Who is Danny Wiley?

[DWiley]

AO-2 was updated for the current version of USPAP (hence the reason it would be discussed in an update course). So it is very unlikley to be changed again soon.

I do not know what was said in the class, because I was not there. I do know why AO-2 was updated. I was there for that

In a nutshell, AO-2 was old. It was written in a world where "exterior only" inspections and "desk top" appraisals were things of myth. Now that these mythical things have become common, the AO-2 was edited to better reflect current practice and terminolgy. It was also made more consistent with the material taught in the instructor course regarding problem identification and relevant property characteristics.

A thorough explanantion for the changes to USPAP can be found in the ASB's Summary of Action reports, which are published regularly.

 

[PL1957]

A thorough explanantion for the changes to USPAP can be found in the ASB's Summary of Action reports, which are published regularly.

Danny, you should have realized by now that appraisers can't be bothered with reading what actually happened. They'd much rather construct vast conspiracies where everyone is out to get them and only they can save the world by charging in on their white horse.

People who have devoted significant portions of their professional lives to the industry are all only doing it because they're going to get something, somewhere under the table by screwing every other appraiser out there. If not for the internet and message boards, we all would have been out of work years ago.

 

[xm72mhd]

Danny, you should have realized by now that appraisers can't be bothered with reading what actually happened. They'd much rather construct vast conspiracies where everyone is out to get them and only they can save the world by charging in on their white horse.

I'll go with the imaginary conspircies, but I'm not buying that the results of the ASB deliberations are at al dignified by the process of getting there or the intentions of participants.

Ok, I read through this again and particularly the posts addresed to me by Stephen and George. Who'd of thought those two would come up with different perspectives.

Anyway, I'm sure that the ASB is doing something beneficial in coming up with USPAP stuff. Just as sure as I am that they are coming up with stuff that is not beneficial.

The question remains, of benefit or not to whom?

George, like it or not the ASB is political and responds primarily to political pressure. I propose a change in focus as to from the pressure comes. I just don't believe that the ASB is the exclusive guardian of the public trust. I believe there are a good many appraisers out herfe who are just as concerned about that, and in a very personal and up close way much better equipped to serve the public trust.

The problem I am seeing is that there is a barrier between to communiction between the ASB and the practitioners (maybe I should say the small independent practitioners) and the ASB. We are told by Rich and Danny alternatively that the barrier is imaginary or that if it is there it is the fault of the practitioners.

That tells me that the status quo will remain until we do something about it, and possibly that the change will not be orderly or without sacrifice. Witness Pam's lawsuit.

Basically, I believe the ASB and other acronynmed organization you can name in the leadership is in place to serve an influential segment of society in the name of the public trust.

As you know I have bee in my bonnet about confidentiality. Heck I've got a whole beehive up there, but one at a time, one at a time. Analyze did get loose this weekend though. I communicated my concern as I was told to do to through the proper channels. Finally I was contacted, for which I am grateful, and my concern was dismissed, for which I am not grateful, with the comment that what I was comcerned about was limited to residential appraisals and USPAP is a one minimum size fits all document. Now that I have recovered from my shock over being noticed (I know it can happen), I am absolutely convinced my concerns about confidentiality are more pervasive than they are limited to residential appraising, but when that came at me I hadn't thought it through enough to anticipate the resistance to addressing it.

At any rate, I'm not buying the "job description" or "the doing the best they can" arguements any more. It's way to important to us and the public to let this go. Like it or not the ASB is in a position of leadership. Of all the organizations, it is the one that owes no allegiandce to the agenda of the membership. I'm sticking to it guys. Help me out here.

 

[George Hatch]

The problem I am seeing is that there is a barrier between to communiction between the ASB and the practitioners (maybe I should say the small independent practitioners) and the ASB. We are told by Rich and Danny alternatively that the barrier is imaginary or that if it is there it is the fault of the practitioners.

I communicated my concern as I was told to do to through the proper channels. Finally I was contacted, for which I am grateful, and my concern was dismissed, for which I am not grateful, with the comment that what I was comcerned about was limited to residential appraisals and USPAP is a one minimum size fits all document. Now that I have recovered from my shock over being noticed (I know it can happen), I am absolutely convinced my concerns about confidentiality are more pervasive than they are limited to residential appraising, but when that came at me I hadn't thought it through enough to anticipate the resistance to addressing it.

Let's review: You start out by assuming we are being ignored and that there are barriers in place. Then you make a direct inquiry and get a direct answer. So now because the answer wasn't what you wanted it to be you still think we're being ignored?

Would you mind terribly if I asked the manner of your inquiry? Did you write up an analysis that completely presented your arguments or was this a more informal manner of questioning as would typically result in the more informal response? The reason I ask is because I'm reading the last line of the paragraph above to mean that you didn't lay out all your reasoning because you didn't think anyone would respond in the first place.

 

[xm72mhd]

Let's review: You start out by assuming we are being ignored and that there are barriers in place. Then you make a direct inquiry and get a direct answer. So now because the answer wasn't what you wanted it to be you still think we're being ignored?

Would you mind terribly if I asked the manner of your inquiry? Did you write up an analysis that completely presented your arguments or was this a more informal manner of questioning as would typically result in the more informal response? The reason I ask is because I'm reading the last line of the paragraph above to mean that you didn't lay out all your reasoning because you didn't think anyone would respond in the first place.

Nope, I know you are an ASB supporter, But, I accept none of the blame for this horrible mis-communication. I did the best I am capable of, and it is the only way open to me and those like me. Based on the responses I got back, which were basically rote, I conclude that my concerns may be addressed through a process, but they will not be taken seriously. There is another source of serious concerns of which I am not a part.

At some point I suspect I will be able to say with assurance if my experience is their pattern.

 

[Lee Lansford]

A wise "old" man (or, woman)...and AQB Certified USPAP Instructor...once shared (in the setting of the AQB 2.5 day USPAP Instructors' Course)...that the last time he (she) had taught the USPAP Update course to licensed appraisers he (she) asked this question:

"How many of you believe that the USPAP is confusing?"

Most of the hands in the room shot up in the air!

He (or, she) then asked:

"How many of you have actually read the current version of the USPAP?"

Very few hands were raised.

End of story.

AND, if that USPAP Instructor wants to identify himself (or, herself) here, I'll allow that person to identify himself (or, herself).

 

[George W Dodd]

Hi Danny and thanks for the bio and additional information.

 

[Pat Butler]

My memory fails me as to the details. But I lost faith in USPAP and the intention of the ASB years ago when the definition of market value was changed to include the word "opinion" as opposed to "estimate". That opened the door to AVM's not being included and went totally against any sort of notion of 'protecting the public'. I'm not quite sure why appraisers have to pay to fund the AF if it's for protecting the public.

Does anyone remember the details? I'm pretty sure there was an ASB member who later started his own AVM business. It reeked of a conflict of interest. There was a lot of discussion about it at the time, but it's rarely brought up anymore. To me, it was the final straw in their lack of credibility.

And it's absurd to spend years, and millions of dollars drafting USPAP to protect the public, only to allow AVM's to operate without adherence to USPAP- and to actually allow the AVM companies to have influence over something that doesn't pertain to them!

 

[Carnivore]

And it's absurd to spend years, and millions of dollars drafting USPAP to protect the public, only to allow AVM's to operate without adherence to USPAP- and to actually allow the AVM companies to have influence over something that doesn't pertain to them!

Amen, Sister!

 

[Fred]

A wise "old" man (or, woman)...and AQB Certified USPAP Instructor...once shared (in the setting of the AQB 2.5 day USPAP Instructors' Course)...that the last time he (she) had taught the USPAP Update course to licensed appraisers he (she) asked this question:

"How many of you believe that the USPAP is confusing?"
Most of the hands in the room shot up in the air!
He (or, she) then asked:
"How many of you have actually read the current version of the USPAP?"
Very few hands were raised.
End of story.

If there is a moral to the story, I can't read between the lines. USPAP is unecessarily confusing. Some of the confusing sentences have been in every edition, so I have no idea what difference it makes what edition one reads it in. Examples: "appraisal review" includes reviewing more than just appraisals; intended use is use of the appraisal, but an intended user uses the report; and you don't have to be a grammarian to know this elliiptical sentence won't diagram, "When analyzing the assemblage of the various estates or component parts of a property, an appraiser must analyze the effect on value, if any, of the assemblage."