When is a Review Required to meet Std 3?

[Meandering]

Please direct me to my citation stating that FAQ were part of USPAP, please. I think if you'll re-read the statement, you'll find that I said the FAQ 'might offer guidance on the issue' - which is EXACTLY the purpose of the FAQ (just in case you weren't aware).

And the purpose of "guidance" written by interested parties,
“Other Communications”
that does not establish new Standards or interpret
existing Standards and are not part of USPAP.

They illustrate the applicability of Standards in specific situations.

So unless the "other communication" was made for the "specific situation" it applies to nothing.

And ghee, Joyce's situation just isn't listed as the "specific situation" of the "other communication"
so no guidance is apparent.

.

 

[Meandering]

This is a part of the Article you just cited:
"Making factual statements about the report (for instance, “the appraiser is licensed,” “the report is signed,” “the comparables are located within a mile of the subject,” or “the comparable sold within less than 6 months”) does not constitute an appraisal review or review. Under USPAP, such activities are not subject to Standards 3 and 4, but other parts of USPAP would still apply, notably the Ethics and Competency Rules. Also, to be an appraisal review report or review report under standards, the opinion about quality must be communicated (orally or in writing) to a client. Giving feedback solely to the appraiser, such as in the case of peer review, does not constitute a review subject to standards."

That was in response to Kennedy, who originally posted the article.

Or do you have him on ignore and did not know that?

.

 

[alebrewer]

that does not establish new Standards or interpret
existing Standards and are not part of USPAP.

Again, please direct me to the post where I said that FAQ's were part of USPAP. Feel free to just cite the # of the post.

That was in response to Kennedy, who originally posted the article.

Or do you have him on ignore and did not know that?

His was the original post, but your post cited the article as well. Not sure if you know how this works? I would have thought so, given the 'elite' status.

You're picking a fight where there is none to be picked. One might say that you're 'Meandering'.

 

[Joyce Potts]

The reviewer never called me. I had one e-mail with the requirements she contended needed changed to make my report USPAP compliant. It was a single e-mail. No attachments, just in e-mail format.

 

[alebrewer]

The reviewer never called me. I had one e-mail with the requirements she contended needed changed to make my report USPAP compliant. It was a single e-mail. No attachments, just in e-mail format.

So (a) the 'reviewer' doesn't understand USPAP, but (2) I still wouldn't think an email asking for clarification would fall under S3/S4...

 

[djd09]

next time, tell them, you will make all the changes, except that they have to sign.

 

[Evincere]

So (a) the 'reviewer' doesn't understand USPAP, but (2) I still wouldn't think an email asking for clarification would fall under S3/S4...

B- Disagreed with my Cost Approach of site contributions of $55,000. And yes, I included support for my estimated vacant site value via allocation.

Well, not quite. Asking for clarification is one thing..disagreeing Outright with demonstrated support that was included in the report is ...not the same.

 

[alebrewer]

Well, not quite. Asking for clarification is one thing..disagreeing Outright with demonstrated support that was included in the report is ...not the same.

Agreed - If they opined on the OP's estimate of 'site contributions' (I'm guessing site improvements?) that possibly could venture into Standards territory. The OP's post was a bit vague, though. If they were asking for demonstrated support for the $55k in site contributions, then - no. If they were saying, your estimate of site contributions should have been $XX,zzz, then quite possibly. Not that I doubt the OP at all, but I've never seen a reviewer get that granular. It could happen, though.

 

[Evincere]

Agreed - If they opined on the OP's estimate of 'site contributions' (I'm guessing site improvements?) that possibly could venture into Standards territory. The OP's post was a bit vague, though. If they were asking for demonstrated support for the $55k in site contributions, then - no. If they were saying, your estimate of site contributions should have been $XX,zzz, then quite possibly. Not that I doubt the OP at all, but I've never seen a reviewer get that granular. It could happen, though.

Well, if the reviewer “ disagreed” the OP has the right to inquire on what basis - what data does the reviewer possess that supports the disagreement. And if the reviewer dosent agree with $55k then what does she believe it should be.

Doesnt seem to vague to me

B- Disagreed with my Cost Approach of site contributions of $55,000. And yes, I included support for my estimated vacant site value via allocation.

Its like the reviewer saying she doesn’t like $55k just because she dosent like it.

reviewer should put up or shut up

 

[alebrewer]

Well, if the reviewer “ disagreed” the OP has the right to inquire on what basis - what data does the reviewer possess that supports the disagreement. And if the reviewer dosent agree with $55k then what does she believe it should be.

Its like the reviewer saying she doesn’t like vanilla Ice Cream...just because she dosent like it.

That's what I mean - a bit vague. Don't disagree with that at all, though. Just not sure what context the 'disagreement' was.