What does it Mean to Protect the Public Trust

[glenn walker]

There is no such thing as pubic trust when the public is not considered the Client. The borrower has no control over who he/she employs to do a job for them.

 

[glenn walker]

This is what I always took public trust to mean. To add, not let the client or the borrower over extend themselves.

The problem is, the borrowers and the client for that matter, don't need you telling them what they can or cannot afford...they want the house (or to make the loan) and they want it now.

Trust is an essential part of a functioning society. Too bad distrust is off the charts right now. Especially in our government. I'm referring to both sides. I don't trust any of them.

They call themselves Public Servants LMAO

 

[Mejappz]

Only in the bizarro world of today could it possibly mean now protect those very same people that have been abusing the system since its creation

 

[Mike Ault]

"Public trust" in this scenario should mean that investment-grade securities issued by financial entities which pose systemic risk are actually "investment-grade", whose worth was substantiated by independent valuation professionals. Not some hodgepodge of valuation shortcuts & bypasses cobbled together by the same financial entities which are issuing them.

 

[George Hatch]

This is the most important sentence in that FAQ…

View attachment 77966

I would hate to be the lawyer who had to convince the public that they "should trust" how these new hybrid appraisals and alternative valuation products are being spit out of the sausage grinder. Or that the appraisers signing those are acting as "independent professionals" who are providing credible results. They are providing "fast & cheap" results, or they are being replaced. Any display of "independence" during the appraisal process, won't last very long.

As a general trope that's fine. But as far as judging the credibility of any individual assignment, we can't reasonably expect one size to fit all - to be equally "meaningful and not misleading" to all these different types of readers who will have different ideas of what that term means to them.

How can I expect to hit a credibility benchmark for a user that hasn't been identified by me, using criteria that was never disclosed to me? It can't be done. I just had an appraisal report that was prepared for one client/user that was reviewed on behalf of a different off-label user. That reviewer works for an AMC and apparently isn't even an appraiser (let alone a commercial appraiser). But that didn't stop her from running her mouth about my SOW decision being inadequate. Despite acknowledging she had no access to or any way of knowing what my client's policies are.

(BTW, I had explicitly named that user and referenced my intention of meeting all the requirements of their policy in my report in a couple spots, so that disclosure probably slowed her roll considerably)

That's an IRL example of the same TYPE or user and the same TYPE of use, but they each had different criteria. Now expand the types from just the one activity into all other activities and it becomes impossible. The more uses and users you have the more varied the expectations that you would have to meet.

 

[glenn walker]

"Public trust" in this scenario should mean that investment-grade securities issued by financial entities which pose systemic risk are actually "investment-grade", whose worth was substantiated by independent valuation professionals. Not some hodgepodge of valuation shortcuts & bypasses cobbled together by the same financial entities which are issuing them.

The risk can now be done without use of appraisers as your evaluating a portfolio not individual properties. Technology is advancing fast and desk tops, waivers and hybrids will serve the purpose for most SFR transactions .

 

[Mike Ault]

As a general trope that's fine. But as far as judging the credibility of any individual assignment, we can't reasonably expect one size to fit all - to be equally "meaningful and not misleading" to all these different types of readers who will have different ideas of what that term means to them.

How can I expect to hit a credibility benchmark for a user that hasn't been identified by me, using criteria that was never disclosed to me? It can't be done. I just had an appraisal report that was prepared for one client/user that was reviewed by an incompetent at an AMC who apparently isn't even an appraiser (let alone a commercial appraiser) but who thought she could run her mouth about my SOW decision being inadequate. Despite acknowledging she had no access to or any way of knowing what my client's policies are.

(BTW, I explicitly named that user and referenced my intention of meeting all the requirements of their policy, so that disclosure probably slowed her roll considerably)

That's an IRL example of the same TYPE or user and the same TYPE of use, but they each had different criteria. Now expand the types from just the one activity into all other activities and it becomes impossible.

Can we just agree that "in general", valuations prepared by appraisers who don't even inspect the subject property per "client guidelines" should be perceived as less credible than valuations where the scope of work was determined by the appraiser, and not the client?

 

[George Hatch]

I'll say something else about expecting reports to universally meet the needs of off-label uses and users. That's akin to the idea that "if you really loved me you'd know what I need without me telling you about it". That might work for the people we marry but we don't have those kinds of relationships with our clients and intended users. We are not required to foretell the future of that appraisal report or to read the minds of everyone who might get their hands on it.

 

[glenn walker]

Can we just agree that in "general", valuations prepared by appraisers that don't even inspect the subject property per "client guidelines" should be perceived as less credible than valuations where the scope of work was determined by the appraiser, and not the client?

No because in loan generation appraisals the appraiser is not developing the scope of work and is just following whatever agency and that lenders guidelines are requested. If you dont like it then you must decline the order.

 

[chad hampton]

Can we just agree that "in general", valuations prepared by appraisers who don't even inspect the subject property per "client guidelines" should be perceived as less credible than valuations where the scope of work was determined by the appraiser, and not the client?

You would think, but wait till you see the usual suspects come out of the shadows.