Another Draft to a USPAP Draft!
Well, don’t toss your reading bifocals in the wastebasket just yet. Apparently, there were so many negative issues with the THIRD exposure draft to the 2020-21 version of USPAP, that the ASB jettisoned it, and will move forward with a FOURTH draft.
Everyone should be on their toes, ready to peruse this stellar document when it is released not long from now!
Can’t we, please, establish a set of reliable and understandable procedures, and leave them in place for 5 years minimum? Please!
Here’s the announcement issued on February 8, 2019, after the ASB meeting in Scottsdale, AZ:
(From the Appraisal Foundation)
After careful consideration of public comments, the Appraisal Standards Board, an independent board of The Appraisal Foundation, unanimously agreed to move forward with a fourth exposure draft for the 2020-21 edition of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice at its public comment meeting today in Scottsdale, Arizona. The ASB will issue the fourth exposure draft within the next few weeks. At that time, the ASB will announce the date and place for its next public meeting, where final adoption of changes for the 2020-21 USPAP is expected.
“Throughout this process, the Appraisal Standards Board has been committed to the widest public exposure of the 2020-21 USPAP edition,” said 2019 ASB Chair Wayne Miller. “After hearing the comments today, especially about the single reporting standard issue, the ASB decided it was critical to issue a fourth exposure draft.”
“The ASB clearly heard the concerns,” said Vice President, Appraisal Issues for The Appraisal Foundation John Brenan. “This demonstrates that the open, transparent, and inclusive process worked.”
The public exposure of proposed changes for the 2020-21 edition of USPAP has been extensive with comments coming from the three exposure drafts, discussion at The Appraisal Foundation Advisory Council, Industry Advisory Council, appraisal discipline resource panels, and multiple webinars.
Dave Towne on e-AppraisersDirectory.com
- New UAD Overhaul: What Appraisers Can Expect in 2025 & Beyond - September 19, 2024
- Cindy Chance Terminated - September 16, 2024
- Key Part of USPAP Not Available from TAF - July 19, 2024
Once again the ASB shows what a useless entity it is, only surviving on USPAP renewals.
USPAP is an incomplete project and since the authors are only paid by appraisers while working on it, it will always be incomplete.
USPAP was a great product in 1991. It remained so for a very few years afterward. We should have heard the alarm bells when the earliest 1991 version had ‘placeholders’ for future disciplines that never were required to follow USPAP by any federal or state legislation. FIRREA never required anyone other than REAL ESTATE appraisers to be bound by USPAP.
…5 years minimum. Agreed!!!
Well, there is one concern that they may have heard but still refuse to address. After decades of unnecessary tampering and finagling the language of USPAP despite many objections by appraisers, they have now created a guiding document that the public has no knowledge of; enforcement regulators have no understanding of, and many appraisers now believe to be around 50% (or more) garbage.
Neither USPAP nor TAF have the respect of the profession any longer. Many State regulators don’t think THEY have to follow it (Thank you TAF! Especially Roberta Oullette!), and the public whose interests the TAF purports to protect doesn’t know the difference between an AVM; Manure Hybrids and a real appraisal. The latter being one prepared to any USPAP standard prior to 2011.
The BEST revision TAF could make would be to revert to the pre-2011 USPAP versions (pick one!), and then officially shut their doors. Turn ‘interpretation’ over to ASC, institute ONLY federal licensing & enforcement for FRTs and shut down the 57-Flavors of individually interpreted state enforcement that we currently have.
These constant changes are ludicrous
The changes are appraiser driven.
How?
Annemieke, appraisers are the ones always asking for changes to USPAP.
…and ‘they’ should be requesting en masse in the complete total eradication of USPAP; the only point I disagree w/Mr. Ford on.
When the appraisal Industry (cap not an error) combined into one AI, terrible mistake. When the appraisal Industry split from the NAR, terrible mistake.
and believe: the split from NAR cost the commercial appraisers (of which I am one) a lot of income.
Philip, that’s a bit of a disingenuous comment. IF ‘appraisers’ are allegedly always driving those changes then I suspect strongly it, would be those that consult first with their employers at AMCs; title insurance companies, American Bankers Association, Mortgage Bankers Association, Corelamode, First American, etc. at the direction of those employers.
And of course, those few real estate appraisers at TAF itself acting on their sponsor’s behest.
Not even the AI or ASA have the clout to ‘drive’ the kind of asinine changes coming out of TAF in recent years. Assuming they wanted to.
Mike Ford if you have the facts then share them. Otherwise your opinion holds as much weight as mine. “Strongly suspect” is not a fact. I like the flexibility that bi-yearly updates provides. What I don’t like is paying for updates. With the amount we pay in licensing fees, USPAP update materials should be free for appraisers. And we should not have to take a 7-hr class for minor updates.
Sure, Philip. Would direct testimony from David Bunton, John Brenan, and others at TAF about where these constant changes originate from be sufficient? TAF Meetings (recorded) in Redondo Beach, CA; Phoenix AZ, and Las Vegas NV in the past three and a half years.
Public testimony by TAF about how small a percentage of TAF revenue comes from the sale of USPAP and courses as opposed to how much comes from their sponsors, and grants from the Feds (via ASC).
In any event the nice thing about opinions is that we can all have our own. I’d never heard an independent appraiser cite flexibility of bi annual revisions as a beneficial aspect before. I’d disagree that it is a benefit, but again that is only my opinion. I simply haven’t seen a beneficial change in quite a few years. Agree completely re costs of ongoing change compliance.