Virgina REAB and Portal Petition

[Oregon Doug]

#2 - Content changes do take place, for example I like to put as much info on the actual report as possible to keep important comments off the Addendum which the typical user never reads. But after converting, these comments some times ARE MOVED off of the URAR and placed on some new Addendum page. The software then adds "See Addendum" to all the "new"blank fields that used to contain my comments.

Removing data from the URAR appraisal form and replacing it with “See Addendum” certainly represents a change to the report’s content. Even more so if that addendum has been excluded from the report sent to the client. The data is removed from the report that the client receives and that certainly is a change to content - not just format. Depending on what data has been removed, the appraiser may be at risk of violating SR 2b (viii).

Wouldn’t it be simpler to replace the data with the phrase “That’s a secret”?

Oregon Doug

 

[Fred]

Removing data from the URAR appraisal form and replacing it with “See Addendum” certainly represents a change to the report’s content. Even more so if that addendum has been excluded from the report sent to the client.

My understanding of his post is that the "see addendum" version is what is "sent" to the client, and producing a copy of the "see addendum" verion is producing is producing what was "sent" as USPAP requires.

I have no idea how you leapfrogged all the way to concluding content was "removed." He didn't post that.

 

[TJSum]

Removing data from the URAR appraisal form and replacing it with “See Addendum” certainly represents a change to the report’s content. Even more so if that addendum has been excluded from the report sent to the client. The data is removed from the report that the client receives and that certainly is a change to content - not just format. Depending on what data has been removed, the appraiser may be at risk of violating SR 2b (viii).

Wouldn’t it be simpler to replace the data with the phrase “That’s a secret”?

Oregon Doug

Very much so.

IMHO the level of importance items have determine where it should be placed on the report. Extremely important issues should be placed on the actual URAR for added emphasis. Less important, typical CYA statements are what the Addendum is for. For example, hiding a defferred maintenance comment in the middle of a third addendum page riddled with "boilerplatese", instead of having it on page 1 of the URAR, will not convey the same story. Even though the statements would be exactly the same, where it is found on the report changes the content of it.

 

[DWiley]

IMHO the level of importance items have determine where it should be placed on the report. Extremely important issues should be placed on the actual URAR for added emphasis. Less important, typical CYA statements are what the Addendum is for.

Really? How would one squeeze a few paragraphs about market conditions (number of sales in the area for the last few years, the average price, average marketing time, etc.) onto those 3 lines provided for that on the URAR? 2 point type?

STANDARD 2 does not dictate the form, format, or style of real property appraisal reports. The form, format, and style of a report are functions of the needs of intended users and appraisers. The substantive content of a report determines its compliance.

The fact that intended users are listed first is not an accident.

 

[DWiley]

Even more so if that addendum has been excluded from the report sent to the client.

You seem to be hung up on the belief that conversion happens in cyberspace. The conversion into AIReady happens on the appraiser's computer. The appraiser can (and should) view it before submitting.

I have never had an AIReady conversion result in the removal of text from a report. I have converted reports into PDF and forgotten to include the addendum in the list of pages to print. My fault. Just as not previewing an AIReady report before sending it would be my fault.

 

[peturner]

Exactly the point...and when did we find out (as a general appraisal public) that WE are the ones doing the conversion. Seems mighty simple to me. As I have stated earlier...this conversation has evolved from..."oh no we dont do that" to the next level that said "oh, well, it's ok for us to do that", to " this is what the lender/client demands" to now "the appraiser actually does the conversion" so our hands are clean.
USPAP stands for Uniform Standards of Professional APPRAISAL Practice. Unless I am totally wrong. It DOES not stand for Uniform Standards of Professional APPEASAL Practice.
These standards were promulgated to outline to Appraisers what they were/are supposed to do to produce a defensible and supportable opinion of value. These standards were also adopted as standards so that EACH and EVERY user of appraisers' services knew what to reasonably expect from the appraiser in terms of performance, honesty, competency and objectivity.
I have seen over and over again within this thread and others "well this is what the client demands". Please tell me what other professional occupational standards let the client dicate policy other than ours. The Standards are there for many reasons....to make the client happy or to make the client more money does beg the question, IMHO. I know of no instance....though I am sure many will correct me on this......where when the client...no matter if it is a doctor-patient, or lawyer-client relationship, when the client dictates conditions..rules, etc. that the end product works out correctly.
Let us not forget that lenders WANT absolutely NO appraisals...it is just human nature and business nature to want to have as little oversight as possible. And much of this elimination has been achieved....and look where we are now.
Some have said "unintended consequences" over and again. Did we intend for thousands of homeowners to be upside down? Did we intend for major financial institutions to fail...with perhaps more on the way.
No I didnt think so. The "INTENDED CONSEQUENCES" of USPAP were to help guard against things that ocurred during and after the S&L crisis and to outline professional, expected standards relevant to the appraiser. Now it seems the document is being manipulated and convoluted to tilt it to the favor of the end users and to have them or their representatives question our gall to look at the results. I am not sure that is intended at all. But if we are to be a profession, we must at least question the document itself, its intent, its application, and its relevancy to the overall welfare of the public.....not JUST the special interest groups. Fair and OBJECTIVE analysis.

 

[DWiley]

Exactly the point...and when did we find out (as a general appraisal public) that WE are the ones doing the conversion.

I can't speak for everyone, but I personally found out when I read the directions and used the program. I think that was 1998 or 1999. My software automatically opens a preview screen when an AIReady file is created. Carny indicated that his software did the same thing. - "I didn't know it worked that way," just isn't a valid excuse.

Fair and OBJECTIVE analysis.

Is it "fair and objective" to place a person who has filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against a company in charge of the "fact finding" committee investigating that company? Or is that ignoring the most fundamental principle in USPAP?

 

[Fred]

I can't speak for everyone, but I personally found out when I read the directions and used the program. I think that [was in] 1998 or 1999.

RTFM

......

 

[Fred]

Very much so.

IMHO the level of importance items have determine where it should be placed on the report.

Which are the really important pages? My standard narrative template contains a critical items on page 5. Is that right or should I move them?

Extremely important issues should be placed on the actual URAR for added emphasis. Less important, typical CYA statements are what the Addendum is for.

Wow, I am really screwing up, big time. I often refer to those "CYA" statements as disclosure of extraordinary assumptions, hypothetical conditions or other key assignment conditions and have them bolded or bulleted on page 1 and discussed in detail around page 5 - because they the most affect on the meaningfulness and credibility of the assignent results, whose develepment is revealed on the subsequent pages. It is interesting that we don't even agree on what parts of the report are most important.

FWIW, I stopped using the label "addenda." I developed a concern that someone might employ the type of logic that you are employing now, and they might suggest I had given something short shrift because it was "buried" in an "addendum." Also, after hearing appraisers complain for years that no one reads anything under the label "addenda," avoiding that label seemed a natural thing to do if you wanted them to read the report instead of calling you back with more questions.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

FWIW, I stopped using the label "addenda." I developed a concern that someone might employ the type of logic that you are employing now, and they might suggest I had given something short shrift because it was "buried" in an "addendum." Also, after hearing appraisers complain for years that no one reads anything under the label "addenda," avoiding that label seemed a natural thing to do if you wanted them to read the report instead of calling you back with more questions.

Steven, do you incorporate all the things that would typically be found in the addenda now into the body of your report? Are they throughout the report or are they at the end and merely not labled as an addenda?