Virgina REAB and Portal Petition

[Ken B]

Mr. Brown,

Aren't you late to polish Mr. Wiley's shoes? It's amazing that somebody with so little relevant information has in excess of 2,133 posts.

It seems to me that if relevance was a requirement to post on AF, a lot of people would be at a loss for words.

 

[George W Dodd]

George,
Did you notice this comment at the top of page three of Danny's sample report?
"This is a sample report prepared for demonstration purposes. All data presented is fictional."

Again it goes to credibility. The fact that it's for demonstration purposes is irrelvant, it should still be USPAP compliant especially when the author states previous experience as a member of the ASB; the report has been signed, and for all intents and purposes represents the work product of its author.

(For those of you unfamiliar with VA laws, the Board acts in a judicial position). In a court room when a witness attests to their knowledge or expertise on a subject it opens the path to contest such knowledge or expertise. The author posted these reports on a public forum with the intent to demonstrate their specific knowlege of the USPAP and AIReady.

When the author provides, in a publically posted report, the obvious lack of compliance of the USPAP in the report so much the better.

In fact, one could argue that by publishing such a report, it lowers the expection and value of SRA designation of the AI.

 

[George W Dodd]

It seems to me that if relevance was a requirement to post on AF, a lot of people would be at a loss for words.

Relevance is always important Mr. Brown. And so is knowing the position one takes.

So which Mr. Brown of FL are you?

The Review Appraiser for First Franklin Financial Corp, or
The Appraiser for Aucamp, Dellenback & Whitney?

 

[Ken B]

Relevance is always important Mr. Brown. And so is knowing the position one takes.

So which Mr. Brown of FL are you?

The Review Appraiser for First Franklin Financial Corp, or
The Appraiser for Aucamp, Dellenback & Whitney?

Maybe, maybe not

 

[Rich Heyn]

Again it goes to credibility. The fact that it's for demonstration purposes is irrelvant, it should still be USPAP compliant especially when the author states previous experience as a member of the ASB; the report has been signed, and for all intents and purposes represents the work product of its author.

(For those of you unfamiliar with VA laws, the Board acts in a judicial position). In a court room when a witness attests to their knowledge or expertise on a subject it opens the path to contest such knowledge or expertise. The author posted these reports on a public forum with the intent to demonstrate their specific knowlege of the USPAP and AIReady.

When the author provides, in a publically posted report, the obvious lack of compliance of the USPAP in the report so much the better.

In fact, one could argue that by publishing such a report, it lowers the expection and value of SRA designation of the AI.

I'll respectfully disagree with you here, George. Outside of the obvious, there is no assignment.

 

[DWiley]

... it should still be USPAP compliant...
When the author provides, in a publically posted report, the obvious lack of compliance of the USPAP in the report so much the better.

Well, let's just examine this issue. Like most USPAP dilemmas, one should start by looking at the basics - the definitions.

There was no client. No one engaged me to create those documents.

Hence, there was no assignment. As defined in USPAP, and assignment requires an appraiser, a valuation service, and a client. Two of three ain't bad, but there was no client. As disclosed in the posted documents, the client is fictional.

Since there is no assignment, there can be no assignment results.

The documents posted are reports as defined by Webster, but they are not appraisal reports as defined in USPAP. A report is something that is transmitted to a client. No client, no transmission to a client, no report. Since there is no report, there cannot be a misleading report.

Using the terminology Mr. Dodd used at "the" meeting, the "proprietary software" used by Head Surfer is limiting. The allowable size for attached PDFs is much smaller than a typical appraisal report. So, the samples posted were stripped of a lot of data to get them to a size that could be posted. Oh my!! Since this forum could easily meet the definition of a web portal, I sure hope the VA Board does not shut it down!!
:blush:

The documents were provided to allow readers who may never have seen an AIReady document the opportunity to look at one themselves rather than relying solely on claims made by others. There are not actual appraisal reports, because posting such would violate the Confidentiality Section of the Ethics Rule.

In fact, one could argue that by publishing such a report, it lowers the expection and value of SRA designation of the AI.

Could one make the same statement about a designated appraiser standing up at a public gathering and saying things he/she knows are not true?

 

[Mr Rex]

You guys are taking some mighty low shots at one another now. Even for me. When I'm disgusted at the level of discourse, its time for a shut down of the thread. Raise the level, or I will shut it down at my own expense.

 

[Don Clark]

A sample report created for demonstration purposes needs to be USPAP compliant? Interesting.

I swore I would not post on this thread again, but believe I must based on your statement Rich.

AO 21 states that an appraiser MUST comply with USPAP when required by Law, Regulation or agreement. Line 31

An appraiser SHOULD comply with USPAP when choosing to represent one's self as an appraiser. Line 32I also believe that an appraiser must comply with USPAP in the matter of a demonstration report based on the section of this AO label 4. beginning on line 51 through line 79.

Also, I believe that line 33, page U-1 that identifies an Appraiser as well as lines 34-37. it uses the term ....client or intended users. I would argue that one need not necessarily have a client but an intended user to be required to comply with USPAP.

Now, if there is somewhere in USPAP, an FAQ, or an AO that disputes that, I would like to know where that is. And, if I am wrong I will say so.

Also, it would seem to me that if one is presenting a report to a state agency to consider, even if it is for demonstration purposesonly, and all the information is ficticious, that one would want to demonstrate the highest degree of USPAP compliance.

And, this is not about Danny Wiley, it is about what is right and what is wrong.

 

[Frederick]

You guys are taking some mighty low shots at one another now. Even for me. When I'm disgusted at the level of discourse, its time for a shut down of the thread. Raise the level, or I will shut it down at my own expense.

Ditto,

Please take a step back, grab a beer and gather your thoughts. There is a lot of experience and knowledge in the room and I am very interested in hearing this debate progress however as Mr Rex has said it has wandered off in an undesireable direction.

Please proceed

 

[Rich Heyn]

You guys are taking some mighty low shots at one another now. Even for me. When I'm disgusted at the level of discourse, its time for a shut down of the thread. Raise the level, or I will shut it down at my own expense.

Rex,

I do hope you are not referring to me in the "you guys." Please specify. I'm trying to post in a respectful manner that complies with forum rules. If you think I've failed to do so, please let me know.