Where Do You Think "geographic Competency" Begins And Ends?

[George Hatch]

I just don't think the direction that you guys are trying to go is a improvement. Honestly, the impression I get by who the people are with certain views makes me feel like a lot of appraisal politics beings played.

It's the users' preferences that are changing. What they think is and isn't acceptable for their usage. Appraisers are responding to the situation, not creating it.

Contrary to the rap many appraisers put on USPAP for all those years about it being so inflexible that it interfered with their freedom to cut whatever corners they think they need to cut in order to compete, what this particular debate comes down to is the complaint that the requirements in USPAP are not rigid enough to maintain the minimums we might prefer to sell.

It's pretty ironic, because both of these complaints were/are being made by the same people. As is the case for the people who are contradicting them. We've been telling you guys all along that you had the freedom to do pretty much anything you needed to do so long as it fit the user legitimate expectations.

 

[Eli]

I think that with some people there is a falling in line type of activity when it comes to ideas. Not just with this topic but many others. Politics.

I can understand having different ideas. As far as this one goes I can't be convinced that a appraiser being local does not have value when it comes to reliable valuations for residential real estate.

They are pushing for commercial elimination first.

If your in white collar crime, you go for the jugular first.

 

[Carnivore]

Even Bethesda Chevy Chase is pretty complex and it's filled with those properties.

"Location location location" is a thing for a reason.

Yes, location location location...I always like that..Realtors are big on spouting it. It is essentially true. more complex assignments can get difficult. Like the example I gave recently where one part of a lake was expensive another part not and it had all to do with water depth. Which is not obvious from driving by.

 

[Joe Flacco]

It's the users' preferences that are changing. What they think is and isn't acceptable for their usage. Appraisers are responding to the situation, not creating it.

Contrary to the rap many appraisers put on USPAP for all those years about it being so inflexible that it interfered with their freedom to cut whatever corners they think they need to cut in order to compete, what this particular debate comes down to is the complaint that the requirements in USPAP are not rigid enough to maintain the minimums we might prefer to sell.

It's pretty ironic, because both of these complaints were/are being made by the same people. As is the case for the people who are contradicting them. We've been telling you guys all along that you had the freedom to do pretty much anything you needed to do so long as it fit the user legitimate expectations.

You are potentially damaging other stakeholders with less reliable valuations. You are way too focused on the user.

 

[Joe Flacco]

I'd ask you what the direction I want to move toward is something you don't think would be an improvement, but that would really take this thread off-the-track.
So I'll save it for a private conversation (if you are so inclined).

Your argument is that by complying with standard 1 that geocompentecy is acquired, as a result, it does not matter where the appraiser is located. It's backwards thinking.

 

[Joe Flacco]

At least one of the GSE's (Fannie) is currently running several pilots in which they are currently accepting bifurcated appraisals and I think that there is little doubt that if the results of these pilots are acceptable, Fannie is going to roll out a bifurcated appraisal to a much broader market.

I don't know why such a product if adopted by Fannie on a broad basis could not and would not be done through in-house appraisal panels, but we will have to wait to see how businesses adapt if and when bifurcated appraisals become accepted by Fannie on a broad basis

Sometime in the future I am pretty certain that they will be going 80% AVM's. Too much pressure for speed.

 

[DWiley]

You are way too focused on the user.

That is pretty funny given that the current system, that so many want to defend so vigorously, was largely based on the needs/wants of the current users (e.g.. Fannie Mae forms).

 

[George Hatch]

You are potentially damaging other stakeholders with less reliable valuations. You are way too focused on the user.

If you're referring to our government's penchant for bailing out the big banks when they make bad deals or engage in risky behavior that's a political issue, not an appraisal standards issue. I am not responsible for how my users use my reports, and as a matter of fact some users *commonly* ignore appraisals that are submitted to them and engage in that behavior anyway.

We have a well defined scope of practice. We're responsible for what we do. We're not responsible for the bad things our clients may or may not do. We observe/report; we don't participate in their decision making, we don't advocate for any party's interests, and in fact we *certify* that we don't care what they want in a value conclusion.

So not only am I not responsible for their decisions, I actually CERTIFY that I don't care what conclusions they want in every appraisal report I sign.

 

[Joe Flacco]

It's the users' preferences that are changing. What they think is and isn't acceptable for their usage. Appraisers are responding to the situation, not creating it.

Contrary to the rap many appraisers put on USPAP for all those years about it being so inflexible that it interfered with their freedom to cut whatever corners they think they need to cut in order to compete, what this particular debate comes down to is the complaint that the requirements in USPAP are not rigid enough to maintain the minimums we might prefer to sell.

It's pretty ironic, because both of these complaints were/are being made by the same people. As is the case for the people who are contradicting them. We've been telling you guys all along that you had the freedom to do pretty much anything you needed to do so long as it fit the user legitimate expectations.

You always do this. I never said USPAP was too inflexible or not rigid enough. Never said or implied anything like that. I never complained about USPAP.

 

[Joe Flacco]

If you're referring to our government's penchant for bailing out the big banks when they make bad deals or engage in risky behavior that's a political issue, not an appraisal standards issue. I am not responsible for how my users use my reports, and as a matter of fact some users *commonly* ignore appraisals that are submitted to them and engage in that behavior anyway.

We have a well defined scope of practice. We're responsible for what we do. We're not responsible for the bad things our clients may or may not do.

That's not what I am referring to. I am talking about undervaluation or overvaluation damaging consumers.