Brian, you suggest,
"If you still disagree with this I would suggest that you read USPAP, AO-20, lines 174-175"
It’s not a case of “disagree.” I know I sliced the independent clause of your sentence, “the value conclusion is appropriate and reasonable,” from the dependent clause, “given the data and analysis presented,” separating your conclusions from its limiting condition. If you absolutely insist on playing with fire by using the phrase “value conclusion,” then at least use better exculpatory language. For example, “Assuming the data are reliable, the value conclusion appears to be reasonable.” However, I just cannot imagine the logic of discussing the “value conclusion” if it is beyond the scope of review; of discussing any finding that is outside the scope of work.
On your point to read USPAP, AO-20 – USPAP does not contain anything called AO-20. See my prior post. Having said that, I read it anyway and it says,
“…use extreme care to ensure the appraisal review report does not include language that implies the reviewer developed an opinion of value.”
That’s what I am saying when I ask why go there at all. Dancing close to the line is not "extreme care." Why talk about value conclusion if it is beyond your scope of review? Why get that close to the line, when those who read your work have some say about where the line is; when it is not just what you say, but what the reader says you "implied?"
The next sentence, lines 176-78 says,
“When the reviewer uses language to signify concurrence with the value…”
e.g., by saying ‘The value conclusion is appropriate and reasonable,’
“…the reviewer has additional appraisal development and reporting options. “
You can argue all you want that you didn’t “signify concurrence,” and you might have to, because you left yourself wide open by discussing “value conclusion” at all.
"If you still disagree with this I would suggest that you read USPAP, AO-20, lines 174-175"
It’s not a case of “disagree.” I know I sliced the independent clause of your sentence, “the value conclusion is appropriate and reasonable,” from the dependent clause, “given the data and analysis presented,” separating your conclusions from its limiting condition. If you absolutely insist on playing with fire by using the phrase “value conclusion,” then at least use better exculpatory language. For example, “Assuming the data are reliable, the value conclusion appears to be reasonable.” However, I just cannot imagine the logic of discussing the “value conclusion” if it is beyond the scope of review; of discussing any finding that is outside the scope of work.
On your point to read USPAP, AO-20 – USPAP does not contain anything called AO-20. See my prior post. Having said that, I read it anyway and it says,
“…use extreme care to ensure the appraisal review report does not include language that implies the reviewer developed an opinion of value.”
That’s what I am saying when I ask why go there at all. Dancing close to the line is not "extreme care." Why talk about value conclusion if it is beyond your scope of review? Why get that close to the line, when those who read your work have some say about where the line is; when it is not just what you say, but what the reader says you "implied?"
The next sentence, lines 176-78 says,
“When the reviewer uses language to signify concurrence with the value…”
e.g., by saying ‘The value conclusion is appropriate and reasonable,’
“…the reviewer has additional appraisal development and reporting options. “
You can argue all you want that you didn’t “signify concurrence,” and you might have to, because you left yourself wide open by discussing “value conclusion” at all.
:rofl:
