they apply. The separation of the AOs and other non-binding communications from the ASB from the USPAP itself is intended to further highlight what actually is and is not binding as a minimum standard of conduct on all assignments. That is not at all the same thing as saying that the AOs, the Glossary, the FAQs, etc., are worthless and of no concern to appraisers. We would ignore this other information at our own peril and to our detriment.

How the state boards are interpreting the USPAP and their own appraisal regulations is a very relevant concern, but it is a completely different subject and cannot be directly addressed by The Appraisal Foundation. We need to take that up with the state boards. IMO, the optimum result would be a uniform code of appraisal regulatory enforcement, applicable everywhere in the nation, that equals our USPAP in scope and intent. Ya gotta use the right tool for the job.

 

[Fred]

Austin,
I rest my case. You ARE confusing the matter. The ASB makes much more sense than you do. Sorry, I could not resist.

You can either take the advice of an objective reader or ignore it. Your choice. But, in truth Austin, your post has more Straw Man arguments than there are coffee beans in Columbia. I doubt you are even slightly aware of the degree to which you start each argument by first distorting the daylights out of what someone else said or what some imaginary person supposedly said.

Example, distorting the comments of a person,
“Your assumption that the 10 commandments constitute the substance of the Bible completely ignoring the following 65 books.”
Fact is, I made no such assumption. That is just your misinterpretation and misrepresentation And since you wouldn’t believe me, I could find “experts” to dispute your assertion that there a “65 books”

Example, distorting the comments of imaginary people
"Second: USPAP being an ideal,"
Says who? My book only says “uniform standards.” Since, you were ranting about parts of SR 1-1, you might have stumbled across the phrase, “Perfection is impossible to attain.” See what I mean? YOU made up "ideal" .

You ask, "Any solutions to improve that dilemma?"
Based on the paragraph that preceded the question, the solution I would suggest includes a long course of counseling and treatment at my clinic to work out your ‘issues.’

Steve Santora,
“USPAP Therapist”

 

[Jo Ann Meyer Stratton]

George: Standards vs AOs

Excellent! You expressed very well what I have been thinking and just couldn't put it in the right words!

Thank You!