Cert 25 Dilemma: TAF Abdicates Its Role as Ethics Arbiter
We finally have a direct written response from The Appraisal Foundation regarding the Cert 25 confidentiality crisis and it is a masterclass in bureaucratic buck passing.
A peer recently contacted TAF to ask how appraisers can remain compliant with the USPAP Ethics Rule while signing a form that opens the floodgates for data distribution. TAF basically hid under their desks. They claimed they cannot give legal advice and told us that questions about Cert 25 are best suited for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac since they built the form.
Then they dropped this standard canned line to try and brush us off. They stated that providing a report to a client and intended users does not violate USPAP by itself. They added that a client’s subsequent disclosure or use of the report is not an action by the appraiser and is not governed by USPAP.
Let’s unpack exactly why this answer is total nonsense and why it proves TAF is completely dodging the issue.
First, TAF is hiding behind the phrase intended users. No one is arguing about valid intended users. The core issue is that the massive web of software vendors, private data aggregators, and secondary market players listed in Cert 25 are absolutely not intended users.
Second, TAF is recycling an old script about passive subsequent disclosure. That logic worked perfectly fine under the legacy UAD 2.6 forms. Under the old rules, if a lender chose to share your report downstream, that was entirely on them. The appraiser remained passive. But under the new UAD 3.6 Cert 25, the appraiser is being forced to actively sign a legal document certifying that they agree and consent to having their data stored, mined, reproduced, replicated, used, analyzed, and shared or distributed.
To see the exact nature of the confidentiality breach, we have to look directly at what has been added to the text. The old UAD 2.6 forms stated that the lender could disclose or distribute the report to secondary market participants and data collection services without the appraiser’s consent. That was a distribution allowance, meaning the physical report could move down the line.
However, UAD 3.6 adds a brand new, highly aggressive sentence that changes the legal playing field entirely. The new language explicitly states: “Any of the foregoing persons or entities who receive this appraisal report may choose to store, copy, reproduce, analyze, use and distribute the data in the appraisal report for internal or external purposes without having to obtain the appraiser’s or supervisory appraiser’s (if applicable) consent.”
This is where the massive USPAP confidentiality conflict occurs. Under the old system, the physical report was simply passed along to secondary participants. Under the new clause, you are signing an active certification that grants blanket prior authorization for an entire chain of non-intended users to permanently harvest, manipulate, replicate, and commercially exploit your assignment results and proprietary interior data.
Once you sign your name to that clause, the distribution is no longer just the client’s independent action. It becomes your action. You are certifying your prior authorization for third parties to exploit your assignment results and data.
TAF is intentionally dodging this because they know the truth. If they admit that Cert 25 forces an appraiser to actively authorize the release of confidential data to non-intended users, they would have to call out the GSEs for creating a direct violation of the USPAP Ethics Rule. Instead of protecting the integrity of our profession, the organization that writes USPAP is telling us to go ask Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for permission to protect our own confidentiality rules. You seriously cannot make this stuff up.
The absolute irony here is that while TAF is busy burying its head in the sand, the entire UAD 3.6 rollout is collapsing under its own weight. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac just officially blinked.
Recognizing that the industry is racing toward a brick wall, the GSEs announced a massive policy exception that pushes the hard cutoff for the legacy UAD 2.6 forms all the way out to May 19, 2027. They are trying to save face by claiming the November deadline is still active, but lenders can now easily request a hall pass to lag behind.
To add to the total chaos, the technology sector is completely falling apart. ACI has essentially pulled the ripcord on the initial rollout. Rather than updating their standard desktop software, they are attempting to force everyone onto their web platform, ACI Sky Workbench. Word on the street is they will not even be fully operational until well into 2027, leaving a huge portion of independent appraisers stranded on an island.
Absolutely no one is ready for this mess. Not the GSEs, not the software vendors, and definitely not the lenders. We are now staring down a glorious, highly fragmented transition period where we get to juggle both formats simultaneously depending on how unprepared each individual client happens to be.
Between software failures, massive delays, and now some state appraisal boards officially putting the Cert 25 confidentiality loophole on their upcoming agendas, the resistance is growing. TAF can keep passing the buck all they want, but the reality on the ground is clear.
- Cert 25 Dilemma: TAF Abdicates Its Role as Ethics Arbiter - October 2, 2026
- Certification 25 and the Quiet Breach of Appraiser Confidentiality - September 29, 2026
- When Solidifi Tried to Silence Samnick - August 11, 2026
I’ve never understood how Fannie is allowed to set appraisal policy and even to create appraisal forms, isn’t it kind of like giving the fox the keys to the henhouse?
TAF’s hypocrisy is something else. They’ll nitpick an appraiser to death over a clerical slip, but when the GSEs create a massive confidentiality mess, all they’ve got is “go ask FNMA.” Seriously… that’s the advice?
This is one big mess that have appraisers in and realistically not knowing what to do!!!!
I always knew that TAF was a clown circus. Now….we all know.
Appraisers have been treated without care, respect, or regard to the rules, rights, and feelings of anyone in profession. Appraisers have been a small, mostly individual and disassociated voice speaking whispers in the background. The GSE’s and AMC’s have systematically destroyed the profession.
So very glad I’m nearing retirement.
Thank you Desiree. What do we expect from TAF when, after all, they are continuing to dumb down the profession? Education and 3 appraisals reports and you are good to go to obtain a license. When will their trash stop? When the profession is gone? They certainly do NOT address any of the major glaring issues/dangers we see ie: data collectors so why would they address this? Why isn’t something being done about the drastic overreach of the GSEs? Borrowers beware. Danger and overreach is the now the name of the game.
FA, you’re completely right, & your frustration is shared by just about every working appraiser on the ground. TAF has spent years actively lowering the bar & dumbing down the licensing criteria, so expecting them to suddenly stand up & protect the integrity of the profession is a pipedream. They completely let the foxes into the henhouse. By changing rules to decouple physical site inspections from the appraiser, they paved the way for FNMA & Freddie to flood the market with these untrained property data collectors. Now cert 25 is just the next step in handing over our intellectual property on a silver platter. They refuse to challenge the drastic overreach of the GSEs because they’re completely beholden to them. It’s a dangerous game, & it’s exactly why I refuse to touch UAD 3.6. If they want to destroy the profession, I’m not going to hand them the tools to do it.
The same individuals, like George Hatch, who have profited from USPAP are now defending this outrage over at Appraisers Forum.
EJ, out of curiosity I went over to AF to see the back & forth myself. It’s incredible watching these guys tie themselves in knots trying to defend this language.
https://appraisersforum.com/forums/threads/certification-25-3-6.243232/
If you sign your name to a clause like that, you can’t turn around & claim you didn’t just legally authorize the access. You can call it an acknowledgement all day long, but the second you sign a professional certification validating that framework, it becomes your active consent. The GSEs didn’t hide this text in a random lender instruction manual. They put it inside the appraiser’s signed certification block because they knew they needed our signature to legally clear themselves of data theft & confidentiality liabilities.
It;’s deeply disappointing to see industry figures run interference for the data aggregators instead of standing up for independent appraisers.
Great read. I don’t know where this mess ends, but eventually I believe the GSE’s will control pricing everywhere in America. Utimatley – when traditional appraisals are no longer needed, their AVM’s or whatever AI model they use will set pricing indexes that will dicate markets. You wont be able to have a really special – unique home sell above market, bc the computers won’t support it. 1’s and 0’s will tell you what it’s worth – not the market. That’s my latest conspiracy theory. lol
Alfred E. Newman Appraisals, Inc.
Desiree, this reflects the frustration many appraisers are expressing. TAF’s response, as reported here, does not adequately address the question appraisers are asking: How does signing Certification 25 fit with our confidentiality obligations? Referring us back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac leaves working appraisers looking for a clear, practical answer.
I have been building my own UAD 3.6 template. Rebuilding templates, reorganizing comments, placing photographs, and handling supplemental material take time. Those costs come out of my business. Lenders and AMCs should not assume that established fees and turnaround times automatically fit the new workflow.
Independent fee appraisers are business owners. TAF, HUD, lenders, banks, and AMCs do not own our businesses or our time. We provide professional services to clients, meet our professional obligations, and operate businesses that must earn a profit.
Each appraiser can make an independent decision about participating. If a UAD 3.6 assignment does not make financial sense, decline to bid. If you accept it and the work requires more time or expense, quote a higher fee that reflects those costs. Nobody else should decide what your business can afford to absorb.
Appraisers retain substantial power over the practical rollout because we control whether we accept assignments and what capacity we offer. Reporting requirements alone do not produce completed appraisals. Where an appraisal is required, the industry still needs a qualified appraiser willing to do the work.
I work for myself, and my business has to make money. I am not obligated to accept a new assignment on terms that make it unprofitable.
I could not agree more. I would add, “know your worth”. Don’t accept low fee assignments because those fees become the new “customary and reasonable”. It’s time we get what we are worth. Let the AMC’s continue to abuse the borrower. That’s on them. Where is the CFPB these days… crickets.
Ken, you are spot on about the business mindset. Everyone who knows me knows that I have already made my decision & I will absolutely not touch UAD 3.6 appraisals under any circumstances. But for the peers who do choose to take that route, they need to adopt your exact strategy. They must fully understand the massive risks they are taking with their proprietary data & make damn sure they are charging a steep premium that covers their extra time & liability. We are business owners, & we hold the power over this rollout through our capacity & our fees. If the numbers do not work, just walk away.
Anyone that does 3.6 is a fool. It’s time to stand up like men and women and revolt. There is only one problem we are spread out too far to stand together. A message to the banking system. Take 3.6 and shove it! and its disclosures. For me I already realize the job is not worth it. Over years I watch it degrade. Let the management companies hire staff appraisers and screw it up. Because all fingers will be pointed at you when a problem happens. Homes change days after assignment. To try to exploit our data will only make them look like fools. From rainstorms to earth movement dictates what happens to the exterior. Inside can change with children in the home. Do not be blamed for conditions that may happen after you do your inspection. It’s time to fight back. Let the idiots out there do all the work until they burn out. Not me. I will find work! our industry is hard work long hours and not worth what they are proposing.
Joseph, you hit on a massive point that people are completely overlooking, especially now that the banks want to rely on 3rd-party property data collectors for this stuff.
Those data collectors are notoriously inexperienced, untrained, & completely rushed. They make pennies per inspection so they have to sprint through as many houses as humanly possible, & many of them are literally paid bonuses based entirely on their speed. They’re going to completely miss dynamic property changes, water damage, or structural shifts. Trying to archive, analyze, & commercially exploit that kind of low-quality, rushed data is going to blow up right in the banking system’s face.
You’re completely right to walk away from the madness. Letting the AMCs burn through staff appraisers & unreliable data collectors while we focus our energy on private work is the smartest business move we can make. If they want to treat our profession like a fast-food commodity, let them watch the whole system collapse on its own. I’m right there with you.
Desiree Mehbod- email me, I have a follow up article I want you to read; kjmull@aol.com Ken
If only I had known this was going to happen..
This should end the discussion then. The authority of USPAP just stated that there is no USPAP violation. Move along or……….. was this just another excuse for something else. Based on comments here it seems like something else. Not wanting 3.6 in the first place, not liking hybrids, not liking property data inspectors the list goes on and on. Seems like for many this was just an excuse to pile on.
I read Cert 25t and it didn’t concern me in the slightest. I reread USPAP and again I had no concern. Now basically USPAP is saying there is no violation and some still have concerns there might be a violation? Once the report is sent, we have no control over where it goes or what is done with it. Nothing has changed. Appraisers have to comply with USPAP, no one or nothing else does. If you as “the appraiser” yourself, do nothing to violate our ethics rule then you are fine.
Brent, you are completely misrepresenting my position. I have never used Cert 25 as an excuse for anything. I have voiced loudly & clearly from day one that I will absolutely not touch UAD 3.6 appraisals under any circumstances because this entire framework is designed to undermine the profession & actively put independent appraisers out of business.
It’s the exact same reason a few of us completely refused to touch AMC work back in 2009, knowing from day one that those entities would destroy our industry. Back then, the few appraisers who stood their ground & said no to AMCs were told by critics that resistance was futile & that we would not survive. Fast forward to 2026, & those of us who stayed entirely with non AMC clients & private sector work are thriving. We make a better living than appraisers doing AMC work, we work less, we make more money, & most importantly, we did not betray our peers or the profession. In fact, those same peers who criticized the resistance back in 2009 are now openly agreeing that they should have taken our exact path. There is zero need to look for excuses when a proven business & professional model already exists outside the corporate treadmill. I made my decision a long time ago, so I’m not piling on. This is about making sure the peers who do choose to go down the 3.6 route fully understand the massive, systemic risks they are taking with their proprietary data.
As for your claim that nothing has changed, you are falling into the exact same semantic trap as the forum apologists. No one is arguing about what a client does with a report after delivery. Under the old 2.6 forms, a lender sharing your work downstream was a passive subsequent disclosure. But under UAD 3.6, it’s no longer just the client’s independent action. You are being forced to actively sign a legal document certifying your agreement & consent to a framework that lets an entire chain of non-intended users permanently store, mine, replicate, used, analyze, & distribute your proprietary data. Let us be very clear about what that data is: your interior photographs, subjective condition ratings, neighborhood analysis, & proprietary adjustments are intellectual property & assignment results developed under a confidential client relationship.
Your signature on that certification block is the blanket prior authorization. It means they do not have to ask you again down the road because you already signed away your consent upfront. TAF completely passed the buck because they know that admitting the truth means calling out the GSEs for forcing a direct violation of the USPAP Ethics Rule. If you are comfortable signing away your intellectual property on a silver platter, that is your business choice. But do not pretend independent appraisers are just making excuses when they call out a glaring contract loophole.
Then I am confused. You state that you never used cert 25 as an excuse for anything, then you say you aren’t going to do any 3.6 assignments. You state ” TAF completely passed the buck because they know that admitting the truth means calling out the GSEs for forcing a direct violation of the USPAP Ethics Rule. If you are comfortable signing away your intellectual property on a silver platter, that is your business choice. But do not pretend independent appraisers are just making excuses when they call out a glaring contract loophole.” You wrote an entire article on Cert 25. Maybe I should just ask this very simply, why aren’t you going to do any 3.6 assignments?
You mention that we are signing away intellectual property. What intellectual property?
I think the real issue is this, we all know that the client can do whatever they want with our reports, they can give it to whomever and they can do whatever with it. I think people just don’t like the fact that it is in writing now. Nothing has changed other than its written down not. Other that that no difference. And oh, by the way, no ethics violation either.
Brent, if you’re still confused, let me make it incredibly simple for you. I’m not doing UAD 3.6 assignments because I refuse to sign a contract that forces me to pre-authorize the theft & monetization of my own intellectual property just to keep a lending client happy. It’s a bad business decision, & it’s a massive professional compromise.
You ask what intellectual property? My interior photographs, my proprietary database, my market adjustments, my neighborhood analysis, & my final opinions are my intellectual property. They’re assignment results developed under a strictly confidential client relationship. They aren’t public property.
Your argument that “nothing has changed other than it’s written down” shows a complete misunderstanding of contract law. Look at it like a Ring doorbell camera. If a tech company quietly hacks into your cloud storage looks at your camera footage, they’re invading your privacy. But if you actively sign a legal contract stating that the company has the permanent right to store, copy, reproduce, use, analyze, & distribute your private video feeds for external commercial purposes without your further consent, you just signed a blanket waiver. You cannot turn around & claim nothing changed just because it’s in writing now. Your signature is what legally gives away the rights.
Under the old 2.6 forms, a lender sharing your report downstream was a passive subsequent action on them. But under 3.6, you aren’t just letting them share a document. By signing your name to that certification block, you’re actively signing a blanket, royalty free waiver that grants an entire chain of non-intended users the LEGAL right to permanently store, mine, replicate, analyze, & resell your intellectual property for external commercial purposes. You’re transforming a passive disclosure into an active grant of permission. If you want to sign a contract that gives away your hard work & analytics on a silver platter so big tech can use it to build automated models to replace you, go right ahead. That’s your choice as a business owner. But stop pretending there’s no difference between a passive leak & an active, certified surrender of your data rights.
FNMA may have sidestepped it’s own privacy keeping obligations by placing a PII agreement into the appraisers certifications?
https://www.lawinsider.com/clause/personally-identifiable-information
The appraisal trade groups should have brought in intellectual property lawyers during the formation of the CU system, as many appraisers requested them to do at the time. That is supposed to be a primary function of an industries trade group, to seek legal advice and representation for issues which affect members of their respective industry. To rally, redirect funds as necessary in defense of the industries integrity and long term future viability, all members, not just their elites. This idea TAF can not provide legal advice for small business appraisers. They did not have a problem paying all those lawyers for their own legal and personal needs.
https://selling-guide.fanniemae.com/sel/a3-4-01/confidentiality-information
Has anyone placed the previous appraisal statement exception FNMA approved as acceptable, within the new 3.6 reports? (image)
If the special interests could have had their way, they’d have long since implemented a ‘uspap certified avm’, where so much of this started.
They forgot the combined net gross adjustment indicators. They split up the grid, which is a math equation, across multiple pages. They’re applying a mass appraisal methodology to forms which strips the appraiser of logical interpretation and reconciliation of buyers and sellers often emotional decision making process. Attempting to require appraisers to prove every adjustment with rigid mathematical certainty and proofing.
Potential buyer steps up to house. Whips out pocket calculator. Performs on the spot chop research and value adjustments with the county assessor and available MLS data at hand. Says; The seller here is definitely at least $20,000 higher priced than they should be. Wouldn’t you agree buyers agent of mine? Absolutely, we’ve got to drive this price down, there is no way I can justify such a high commission if this means you may pay too much for this home. But you know, if you want it, you can have it. There is no appraisal, you were approved for a waiver. Let’s go take a look. What does it hurt to just take a look?
This appraisal modernization program is shaping up to be extra extra modern.
Baggins, you just blew this whole thing wide open. Connecting Cert 25 to FNMA’s own Selling Guide Section A3-4-01 is an absolute mic drop.
Their own guidelines explicitly state that technical specifications, writings, works of authorship, & proprietary compilations are “Confidential Information” that lenders are legally mandated to protect. But by forcing the appraiser to sign UAD 3.6 cert 25, the GSEs are pulling off a massive legal sleight of hand. They’re forcing us to sign a clause that completely absolves the lenders & downstream entities of their own privacy keeping obligations. They’re basically using our signatures as a get out of jail free card to bypass their own corporate compliance rules.
You’re completely right about the trade groups failing us too. They should’ve had intellectual property lawyers fighting the CU data grab from day one. Instead, TAF pays for their own elite legal shields while leaving small business appraisers out to dry. This modernization program isn’t just modern, it’s a highly calculated corporate data heist. Incredible research.
You state: “My interior photographs, my proprietary database, my market adjustments, my neighborhood analysis, & my final opinions are my intellectual property.” So, you have copyrights, patents, trademarks, or trade secrets? My guess is no. If so, then you don’t have intellectual property.
You report the results of your neighborhood analysis; the results are not intellectual property or proprietary. If you invented a product that would analyze the neighborhood, then spit out the results the “product” could be patented and thus become your intellectual property but not the report or comments themselves.
A police department swabs an individual’s mouth for DNA. They send the swab to a laboratory. The laboratory uses proprietary and patented equipment to analyze the swab. They create a report and send the results back to the police department. The police department sends those results across the country to other law enforcement agencies. Nothing that was sent contains any intellectual property. The intellectual property is the science behind the development of the product and equipment, not the report that is generated.
Brent, your understanding of federal copyright law is completely incorrect. Under US copyright law, protection attaches automatically the exact second an original work of authorship is fixed in a tangible medium. I do not need a piece of paper from a registration office for my original written analysis & my unique interior photographs to be protected. They are my intellectual property by default from the moment I create them.
Your DNA lab report analogy is a total failure. A DNA report lists raw scientific facts & biological markers from nature, which cannot be copyrighted because no one owns a fact. An appraisal report is a custom compilation of market analysis, subjective text descriptions, proprietary data modeling, & professional opinions of value. It’s a distinct work of authorship, not a raw molecular count.
The fact that you think our original text & photos have zero legal protections is exactly why the GSEs are able to manipulate appraisers into signing away their rights. If there was no intellectual property or commercial value inside our reports, the GSEs would not have spent millions building a digital infrastructure & forcing us to sign Cert 25 to secure our signatures. You’re literally arguing that your own hard work & expertise have zero proprietary value just to defend a corporate data waiver. That is a wild race to the bottom.
TAF demonstrating regulatory capture is front and center
Brian Jarrard explain “regulatory capture” in the context of Cert 25, please
Frank Gregoire failing to protect the consumers privacy, failing to adhere to USPAP standards which they wrote… namely CONFIDENTIALITY
Brian Jarrard OK
Frank Gregoire
https://youtu.be/mwfGFSe3oGo
We are writing you today to inform you that your personal home data has been sold to various data brokers and other interested parties. All proceeds of monetized data sales are confidential, are not shared with the customer. All data that was in your real estate appraisal is what data that was sold, among other data we acquired during the process of originating a mortgage loan on your behalf. Third party data companies have received your personal details and associated data for open ended future use. As part of the data chain of custody, your assigned real estate appraiser gave us additional permissions to sell and trade this data. FYI.
Keeping our consumers informed.
Mortgage department.
Has anyone run this by an Intellectual Property attorney yet? At the very least I would like to know what they think. As I see it, the contents of the report are ours. Like when you buy a song through Itunes you aren’t buying the song, you’re buying the rights to the song. at the end of the day I want to own the contents of my report. Its my work and knowledge and experience that went into it and I want to be able to dictate the distribution. I may be way off base here, but I feel like its worth a conversation
Logan, your iTunes analogy is absolutely brilliant & you’re 100% right on the money. This is exactly an intellectual property issue that should be reviewed by an IP attorney. When a client pays for an appraisal, they’re paying for a limited license to use our report for a specific lending decision. They do not buy the underlying copyright to our research, database, or analytics.
But that’s exactly what makes Cert 25 so dangerous. By forcing independent appraisers to sign that clause, the GSEs are essentially forcing us to sign a blanket, royalty free intellectual property waiver that lets an entire chain of non-intended users copy, replicate, & commercialize our proprietary work. They’re using our signatures to legally bypass our copyright protections. You are not off base at all, & it’s a conversation the entire industry needs to start having.
If you want to own the contents of your report then you need to obtain a copyright, a patent, or a trademark
https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html
We’ve learned several new things today. You are not a copywright expert.
Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See “Copyright Basics (Circular 1) (PDF, 109 KB), section “Copyright Registration”.
Remember the previous appraisal slogan; art not a science? Do you think works of art are able to be copywrighted? When appraisers add color and various unique commentary, especially expressive commentary, is this falling into the realm of providing a work of art? Other research indicates one can qualify a work of art, without needing to actually sign it. My appraisal reports are often quite expressive.
I’m getting a more complete picture of why the GSE’s seek to censor appraisers reporting language and force a rigid mathematical approach. After which comes a special certification where appraisers personally authorize distribution of their personal expressive work products and all the data their in.
Houston, we might have a problem here.
Baggins, you’re 100% spot on about the “art versus science” connection. The entire push to force a rigid, box checking mathematical format is designed to turn our custom, expressive analysis into raw, uncopyrightable facts. They want us to act like automated biological sensors instead of authors because they know they can’t legally claim ownership over our unique commentary, custom logic, & original photography without a forced signature.
By trapping us with UAD 3.6 & cert 25, they’re basically trying to build a legal firewall against copyright infringement claims by forcing us to sign a blanket, royalty free waiver upfront. Houston definitely has a problem, & you just completely exposed the engine room. Outstanding drop.
Thanks there is a lot out there. I did not have time to dive into so much of the content.
I posed the simple question online to a search engine; Does signing a report create a copywrite? And a few other basic searches. Reminds me of looking into the legality of burning youtube videos. For as simple as it seems copywright is among the more complicated legal practices. Fair use likely does not apply to appraisal reports created for a defined client by way of federally regulated systems. Because the content is not generally available to the public at large, it would not constitute fair use. Fair use is defined as being borrowed or recreated for personal non monetized use. When one borrows or copies even in part someone elses work with the intent and end action of having moenized the product, fair use no longer applies and one moves into penalty territories.
Appraisers were having this argument previously and the trade group people had at the time debated if allowing an appraiser to sign their pdf report with a locked pass code would be an acceptable gse approach. The open source argument was selected by the gse’s instead, which is why we get XML files which can be easily data mined and also manipulated.
Following this was the random lenders appraisal report audits where appraisers were sent copies of their own origination reports they’d completed for lenders, as some lenders were using third party auditors to verify the integrity of their appraisal products, to make sure nobody was manipulating XML files. Appraisers were asked to verify this was their original report and no data was manipulated. This was also problematic as appraisers did not recognize the lenders third party data integrity auditor as being an assigned client. At the time is when Alamode put forth their infamous disclaimer they required all appraisers to click an agreement to, before being allowed to even generate an XML file. (image.)
At it’s heart, the argument around proprietary intellectual property also has close relations to the open source vs closed source report and data formatting their in. Obviously any report required to be submitted in a data format other than a locked PDF file is also intended for data mining. The argument may rest on the transmission file type itself. Prior to XML there were several appraisers whom were sending locked pdf’s to lenders and it was creating problems for some. I think Alamode still offers a pdf special code integration lock where the pdf itself can come with it’s own unique password for that document. Not sure, I never used that one.
Baggins, that a la mode screenshot is the perfect illustration of how software vendors dump data security liabilities straight onto the appraiser.
We’re being bookended by liability on both sides. The GSEs mandate an open, easily modified XML format so they can mine it, while the software companies force us to check a clickwrap box accepting full personal & financial liability for any consumer privacy violations under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. We’re forced to take 100% of the blame if the data leaks or gets modified, while simultaneously being forced to sign cert 25 to give away our commercial rights to that exact data on a silver platter.
Well, they have been mining our data since 2009 and I have no doubt that the information is already being sold without the appraiser’s consent or compensation. This just makes it legal* in their eyes. Since TAF appears to be run by “yes men/women”, the only hope would be the CFPB. I know there are more concerned with appraiser independence but, I’d like to hear a position from them. The ARCC has been doing a great job collecting violations and Josh Tucker is our advocate. I hope his work lands on the right desk one day. I’ve very mush enjoyed reading the comments even though the topic raises my blood pressure 50 points.
We do know the appraisal data has been tortured until it confessed what special interests wanted to hear.
https://www.tennantlending.com/expanding-public-home-appraisal-data/
Am not holding out hope there will be attention to regulatory process correction at this time. The appraisal trade groups are supposed to be the ones whom represent the majority, they do not. There are too many conflicts of interests. Their members and associated companies are among the recipients and beneficiaries whom have been and will continue to receive and monetize appraisal data.
Look at TAF’s own privacy policy page. I’m sensing some sort of legal services might have been involved in writing that. Then contrast to the FNMA privacy pages.
https://appraisalfoundation.org/policies/privacy-policy
https://selling-guide.fanniemae.com/sel/a3-4-01/confidentiality-information
Define ‘legally required disclosure’. Then explain why similar language as seen on the TAF and FNMA’s own privacy pages is not mirrored through the appraisal and appraisal certifications. Ask a different question.
Desiree- can I have your email address to send you a article you should read? Ken
35 years of word smithing “ethics.” Now they have none.