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.
How much people trust any group - whether it is scientists, engineers, accountants or appraisers, depends to a large extent on their record of publicized failures. And to be frank, it is often not just particular professions - but the entire supporting infrastructure that does or doesn't have trust.
Structures such as buildings and bridges often collapse or burn down in China and other places in Asia. Sometimes its poor engineering design, but more often construction and shoddy inspection and regulations that are the culprits. Many times both.
If you look at the failures, such as the Millennium Tower in San Francisco (which one my argue is not yet a total failure in that it hasn't toppled over, but on the other hand is a financial failure), we kind of see the same situation as with appraisal. You have requirements coming in from investors and government officials which undermine best engineering practices. Engineering companies have to bid on contracts, just like appraisers do. They wind up making compromises to get the contract. - Much the same with appraisers, regardless of how good they are.
USPAP is just a regulation - like building codes, which are part of government regulations. It cannot dictate the details of how to handle verious situations. It outlines considerations and things not to do, - in general. It is up to appraisers to use good sense - and the supporting (or undermining) infrastructure they have to deal with.
At the ground level, it really gets down to money and competency. An appraiser who bids on an order should be capable of competency and honest about whether they are able to do the appraisal according to the SOW outlined by the client for the given fee - which in turn implies time constraints. Maybe there is some going back and forth on this. - If one appraiser says he needs more time or money and another says he can do it no problem, the "other" will likely get the job, all other things being equal. It may be the first appraiser is just being honest and the second is thinking he can bend the rules one way or another and make a go of it - or in fact lacks the competence to understand he can't do the appraisal within the assigned constraints. There is a game here. For an appraiser to be in business and stay in business he does need to obtain decent paying contracts - yet he probably doesn't know who he is up against and what they are going to bid. In any case, once an appraiser is assigned a given contract for a given fee, the game changes to getting the work done, without getting into trouble and yet making a good profit. BUT, it is all a matter of risk. How much risk is the appraiser ready to take on. Risk is probability. What is the threshold? 10% probability of getting into trouble? Well then, 1 time out of 10, such an appraiser will probably get into trouble - maybe enough to put him out of business. But, this IS the reality.
Well, there are a lot of people, even smart ones, that are very short term in their thinking. Intelligence isn't everything. Character is important. But then, some clients just want a rubber stamp - and find appraisers with poor character superior.
Poor appraisal decisions often impact individuals involved at the ground level in transactions - far less than financial institutions and society (the voting public) as a whole. It is hard to see this at the ground level. You need to look at this from an institutional and national perspective that spans years and even decades. So, that's a problem - people are too myopic to see at that level ---->
And this leads us back to your post that is concerned with the so-called "public trust."
It is myopic. "Public Trust" is at best a secondary issue. The primary issue is the long term well-being of localities, counties, states and nations as a whole, including their corporations and the vast majority of their inhabitants.
