“The group discussed the investigation of complaints and the use of a conditional dismissal to close a case. There was consensus that a complaint based solely on value should still be opened and investigated for USPAP violations, in accordance with Policy Statement 7. Alabama will not take a complaint based solely on an allegation that the value was too high or too low.

The Complainant must also give some support for their allegation, such as providing other comparable sales or mention features of the subject property that were not properly analyzed in the report.”

Can’t wait for the “inspector / data collector” driven 1004p and Hybrid complaints to start rolling in….

http://appraisersblogs.com/aaro-newsletter-summer-2017-pub/

Update…not actually hidden, just buried deep so that its not readily apparent. From their bylaws (an interesting read).

“ARTICLE IV Status The Association is a nonprofit corporation, in the state of Texas, directed by its own membership through it elected officers and directors.”

WHY do states whose legislatures passed very specific laws concerning appraisers after due consideration and PUBLIC debate and vote of ELECTED representatives need to have their PAID STATE EMPLOYEES work off the clock and in unofficial capacity to conspire how to bypass or manipulate those laws passed by states?

It appears that one ‘regulator’ in particular, Ms Roberta Anne Ouellette may be leading the charge or at least one of it’s more visible proponents. She is NOT an APPRAISER. She is a member of The Appraisal Standards Board (ASB) of The Appraisal Foundation (TAF). She is also an attorney for the North Carolina Appraisers Board (NCAB), and past presenter to AARO (see above article).

One thing is exceptionally clear from her powerpoint presentation above. She doesn’t have a clue as to what the standard of compliance with USPAP is! Read her example carefully…the ‘culprit’ was found NOT IN VIOLATION of the core charge of overstating the value. It brings into doubt whether any of the other allegations were as stated as well. Or, were they more prosecutorial sophistry?

https://www.aaro.net/

It says it is a nationally chartered organization but doesn’t say who they are chartered by or in what form they exist. I have been told they are a private corporation, but their own website fails to state that, or where they are incorporated.

Seems odd that an organization ostensibly founded by State Employees to lobby or advocate on behalf of state employees who would otherwise be prohibited from lobbying; especially outside of Congressional or even state legislator’s oversight, would conceal its own organizational composition and structure.

HOW is this unofficial association causing policy or rules interpretation by regulators across the country that are contrary to the content & intent of USPAP? Under WHAT specific authority?

Perhaps IRS can shed some light on them. Maybe ASC since they and TAF seem so bound at the hip to them.

Reread the NCAB attorney’s presentation again. Opinion such as that used in appraisals is scoffed at. “Actual proof” or fact such as that subjectively ARGUED or claimed by professional prosecutors is seen as something superior in some inexplicable way.

1, The AMCs fee is the only thing outrageous!. For ranges you cited I’d be in the $1,500 to $3,000 range…and sometimes as high as $4,500. It all depends on complexity AND anticipated exposure.

If I’d do a job for a private party or bank at $1500…for court it would be $2500. WITH GOOD REASON!

I personally don’t see how anyone anywhere in America can get by on less than $550-$650 for a non-complex sfr…but then again, I’d never suggest that $550 be the bare bones minimum because that would get the FTC all hot and bothered.

Absolutely they make it up as they go along! I have court transcripts to prove that contention; as well as all my other claims about BREA (CA); and almost as much for MD. Where the stat continued to persecute even though we proved they were wrong about the main issue in contention (and all the others were non-issues they piled on).

The ONLY guide states need to investigate USPAP violations is the Tad Whitmer (MAI) article and summary in workingRE on reviewing.

THIS is what happens when state bureaucrats sidestep their own state legislators and adopt ‘policy’ through back channels with private corporations (TAF).

So what you are saying is they make it up as they go along, with the constant changes of USPAP it’s difficult for most appraisers to stay on top. USPAP is like toilet paper now. The case example is an obvious violation, it’s the method of “prosecution” that is alarming. They choosing to ignore any subjective appraisal opinion as relevant if they choose

The $750 fee appraiser most likely has no credible experience appraising properties in the class of real estate that you do! (ocean front, highest quality customs, high rise penthouses, etc…) And, that is my point! The appraisal mis-management co’s put your name on their “list” of appraisers to look good as they hustle up more lenders but, they will never ever hire you at anything close to your fee.

The mis-management co’s are nothing but another regulator creator catastrophic element in the final chapter of another American profession that has been burned to the ground in the name of technological advancement, or more truthfully because too many big guys noticed too many average Joes making pretty decent money.

This problem is rooted in the contingency fee prohibitions. Before interjection by middle managers it was common place for lenders to have fee tables by housing price, properly recognizing increased home size and cost normally justifies higher vendor fees due to complexity and time to develop. Often these vendor fee scales were based on home size, not cost, but not always. The contingency fee prohibition was in place to eliminate bias which could occur if an appraiser scooted the final value number up slightly to then attain a slightly higher fee, per the established fee scales, as lenders had variable criteria for these internal cost lists.

There is nothing wrong with scaling fees, as long as the fee is established up front before the value opinion provided. Another misinterpreted guideline which is made possible due to the absence of ethical requirements for amc service terms and billing structures. The distributor bias is of course because there is no requirement for cost plus billing or returning fee savings to borrowing consumers. Parties would likely be surprised if they learned the lenders still maintain such fee schedules but have abdicated their appropriate oversight requirements and simply trusted the amc to be fair. Cost plus billing would solve this issue. The potential harm to consumers who’s lenders utilize amc’s are elevated in the jumbo realm.

The practice of unrestrained fee raking without returning cost savings to borrowing consumers has now spread to direct distribution areas as well. The all in one solution must require completely separate billing regardless of amc or direct, regarding appraisers fees and processing costs. These days many direct distributor outlets fund the assignment positions via a cut of the total appraisal service fee. Mortgage bankers used to accomplish this task free of any additional charges to the consumer. For insight regarding the apparent ignorance of amc assignment clerks, one only needs to review their continual job posting advertisements.

No one bid lowered into 225, it’s all bs on the side of the I AMC, they will take the lowest quotes and use them as evidence of what customary and typical fees are, that’s all it’s about !!!

Mike, good information. I will check out the sponsor list in detail.

It’s so interesting you mentioned this. This week I was offered a $15MIL, 8,500SF SFR in Atherton for a fee of $385. I counter bid the exact same you did, $1,500 (I bid lower as it was an AMC). I also explained in my counter that none of my non AMC lender clients would even think to try and order this for less than $1,500 (I had done three in the past year for two different lenders for between $2,000-$2,750). The “vendor coordinator” emails me to ask if I can please explain what validates such an outrageous fee? Outrageous? I said would you care to explain what kind of fee quotes you’ve been receiving for these types of orders? The response was, “I cannot divulge this information, but I can say that your bid is over double what our other appraisers in the market are bidding.” If this is true, who are these appraisers?

Appraisers need to collaborate to set fee standards. I’m still not able to charge any more for your average run of the mill small retail building San Francisco, than father charged 20 years ago. Why haven’t “acceptable” fees kept up with inflation? Why are we charging the same fees we were 20 years ago? It’s insane. I guess maybe I’m insane for continuing in the profession.

I chose not to get into the case specifics. Obviously, no one giving a public presentation submits case data that conflicts with their views.

I’m far more concerned about the language of absolutes replacing experience based opinions as if they were four letter words now. Note how the entire requirements under SR3 and SR 4 appear to have completely disappeared from the regulators perspective?

Those whose job it is to determine our USPAP compliance cannot be bothered to follow those same MINIMUM standards for federally regulated transactions. Since state reviews are not for FRTs they get to pick any undefined standard they choose…including making them up on the fly. (Proof of statement is available in the transcripts between BREA and my own case – a whole DVDs worth of text)

Selling USPAP is apparently an extremely small part of their budget per John Brenan or perhaps it was Dave Bunton at one of the TAF regional public meetings. I don’t want to misquote, but it was literally a very small fraction.

If you want to see where the real funding comes from check out the Sponsors list, and perhaps the grants provided by Uncle Sugar via the ASC.

They are a regulated set of entities. Where is their ethics book? Suspiciously absent. The uspap book developers refused to acknowledge the emerging problems and never properly covered updating the management rule (providing a thing of value to be the preferred selectee in relationship to variable amc fee raking and quoting), or properly covered the issue of outsourced labors and known threats to data and citizen security using both overseas services and non licensed help. Calamity ensues. If the federal lending industry and all their insurers are going to rely on evals, there needs to be a third ethics book and new regulatory oversight structure and licensing program for the tech nerds. That is the next logical step as it’s inevitable someone on that side will drop the ball in a major way eventually. The solution will of course be a larger government and additional licensing schemes. Logic indicates sticking with traditional full service appraisal makes entirely more sense all around. If people can’t see this coming a mile down the tracks, they are blind. Expansion of government from self created problems happens before and is happening again right in front of our eyes. My crystal ball is telling me that is a great way to eliminate all emerging eval competition, and that’s why this ‘industry’ waited until it was sufficiently monopolistic already before moving to subvert the traditional appraisal industry.

Prove me wrong. Change my mind.

One big problem is USPAP gets its funding BY changing. They collect our fees for having to purchase the book. Even though they offer a free version online, they MANDATE all students MUST have paid for the book.