Hybrids vs USPAP Scope of Work Rule
- Federal Valuation Agency Impact on Appraisers & the Public - July 22, 2022
- Is Georgia Going Rogue? - June 13, 2022
- Bias in Automated Valuation Models - February 28, 2022
Supporters of the bifurcated appraisal can claim scope of work till they are blue in the face…
Appraisal Buzz published an article written by Joshua Walit on July 31, 2019 titled Nothing New Under the Sun: The Varied Face of Appraisal. The article brings up some good points, however; it does not take into account the reality of the market and the control of the lenders and appraisal management companies in the process. The mere fact that the appraiser does not have control over the person completing the inspection and in most cases, no way to even know who is providing the information is a major risk to the appraiser’s license and livelihood. What about the risk to the consumer? The risk to the housing market? The risk to the economy? Aren’t appraisers and appraisal management companies licensed for public trust?
Now let’s break this down in the most basic form possible. USPAP has three rules; The Ethics Rule, the Competency Rule and the Scope of Work Rule. Since supporters of bifurcated appraisal products claim the Scope of Work allows the use of third party inspectors, this will be the focus.
Starting at line 338 of the 2018-2019 USPAP Book, it states:
For each appraisal and appraisal review assignment, an appraiser must:
- Identify the problem
- Determine and perform the scope of work necessary to develop credible assignment results and
- disclose the scope of work in the report.
Let’s back this up. AN APPRAISER MUST (not a lender, not an amc, not a borrower) DETERMINE AND PERFORM THE SCOPE OF WORK NECESSARY TO DEVELOP CREDIBLE ASSIGNMENT RESULTS
And Reality sets in…
The lender orders a bifurcated appraisal through the appraisal management company. The appraiser states he / she needs to inspect the property in order to develop credible assignment results. That assignment is immediately cancelled from the appraiser and reassigned to another appraiser. Is this not what happens? How can the appraiser comply with the Scope of Work Rule?
Now think about this for a minute. By not allowing the appraiser to inspect the property (with proper compensation) has the appraisal management company violated the appraiser’s independence? The assignment being reassigned is real and happens every day. Do the actions of the appraisal management company comply with Dodd Frank Appraiser Independence Requirements? State Statutes and Regulations?
Supporters of the bifurcated process can claim scope of work till they are blue in the face, but the reality is each state has different statutes, rules and regulations. Each State Real Estate Appraisal Board operates differently and each will have different interpretations of not only USPAP, but the laws of their own state.
Now listen to the audio of the Colorado Real Estate Appraiser Board discussing a disciplinary case against an appraiser who completed a hybrid appraisal. The investigator revealed the appraiser stated they did not have enough information for credible results. In other words, a bad property inspection was determined the reason for disciplinary action. Listen to the discussion below which can also be found in #3 Complaints and Licensing Matter in the audio tracks.
Complaints and Lic Matters Audio
Joshua Walit, the author of the article is a member of the Colorado Real Estate Appraiser Board.
If the author of the article on Appraisal Buzz, Joshua Walit is on the Colorado State Board, why is he speaking on controversial topics that impacts the decisions of the Board? Why is he publishing articles about those controversial topics. It seems to me this is a huge conflict of interest. Where is the Colorado Regulators on this topic?
He always sounds like one of those establishment appraisers that’s for sure
I was asked to make the presentation as an employee of my employer, not acting on behalf of any board, state board, organization, coalition, education provider, etc. Board members regularly perform their regular jobs, give speeches/ presentations on behalf of their employers, teach CE courses, etc. Being on a Board does not prohibit or prevent the person from performing his or her normal duties. At the presentation, it was made clear I was representing my employer.
Board members do not give presentations and write articles on issues that conflict with their appointment to state boards, regardless if they represent their employer or not. Just the appearance of being impartial raises concerns of antitrust, bias and fairness. This can open huge legal liabilities for not only the Board, but the state as well. Just think of the hungry new attorney who represents any licensee that has been disciplined by your Board. Clearly, you did not think this through.
If you are going to continue to represent your employer and speak and write publically, the very least you should do is recuse yourself from discussing or voting on any issue in which you have spoken or written about.
Presenting topics as part of one’s job like scope of work spectrum in various appraisal assignments, interagency guidelines, USPAP requirements, scope acceptability, Ethics Rule; training; teaching; and similar activities are not prohibited. Members of boards regularly take part in a variety of non-board activity where they make it clear they are not representing a board (they can’t represent or speak for the board outside a board meeting, unless specifically authorized). Examples include teaching USPAP, teaching other CE, training, filling compliance roles, etc.. Board members regularly recuse themselves when appropriate, and have the guidance of counsel when needed.
By the argument above, an appraiser on a state board should recuse herself from all cases that involve the sales comparison approach, if she previously taught a sales comparison approach class on behalf of her company. Also by that same logic, no USPAP instructors could teach USPAP while serving on a state board, since obviously most cases would involve USPAP components.
Wrong! You can not do those things while serving on the Board. You need to have a conversation with the Attorney General of your state.
Mr.Walit, this is an ethical issue and if you do not understand this, you should not be on your state board. It really does not matter if there are any rules or prohibitions that state this. As a member of any state board, you are held to a higher standard when you are in the public eye.
Thank you for the concern. I regularly converse with our counsel from the AG office. Members of boards in numerous states regularly represent their employers or their own private firms in their presentations, teaching, and similar related activities.
I am glad for the discussion surrounding inspection types and standards, through posts and emails I’ve recieved, as that was the intent of my giving the talk to begin with.
I would like the opportunity to communicate directly with commenters, but I only see first names or screen names for the most part. Please reach out to me (email@example.com) or post an email address.
I am a Colorado Appraiser, it sounds like our Board does not really know what they are doing with the desktop reports. One thing is for sure they will always find USPAP “violations” regardless of what the complaint was for. Anyone who does these desk top reports will be crushed under the hammer of the Board. They do not have the insight to say “we need to provide our appraisers with direction, so we are all on the same page.” Similar to what they did for CO detectors, home inspection and engineers reports. I am still waiting for guidance on how to deal with Cannabis in Colorado. I will give most of them credit, with the exception of the one guy, the others seemed to have some sympathy for the appraiser in these uncharted waters.
Agree. I do not see how they can say Mueller is not an appraisal management company. The Federal Definition is very clear. No State has the right to be less stringent than Federal, It sounds like Colorado may not be in compliance with Dodd Frank.. That could explain a few things.
§ 34.211 Definitions.
For purposes of this subpart:
(a) Affiliate has the meaning provided in 12 U.S.C. 1841.
(b) AMC National Registry means the registry of State-registered AMCs and Federally regulated AMCs maintained by the Appraisal Subcommittee.
(c) (1)Appraisal management company (AMC) means a person that:
(i) Provides appraisal management services to creditors or to secondary mortgage market participants, including affiliates;
(ii) Provides such services in connection with valuing a consumer’s principal dwelling as security for a consumer credit transaction or incorporating such transactions into securitizations; and
(iii) Within a given 12-month period, as defined in § 34.212(d), oversees an appraiser panel of more than 15 State-certified or State-licensed appraisers in a State or 25 or more State-certified or State-licensed appraisers in two or more States, as described in § 34.212;
(2) An AMC does not include a department or division of an entity that provides appraisal management services only to that entity.
My understanding is that Mueller considers themselves an appraisal firm with employee appraisers. I assume that by definition they are not considered an AMC since they do not use an “appraiser panel” of independent contractors. That is how they avoid R&C fee requirements as well.
Happy Gunting! First to the Hybrid! First to the Inspection!
Anyone foolish enough to work for Mueller gets placed in the 10-13 dollar an hour zone. But take heart, if you moved towards an unlicensed position, rather than a licensed appraiser working for Mueller, you could possibly double your income, or at least graze another 20k working the insurance side instead. What an innovative company!
“The mortgage lending environment is in the midst of evolving from legacy products and processes, to a more streamlined model. For example, traditionally, residential appraisers have been responsible for physically inspecting the homes that they are appraising. Based on changing policies and service level expectations, the appraiser of the future will rely upon a qualified independent third-party to complete the physical inspection, while the appraiser focuses their energy on analysis and report.”
Why support the spin, by upping their number of clicks?
Just send it all to spam, and when there isn’t any substantiation of how many people read the rag, the advertisers, with their dollars will disappear, and the self promoting can sit around and tell each other how wonderful they are. Just like a CRN meeting in print.
Bottom line is Fannie spin department has not been able to change the Fannie regulation department’s mind. So check the selling guide. You still need to use the 1004, no P form is listed as one of the mandatory forms, and, you still need to inspect the comparables from the street.
Yup, no regulation for Appraiser Wavier of Regulation.
Check the USPAP Competency Rule, you must comply with the regulation if it applies to the assignment.
And the res lending regulation is??????????
Do you have a Mueller work request solicitation to post? I’ve never seen one.
Read the employee review links I posted above. The hybrid inspectors may have a hard time instantly transitioning from advocates for insurance companies to avoid paying out claims, then suddenly inspecting homes for minimum standards for mortgage insurability, all while billing by the minute.
But hey, those Mueller inspectors have had 3 full days of training, complete with computer modules, a ride along, and remote management oversight from the high turnover management persons. I found the most compelling part of this audio file to be this company is adding things to the ‘report’ the appraiser did not even know about. One can only guess how far this issue will blow up when there is a sudden onslaught of hybrid based complaints.
Accept a mountain of hybrid requests. Then argue how few of the inspections are reliable to your standards for credible assignment results, argue for expanded scope of work or refuse to continue unless it can be upgraded to full fee full service. That’s how appraisers used to manage unruly lenders whom tried to send everything through as a desktop. At any point in the process the appraiser can make an honest assessment of reliability of data and acceptability of SOW. Is it unethical to accept a hybrid knowing ahead of time there is a very high probability of the inspection being inadequate, then asking for an expanded SOW, for appraisal credibility compliance? It’s just a business decision after all.
How can a company like Mueller, who’s not a lender and is not an amc, even accommodate such a request. They would be refusing to allow appraisers to upgrade to credible assignment conditions, because the company would not be legally allowed to distribute orders to an independent panel. Do you think the state board should issue a warning that appraisers are not allowed to accept hybrid requests from companies whom are neither lenders nor regulated amc’s? This gross sidestep of regulatory oversight is next level. Standardized processes will do nothing to alleviate these chain of command and chain of oversight shortcomings. The regulators on this recording seem to be confusing ‘official market product’, with GSE approved product. These hybrids are already ‘official’, they are already being used in lieu of appraisals for real loans.
This VACapOnline.com article makes excellent and important points on this issue. My referenced article summed up main points of my recent presentation to a meeting of appraisers, lenders, regulators, appraisal management companies, and others at a CRN event; my presentation was for the purpose of exploring the various types of inspections that are expected for various types of work, and that one type is not inherently “right” or “wrong”. Rather, scopes of work are related to factors including intended use; the acceptability of a scope of work is measured by client expectations and peer actions for similar assignments. The purpose of the presentation was to explore the “spectrum” of inspections that exist in appraisal practice, looking at how the “hybrid” process may differ from or be similar to types of already-established assignments and at how appraisers must evaluate the intended use and the inspection process to determine acceptability for an assignment. In my article, I included some examples in order to reveal some scopes that are clearly not appropriate for lending valuation purposes.
Any time an appraiser believes he does not have enough information to perform the appraisal in the context of the intended use and with the associated scope of work, he should insist on a change to, or broadening of, the scope of work (i.e, obtaining more information) or withdraw from the assignment – regardless of whether the assignment is a “hybrid” assignment or not. As this VACapOnline.com article encourages: listen to state boards’ meetings to understand how boards handle instances of appraisers proceeding with assignments when they do not have adequate information (e.g., physical characteristics, other relevant characteristics, etc.). For many years, I have routinely encouraged parties to listen to recordings of state board meetings on an ongoing basis (not simply one here or one there). Board meetings are public for a reason – so that practitioners and the public as a whole understand how regulations are being enforced.
As VACapOnline.com reminds, each and every appraiser must understand their specific state’s regulations. Some states have recently voiced prohibition to certain aspects of “hybrid” type assignments, while other states have explained all assignments (regardless of being “hybrid” or not) require the appraiser to evaluate the adequacy of data being used by the appraiser.
The VACapOnline.com article specifically pointed to my being a member of a board; for clarity, I was invited to and made the recent CRN presentation representing my employer, not on behalf of any board, organization, association, or educational provider. Board members, for many types of boards, are not prohibited from performing normal parts of their jobs, such as day to day duties, speaking at events on behalf of the employer, teaching, etc. At the event, my introduction and presentation made it clear I was there on behalf of my employer.
Better recheck that Fannie selling guide, because those are Appraisal Requirements, to which, no 1004P for exists, and appraisers are required to personally view the comparables.
Every other use, doesn’t even require an appraisal, so the hybrid is a moot point.
And darn, that selling guide is up to date and does not have a Waiver for Appraisers not to follow the Selling Guide.
The topic of my presentation was not on Fannie Mae guidelines specifically or on any particular forms per se, so I didn’t specifically address those issues.
Good points, although I think since the 1004p form you receive is a pilot process (not policy), it is not addressed in the Selling Guide.
So if not addressed by the Selling Guide are you suggesting it is a good thing for appraisers to collude with AMCs to create valuations based on no requirement, regulation, or standard that the borrower can see?
In a looming crash of the largest debt bubble the world has ever seen you advocate for such collusion with entities that just go out of business, leaving appraisers holding all the liability?
How does a board member advocate for not following but exploring options not allowed, by the Appraisal Requirements in the Selling Guide?
Run lemmings, run
HSBC CEO quits as bank warns of looming clouds | Business … –
Anonymous, no, I’m not suggesting anyone collude, as you ask. And, no, I am not advocating for (or against) any particular guides, as you ask. The presentation was a broad discussion, not restricted to any one type of assignment.
I was invited as, and spoke as, an employee of a private company, which was indicated in marketing materials, the introduction, and my presentation itself – clear disclosure with no confusion who I was representing. Also, I did not support or oppose any inspection process or offer any sort of definitive solution for all assignments – the purpose was to advance the discussion, which it did.
So, first, I was not speaking on behalf of any board, coalition, association, etc. And, second, I was not advocating for a particular position.
Interesting article regarding HSBC. Thanks.
As I noted elsewhere, I would like the opportunity to communicate directly with commenters, but I only see first names or screen names. Reach out to me (firstname.lastname@example.org) or post your email.
So your employer is paying you to advertise on a free website?
Well, hopefully, Appraisersblogs is sending both you and your employer a bill for that advertising.
Anonymous, I wrote a straight-forward article on my business page about my recent business activity, just as hundreds of other professionals do every day. I did not ask appraiserblogs to link it in their blog post, to share it, to write about it, etc.
Anonymous, VaCAP is the author of this article which discusses Joshua Walitt’s article on AppraisalBuzz. We did not publish Joshua Walitt’s article. We published VaCAP’s article!
Perhaps then, you or Mr. Walitt could also publish the rules, regulations, laws, and requirements for the appraisal processes, based on the “other” intended uses, that are outside of the GSEs requirements, so that appraisers know they have selected, or accepted, the appropriate scope of the work for the intended uses.
Instead of, just doing whatever an AMC tells them, showing bias to a third party, which is not allowed.
Anonymous, assignment requirements for conventional appraisals include Fannie Mae Selling Guide and Freddie Mac Servicer/ Seller Guide. VA includes several Chapters in their requirements that relate to appraisal. FHA includes the HUD Handbook 4000.1 and Report Data Delivery Guide. For IRS purposes, requirements include several IRS Publications. These are several common types of assignments. These resources are found online. Need the click-by-click directions? I can copy and paste from a document I keep for the common lending types of assignments, for my work.
Anonymous- Where is all the angst coming from? I read the articles. What was so unacceptable? I may not agree but certainly saw nothing in the article itself that wrong.
OK, I wouldn’t attend a CRN conference if my life depended on oon it, but aside from that have I missed something about the post or it’s author?
Guys we are all supposed to be exchanging ideas on how to improve appraisers lives and our profession aren’t we? (I confess. That is a little like pot calling kettle black coming from me, but y’all get the idea, right?)
Angst? Board members know this is happening, by the companies they grant license to, to operate in their states, oh but appraisers are responsible for the scope of the work. No angst here, just wondering when the RICO and collusion parts kick in from the licensing authorities, against those who are more than appraisers.
After all, as you know, there is more than one definition of market value, and even other types of values, with definition, yet, no one can come up with the appraisal requirements that allow for these hybrid reports. It aint the selling guide. Nope, and not Va or FHA. So where is the appraiser’s guide for the scope of the work, for an intended use, which is none of these? Isn’t any? Oh, why are these types of reports then being advocated across the profession, while the state’s who are supposed to have oversight of these companies, just standing around and watching?
Almost makes you wonder what AMCs can get away with saying or advocating for.
But no angst. Just lots of uncomfortable questions.
Want another one? Where is the Appraiser’s Waiver of Regulation for a pilot program, using people’s real estate values as guinea pigs? Appraisers are provided with relief and can institute hold harmless agreements, when, if, “the pilot” doesn’t work and the property owners feel like they might have been harmed?
Just lots and lots of uncomfortable questions.
You’ve never seen me support hybrids. I’m pretty vehement in my opposition to them. I’m also pretty vocal in my opposition to Boards that do not follow USPAP themselves in disciplining licensed appraisers.
I’ll go a step further. Collectively State Boards will NEVER enforce USPAP uniformly. More and more are adopting their own concepts of what constitutes compliance without the benefit of their own legislatures decision-making rights. They simply change the rules to something more convenient
The problem isn’t Mr. Walitt or anyone else espousing personal views. It’s having a federal law, interpreted by a private corporation; and then having 50-57 different regulatory agencies adopting slightly varied implementing laws, and THEN having AARO (another private corporation) circumvent the intent of their own legislature AND the feds by doing end runs out of the public eye to get TAF to make foolish changes to ease their tasks.
TAF needs to make public what they are teaching state “Investigators” down in Florida.
Compliance with USPAP needs to be taken over by the Feds. & USPAP should not be rewritten or modified on whims. Limit changes to once every five years max. Barring national emergencies.
What it all boils down to is the APPRAISER IS RESPONSIBLE for any report he/she signs. Not the person making $50 performing the observation, not the lender and damn well not the AMC’s.
Me personally I will not perform a report where someone unknown to me gives me a condition report on a property. Good Luck with the coming fallout from this train wreck.
FNMA is not now and never has been the official arbiter of sound appraisal practices. FNMA can only dictate what THEY require-not what makes good appraisal practice. Long ago they were so similar as to not make any difference.
I simply do not knowingly prepare misleading appraisal reports. In my opinion, ALL bifurcated hybrids are misleading appraisal reports. Starting with calling them appraisal reports!
Scope of Work Rule and elimination of departure provision is seen by many as a license to do whatever they want.
Amc’s have siphoned off billions of dollars of income out of appraisers pockets. Another example of a foreign company owning an American amc.
You’ve all heard the expression: “A face that only a mother could love”. This has been transformed into “a profession that only a computer could love”. Why? Because they aren’t forced to put up with the B.S. that current appraiser slaves are forced to eat on a daily basis. They also aren’t forced to work for 1990 wages.
“The future of appraising looks bright IF you own a *Sunway TaihuLight.”
*The fastest supercomputer on the planet
OK, I confess. I had to check. http://www.ft.lk/special-report/IBM-s-Summit-becomes-world-s-fastest-supercomputer-beating-China-s-Sunway-TaihuLight/22-658371
USA takes the lead again! Go USA! Go USA!
As always go USA ?? mike
And this Mr.Walitt is exactly why serving Board member does not speak or write about any topic while serving on the Board. For someone who holds a VP position of compliance, even if it is at an amc, you have a lot to learn about ethics and appropriate actions. I would not be surprised if the Governors office contacts you to initiate your official removal of the Colorado Appraisal Board.
Isn’t that a bit generalized? When I worked in government (IRS) we had appraisers and CPAs frequently conducting webinars to tax service providers. Mr. Oldmixon of Texas (Board Member) used to regularly give public statements. FEMA would come to give a presentation to just about anyone that wanted one. There are guidelines, of course. Unless we know what they are in his state I don’t see how any can be critical.
At Appraiserfest, I had the pleasure of sharing the public speaking dais for the Leadership Panel with Mr. Jim Park, Executive Director of the ASC (along with many other highly respected ‘leaders’). There was no conflict. I just don’t see how Mr. Walitt’s appearance was a conflict.
He is not representing the Board. He is representing his employer and speaking on topics that will come before the Board for decisions. He has opened up the Board and state to huge liability on every disciplinary case in which the Board has opined on the topic in which he was part of the discussion and decision. If he was speaking as a representative of the Board on a topic the board has opined, there would be no issue. That is not what he has done.
A board’s authority is granted to the board in whole, not to any member individually; so, a suggestion (as you make above) that a person who is a board member should be speaking on behalf of the board when outside of regular board meetings directly contradicts state law/regulation. Rather, if speaking individually outside of a board meeting, the person must NOT represent himself or herself as representing the board.
State rules do – specifically – acknowledge and allow for taking part in industry and professional gatherings, with the expectation that the person not appear to speak for the board (accomplished through slides, spoken words, printed agendas, and or other means). Note that laws applicable to board members vary by state.
Suggesting that a governor might be initiating removal of a certain board member is inappropriate, unprofessional, and off-base in this circumstance.
Stop with the unfounded accusations. I always make it clear I am not representing the board when I take part in an industry or professional gathering. To require that board members stop industry and professional involvement during their time serving would be impractical (since many or most, by default, are involved through the very nature of their work); thus, the state has rules that acknowledge and allow it.
While I respect anonymity, it does nothing to encourage professional accurate discourse. Why not just email me directly at email@example.com if you have concerns?
And he can’t come up with one intended use of a required appraisal, that allows for the scope of the work available in a hybrid appraisal, where an AMC is involved. Not one.
Sure could do it for a homeowner, for the homeowner’s own use, but not for a lender. And homeowners don’t use AMCs.
And someone please explain how an employee of a company, can then sit on a state board and then SUPERVISE, their employer.
Doesn’t that seem like both a conflict of interest, and a conflict of employment relationships?
AMC Final Rule
section 1473 of the Dodd-Frank Act? added a new section 1124 to Title XI of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989  (FIRREA) that established minimum requirements to be applied by States in the registration and supervision of AMCs. An AMC is an entity that serves as an intermediary for, and provides certain services to, creditors.
These minimum requirements apply to States that have elected to establish, pursuant to section 1117 of FIRREA,  an appraiser certifying and licensing agency with authority to register and supervise AMCs (participating States).
Section 1473 of the Dodd-Frank Act? also requires the ASC to maintain an AMC National Registry, which will include AMCs that are either registered with, and subject to supervision by, a State appraiser certifying and licensing agency or are subsidiaries owned and controlled by a Federally regulated insured depository institution and regulated by a Federal financial institutions regulatory agency.
In the employment context, aspects of the duty of loyalty include the duty that the employee …includes the duty not to misappropriate confidential information or trade secrets ….It also includes the duty to disclose the existence of conflicts or adverse information to the employer.
And this is true even if the employer is not harmed by the undisclosed adverse interest or information.
This list is, of course, not exhaustive. There are certainly other situations that can arise in the employment context that obligates an employee to act in the best interests of the employer….
No one on a public board can oversee a case involving their own employer, friend, co-worker, etc. He or she would recuse oneself (leave the room for the duration and have no involvement in the case).
I totally get where anonymous is coming from and why exposing Fannies selling guidelines is so important. What is astounding is that Fannies actions and cavalier attitude regarding hybrids and 1004p “test” pilots.
These new products are akin too and no different than the FDA approving and then unleashing an drug company’s experimental product on the general public prior to controlled studies. They are akin to using the general public as their guinea pigs. Without disclosing warnings of known or unknown side effects. By marketing the appeal of fast, and cheap there’s to date no little to no evidence of accuracy or questionable bifurcated processes using unqualified inspectors.
It’s all hype and wordsmithing.
The contention around automation and such, just talking points meant to distract from what’s really happening.
What’s behind the curtain are corporate investors.
Amc’s have a boss themselves these days. It’s their corporate responsibility to put share holders interests first. Amc appraisers might be unaware they are forced to discount, to appease capital investors and pay company interest payments.
For the record, I should clear the air on my own behalf because I think there is some confusion and misinformation, based on a few comments above and emails I’ve received.
-I did NOT write the blog post that appears on this page. (Yes, the blog references me above; no, I didn’t write it or contribute to it.)
-As part of my job, I recently spoke at a conference on standards and various inspection types commonly conducted. It was clear (per my invitation, calls with the organizer, agenda at the event, slides presented at the event, and my spoken words at the event) that I was at the event representing my company. This is proper and accepted, inviting no confusion about my role.
-I posted a short summary article of my recent presentation to my professional online profile.
-My article was reposted and referenced on other sites (including this site).
You are twisting words around because you have no sound argument to make. Maybe it is because you are incapable of understanding, or maybe it is your lack of a moral and ethical compass. I don’t know, nor do I care. Your actions are a conflict with your intended purpose serving on the Colorado Appraisal Board. Anyone who has taken an introductory business ethics course will tell you so. Anyone who has served on any regulatory Board will tell you so. The Appraisal Institute Ethics Committee will tell you so as will every other professional appraisal organization. It really does not matter if there is or is not a written rule, you have failed the citizens of Colorado.
Please take a step back and pay attention to the details. This is a public forum for the betterment of the profession and for consumer education. Your argument with every poster is noted. The likes and dislikes on the comments are noted. Have you been paying attention? No one is in agreement with you. Even if you don’t understand other perspectives, most people know when to stop and retreat. You appear to be lacking this ability.
Please stop embarrassing yourself, your employer, the Colorado Appraisal Board and most importantly the citizens of Colorado!
Advocate, I’m not going to repeat everything I’ve stated on other sub-strings above, but will say the laws and regulations for boards in Colorado allow for members to carry out their normal course of business in industry and professional capacities, in the manner that I do. This is not unique to Colorado. I know of multiple board members from across the country who regularly represent their companies at events, making that role clear.
I am familiar with state requirements, correspond with counsel and state staff when necessary, and otherwise handle situations appropriately within the laws and ethics rules of the state. The count of thumbs-up and thumbs-down, as you suggest, is not a primary concern to me.
As I’ve typed to others in this thread, I respect that some people like anonymity. However, accusations and tearing-down by an anonymous poster is not my idea of any sort of civil discussion. If you care to reveal your identity and have direct discussion, please feel free to email me at firstname.lastname@example.org. I think the discussion related to content and practice in this thread is excellent (and disagreement is okay!), but the attacks are inappropriate.
No one has attacked you in their comments. If you feel attacked, that is on you and you alone. If you are unable to accept the fact that others do not agree with you and state so, perhaps you should not post on public forums.
It is clear however, there is an ethical question here that you simply do not understand. Simply put, Just because something is allowed, it does not mean you should do it.
No attacks, but,
Every fee appraiser should have an employee assigned to the state board, who could fill them in on what the board is thinking or considering that might impact them, their friends, and colleagues.
Just so, you know, the appraiser can then hold meetings and let all the other appraisers know what’s in the pipeline.
No wonder it is as bad as it is.
You can’t always control the quality of market data based on questionable or faulty Realtor input to the MLS, but I don’t see too many appraisers backing out of assignments for that reason. Ever had an appraisal where you didn’t have a single good comp? Did you back out of that assignment? If you guys are going to fight this battle, fight it on something more than a lame interpretation of the scope of work rule. A bifurcated or hybrid product is really no different than a drive-by appraisal where you are relying on certain extraordinary assumptions about a property. I was doing desktop appraisals for First Union Bank 25 years ago. It never ceases to amaze me how many appraisers will post copies of appraisals that they are reviewing or observing and point out how incompetent the appraiser is and then wonder why the industry is trying to minimize full appraisals and the higher fees. You can’t have it both ways.
I often spend a good 30 minutes to an hour looking into a property and the available market data before taking an assignment Joyce, and I would suggest others do the same.
Why would the current MLS listing characteristics vary from public record files? Why does the current listing vary from past MLS listings? Are there new building permits on file? What is the current zoning, and is it legal? Has the subject sold in the past 3 years, was it a flip? Has it increased or decreased in value and if so is it inline with the greater market? Has the property been refinanced in recent years thus a UAD file would be on record? If you use A la mode, does the subject show up as being used by a panel of your peers, and does your initial opinion vary from theirs? Etc. etc. etc.
Only after knowing the above and more, and then comparing that set of data points to the greater market area can one determine the complexity, time needed to complete, a reasonable fee, liability, and if you want to do the assignment at all.
Joyce, do you really think a soccer mom with a few hours of training doing an inspection from the street is on par with a trained appraiser? Why did I spend an hour today walking a 500+ unit condo development spread over huge acreage? Because the sales prices vary for a reason. Where were the sales specifically located? Did they face the parking lot, the dumpster, the courtyard, or the canyon? Did they truly have a view, or were the agents lying? Do all of the downstairs units have larger patios with yards? How big were the 2nd story balconies in comparison to the 1st floor patios?
The idea that you see little to now difference relating to who does the inspection is scary.
Seek the truth.
Joyce the samples of hybrids we have seen makes hybrids considerably different than a drive-by. In a driveby, WE have viewed the subject and its neighborhood as well as locational influences of the comps.
We are not (default text embedded in those piles of pony loaf) “Deeming” the inspection to have been competent when we have no control or even contact with the inspector-nor any idea of their qualifications or personal integrity.
IF promoters of these would quit pretending that the fundamental format is ‘USPAP compliant’ instead of using or relying on sophist claims that it is not the form but the appraiser that determines compliance. These forms LIMIT appraiser input despite disclaimers that nothing prevents an appraiser from adding such additional information as they deem to be required. The entire form and format is based on lies, deception and misdirection.
Stop calling them appraisals or claiming they are USPAP compliant and I’d have no more argument with them than I would an AVM. One typical poster child example of such bifurcated-crapfest is right here in AB http://appraisersblogs.com/clearval-value-hybrid-appraisal