What does it Mean to Protect the Public Trust

[alebrewer]

We all know the phrase - it's the first sentence of the Preamble to USPAP. I've long been told that it is appraisers' responsibility to uphold the public trust. That's not what the document says, though... it says the purpose of USPAP is to promote public trust. Slight difference IMO... nonetheless, I've even been known to preach the mantra that appraisers uphold public trust by providing credible appraisal services. After much thought, however, I'm not sure we do. Who is 'public' anyway? Users of our services? Public in general? Well, public in general barely know what an appraisal is - much less what USPAP is, so it can't be them. What about users of our services? Is that 'the public'? In my mind it has to be - which means we are (in theory), through adherence to USPAP, maintaining the trust of the fat cats who have stock in/or own banks, CU's, etc., and the overlords at F/F/FHA/VA. But..... it should be obvious to even the casual observer that even they don't trust us. It is no longer sufficient to make a statement or an opinion in relation to our expertise - that statement or opinion (regardless of how obvious it may be - will be questioned and documentation will be required to verify said statement(s). So, then, our services - even when rendered in a manner that is meaningful and not misleading (by some) - are not trusted. Which begs the question: Why is that? Why don't the users of our services trust our opinions and conclusions? IMO - because many of us either aren't capable of, or fail to, provide services in a manner that is meaningful and not misleading. Can that perception be changed? I'm afraid not at this point in the game.

 

[ucbruin]

 

[Dublin ohio]

Which begs the question: Why is that? Why don't the users of our services trust our opinions and conclusions? IMO - because many of us either aren't capable of, or fail to, provide services in a manner that is meaningful and not misleading. Can that perception be changed? I'm afraid not at this point in the game.

IMHO. It is difficult to convince anybody that you are concerned about the "public trust". When there are so many much louder outside forces pointing the finger and saying "bad appraiser".

 

[ucbruin]

Don't place blame at the feet of outside forces....

Lawyers **** it up for lawyers....
Used car salesmen **** it up for used car salesmen....
Contractors **** it up for contractors....

 

[alebrewer]

I don't disagree with that. My point was not to lay blame, but rather to (hopefully) present a compelling argument for why that sentence has no place in our current environment.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Don't ask too many questions or the PTB will silence you. You don't need to go any further than the internet to find people questioning the appraisal process and appraisers. Typical in Reddit or many other places. "Do appraisers ever come in above the contract price?" "Why is the contract price not Market Value?" "What can I do about a low appraisal?" "What is the adjustment for a [item]?"

public in general barely know what an appraisal is - much less what USPAP

Well neither do judges. And most could care less. They are assessing your credibility against due diligence, not USPAP. I've never heard a judge even mention USPAP. I recall all too well the excitement of the newly hatched appraisers when licensing was imposed, who claimed we would now be considered "professionals" and treated with respect of our opinion and not questioned. Our word would be law and we'd be paid appropriately a professional fee. Well, so much for that.

The document we were supposed to stand on and have it defend US is now turned against us in typical lawyerese fashion. As George C Scott said
go to 2:20

 

[chad hampton]

Maybe public means public?

No way does public mean users. Users get what they pay for, know what they are getting, and don't need protection. The people who always come to bail out the crooks are who USPAP should be protecting.

But it wouldn't surprise me if the AMC's dont start flying their chiefs around pushing the idea that public trust means make sure the users get what they want. At this point, nothing would surprise me.

 

[alebrewer]

Maybe public means public?

No way does public mean users. Users get what they pay for, know what they are getting, and don't need protection. The people who always come to bail out the crooks are who USPAP should be protecting.

But it wouldn't surprise me if the AMC's dont start flying their chiefs around pushing the idea that public trust means make sure the users get what they want. At this point, nothing would surprise me.

I don't disagree that users don't need 'protection', but it's the users who even understand what it is we do, and thus are equipped to make decisions whether to trust or not. The public don't even know what USPAP is...

As to your second point, nothing would surprise me about our industry at this point either.

 

[DWiley]

Who is 'public' anyway? Users of our services? Public in general?

FAQ 9

 

[CGinMN]

I've long been told that it is appraisers' responsibility to uphold the public trust. That's not what the document says, though...

Pretty sure it's in the Ethics Rule.

Who is 'public' anyway?

They just amended USPAP Ethics Rule to include a non-discrimination section, even though what they added was never acceptable and appraisers and users knew that. They added the language to clarify it for non-appraisers and non-users. So I think public is used in the broadest sense.