What does it Mean to Protect the Public Trust

[George Hatch]

It was a HORRIBLE choice of words. That's not our job. I don't even know who the heck public is.

The term is "promote the public trust in appraising". Not some macro societal well being beyond the role appraisers already fill. We add transparency to the transaction, which that transparency takes most of the guesswork out of the value-portion of the decision making.

I've been telling appraisers for years that our primary stock in trade is not the signature at the bottom of a 1004, but rather our assertions for impartiality and objectivity. We sell our credibility. That's the only attribute that makes the technical competency marketable.

Put it this way - when an appraiser screws up that failure becomes known to the client and users. From there word gets around, first to their peers and then to their friends and family and everywhere else. In addition to that failure undermining the appraiser's individual reputation it also adds a log onto the perceptions about the profession as a whole.

It pains me to see or hear about bad work or bad appraisers because those examples undermine the marketability of the services I sell even though I had nothing to do with those situations. Every time someone makes a crack about appraisals being worthless or you can get 10 different number from 10 different appraisers that cuts into our collective REL. If appraisers were doing better with our work we wouldn't be competing directly with the AVMs to the extent we are. We've done that much to ourselves.

That's why individual performance should not be trivialized, because these different examples accrue to influence the publics perceptions of our credibility. The good examples add to our halo and the bad examples cut into that halo; and it doesn't take very many of the latter to offset the majority of the former.

Make no mistake - we NEED the public's confidence and trust in what we do, otherwise the choice goes to the machine. Or the BPO.

 

[alebrewer]

The term is "promote the public trust in appraising". Not some macro societal well being beyond the role appraisers already fill. We add transparency to the transaction, which that transparency takes most of the guesswork out of the value-portion of the decision making.

I've been telling appraisers for years that our primary stock in trade is not the signature at the bottom of a 1004, but rather our assertions for impartiality and objectivity. We sell our credibility. That's the only attribute that makes the technical competency marketable.

Put it this way - when an appraiser screws up that failure becomes known to the client and users. From there word gets around, first to their peers and then to their friends and family and everywhere else. In addition to that failure undermining the appraiser's individual reputation it also adds a log onto the perceptions about the profession as a whole.

It pains me to see or hear about bad work or bad appraisers because those examples undermine the marketability of the services I sell even though I had nothing to do with those situations. Every time someone makes a crack about appraisals being worthless or you can get 10 different number from 10 different appraisers that cuts into our collective REL. If appraisers were doing better with our work we wouldn't be competing directly with the AVMs to the extent we are. We've done that much to ourselves.

That's why individual performance should not be trivialized, because these different examples accrue to influence the publics perceptions of our credibility. The good examples add to our halo and the bad examples cut into that halo; and it doesn't take very many of the latter to offset the majority of the former.

Make no mistake - we NEED the public's confidence and trust in what we do, otherwise the choice goes to the machine. Or the BPO.

Don't disagree with anything you just said. In fact, you're supporting my position as well, which is: "By performing services competently, appraisers DO promote and protect the public trust." That, however, is where they should have stopped IMO. That yoke is not the appraisers' to bear - it's TAF's burden to bear (again, IMO).

That said, the entire discussion is entertaining, but pedantic. The trust ship sailed in about 2008. Since then, there has been no trust - as evidenced by the massive amount of $ thrown at appraisal verification solutions (like CU).

 

[George Hatch]

I think you have summarized the theme perfectly when you said "By performing services competently (and ethically), appraisers DO promote and protect the public trust." except that it wouldn't make any sense to word in that way in our standards. We need to meet those standards before we can assert that we have done right by them and that they have had the desired effect.

Those are the two big rules in our standards, ethics and competency. Everything else is basically an elaboration on those two.

 

[djd09]

Promulgating the public trust in appraising is not some unobtainium goal. Each and every appraiser is capable of meeting that expectation. It mostly hinges on appraisers simply conducting themselves in an honest manner. Say what you do, do what you say. After that it all comes down to sticking to the fundamentals of the appraisal process.

It just ain't that deep.

we agree...do not cheat, lie, or steal, the unethical stakeholders hate competition

 

[George Hatch]

What they do is wholly beyond our influence or control. We have enough problems just trying to manage our own conduct.

 

[djd09]

What they do is wholly beyond our influence or control. We have enough problems just trying to manage our own conduct.

yep leave the foxes to guard the hen house, and you will eat chicken every time...go gaslight the unknowing

 

[Mejappz]

I think you have summarized the theme perfectly when you said "By performing services competently (and ethically), appraisers DO promote and protect the public trust." except that it wouldn't make any sense to word in that way in our standards. We need to meet those standards before we can assert that we have done right by them and that they have had the desired effect.

Those are the two big rules in our standards, ethics and competency. Everything else is basically an elaboration on those two.

I would like some of what you are smoking, LOL. You have contorted yourself into a pretzel in this thread because you don't want to admit that most appraisals going to the GSEs are not USPAP compliant. Where Is DW? I want to get his and Freddie's take on if it's OK to skip the market analysis section of an appraisal for expediency reasons.

 

[George Hatch]

I never said most appraisals going to Fannie/Freddie are USPAP compliant. That allegation is a blatantly dishonest strawman of your own making, which you should refrain from making such allegations in bad faith. I don't know what the percentages are. What I have been saying is that the lenders and the GSEs *demonstrate* what they will and won't accept by what they do and don't accept. Which I shouldn't even need to reiterate given the point due to it being self-evident.

If a lender accepts and uses a substandard appraisal then whose responsibility is it for their end of that particular decision? Because the party making that decision isn't the state appraisal board and its not TAF and that decision didn't occur because of anything that's required in USPAP. Or in the banking regs, for that matter.

I'm sorry if your 1004s aren't worth any more to these lenders than what the low cost providers charge. But that's squarely on the lenders. IRL, any one of your clients could choose to put you at the top of their list, flood you with their assignments and pay you your fee. If they wanted to. If they valued your work that highly. If they thought your report was worth it to them.

 

[Mejappz]

I never said most appraisals going to Fannie/Freddie are USPAP compliant. That allegation is a blatantly dishonest strawman of your own making, which you should refrain from making such allegations in bad faith. I don't know what the percentages are. What I have been saying is that the lenders and the GSEs *demonstrate* what they will and won't accept by what they do and don't accept. Which I shouldn't even need to reiterate given the point due to it being self-evident.

If a lender accepts and uses a substandard appraisal then whose responsibility is it for their end of that particular decision? Because the party making that decision isn't the state appraisal board and its not TAF and that decision didn't occur because of anything that's required in USPAP. Or in the banking regs, for that matter.

I'm sorry if your 1004s aren't worth any more to these lenders than what the low cost providers charge. But that's squarely on the lenders. IRL, any one of your clients could choose to put you at the top of their list, flood you with their assignments and pay you your fee. If they wanted to. If they valued your work that highly. If they thought your report was worth it to them.

Lol Nice try at diversion. Let me try and ask you a simple question. No, it's not a trick question; if an appraiser checks in a 1004 that the market is stable when media reports state the market is experiencing record-high appreciation of 20-25%, is that misleading the client? A simple yes or no will suffice.

 

[George Hatch]

Yes. (assuming that the media report is both accurate and relevant to this particular market segment)

What do I win? Because if what you're complaining about is the fact that appraisers are getting away with not adhering to the requirements of their assignments that failure is on the individual appraiser for making those errors and omissions, and on the lenders for consistently accepting and using those reports despite knowing they're sloppy. It's not on the content of those standards, nor on TAF for promulgating those standards..

The existence of a speed limit doesn't automatically and by its mere existence prevent any driver -let alone all drivers - from exceeding that speed limit. The failure is at the adherence (by the individual) and/or enforcement (by the user and the govt) of those requirements, not in the composition or enactment of those requirements. For the appraisals you're complaining about it would be more fair to allege that your state isn't adequately enforcing their rules and regs on their licensees. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and all.

Duh