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.
- UAD 3.6 and the Danger of Corporate Pragmatism - October 14, 2026
- Our Metrics, Their Millions: Exposing the Backdoor Data Rush - October 13, 2026
- Inspectors Blocked the Door, Appraisers Handed Over the Keys - October 12, 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
I predict the Foundation will fold like a cheap suite and amend the USPAP confidentiality clause. Their telling appraisers to ask Fannie and Freddie for a hall pass is really pretty funny. For God sake man, they are private, for profit companies. Oh, the inhumanity.
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.
The issue is keeping an Ethics and Confidentiality clause while also permitting this type of release of report information. Both cannot exist. If the report is going to be shared freely, then the requirement to remain confidential to a specific client must be removed. I’m a photographer and similar debates were had when Facebook and Instagram obtained rights to use photographs one uploaded to their services–some wanted to believe the original photographers retained some type of copyright ownership of the images. That’s simply not a tenable position in today’s environment. Guess who won?
We can’t pretend we still have a duty of confidentiality while also following Certification 25. I think Cert 25 is a natural progression in how our society views information in the modern age. But it cannot exist with an ethics clause that directly violates the rule.
If appraisers wanted to consider their reports secret and private, they should not have allowed borrowers access to appraisal reports ordered by lenders. That was never the case until a few years ago, when a law provided borrowers access to reports. Once the report is released to non-clients, the horse is out of the barn and it doesn’t make sense to complain. So a borrower has access but an insurance adjuster doesn’t? How does one draw that line? One can even argue that the insurance company has a business interest where the borrower does not.
In other words, too late, the precedent has already been set. Even if I agree with the OP in principle.
The Confidentiality clause under USPAP protects the appraiser – client relationship. If the client sends the report to a third party, I didn’t breach their confidentiality.
How USPAP applies
– If the lender/client shared the report: The client’s disclosure is not automatically a USPAP violation by the appraiser. The appraiser generally is responsible for their own conduct, not every subsequent disclosure made by the client.
– If the appraiser shared the report with the client: This is generally permitted because the client is one of the parties authorized to receive assignment results under the Confidentiality Rule.
– If the appraiser disclosed confidential information to an unauthorized third party: That could support a USPAP complaint, depending on the facts and any applicable exception.
– If the report contains the borrower’s personal information: Privacy laws or contractual obligations may apply independently of USPAP, even when the appraiser did not violate the Confidentiality Rule.
Can the borrower make a complaint or claim?
Potentially, yes. The borrower could consider:
1. A state appraiser regulatory complaint if there is evidence the appraiser personally violated USPAP or applicable confidentiality or privacy requirements.
2. A privacy-law complaint or legal claim if the disclosure involved legally protected personal information and violated an applicable law. Whether the borrower can sue directly depends on the particular law and facts.
3. A complaint against the lender/client if the lender’s disclosure violated an applicable privacy law, contract, or other legal obligation.
Brent, you are still dodging the exact mechanism that changes everything under UAD 3.6.
Look at your own first bullet point under borrower complaints: a state regulatory complaint happens “if there is evidence the appraiser personally violated USPAP or applicable confidentiality requirements.”
Under legacy 2.6, a client sharing the report downstream was an independent subsequent action, so you stayed passive. But under 3.6 Certification 25, you aren’t just delivering to the client. You are signing your name to a block that explicitly grants those third parties prior authorization to store & mine the data without needing your consent.
Your signature transforms a passive client disclosure into an active personal authorization by you. That means you are personally greenlighting the release to non intended users at the moment of signing. You literally just laid out the exact roadmap for why state boards can cite an appraiser under your own bullet point number one.
Ok then, I guess Fannie/Freddie, The Appraisal Foundation, Lenders and whomever else participated in the development of 3.6 have intentionally created a USPAP violation and an ethics violation for every appraiser that signs a 3.6 order. I guess that means that almost all lender work will have to go to AI or another type of valuation because no appraisal can be done on the form.
This is the end of the road for almost all appraisers.
The conspiracy is no longer a conspiracy, it’s fact, we were just a giant cog in the wheel and they created 3.6 to get rid of that cog.
Brent, you’re lumping everyone together & getting the architecture completely wrong. TAF didn’t write UAD 3.6 or Cert 25, & traditional lenders didn’t draft the certification either. This was a top down mandate built strictly by the GSEs & FHFA.
Look at who actually drove it. Danny Wiley spent over 25 years as an independent fee appraiser, chaired the Appraisal Standards Board, & served as Chief Appraiser for major national AMCs like ServiceLink before moving into Collateral Risk Policy at Freddie Mac. Insiders with that exact corporate background sat right at the table designing this standardized data conveyor belt & putting our signature on the receipt.
They didn’t accidentally create an ethics trap. They intentionally built a system to harvest interior data & replace human judgment with automated models. Walking away from bank work isn’t quitting; it’s refusing to supply the fuel for our own replacement.
Ok I M wrong, you seem to have the answers, it is the GSE’s that are trapping appraisers. Since I have already done four 3.6 assignments I am clearly screwed. Which do you think is going to happen first. The state will come after my license for USPAP or a breach of the Eric’s rule? I’ll get sued by someone for a breach of confidentiality even though I didn’t do it myself or do you think AI or the GSE’s will have a big enough database to eliminate all appraisers? Can you offer a timeframe for me? Do I have a month, 6 months , a year etc? Please advise.
Danny Wiley… Apparently an opportunistic progressive race baiting socialist whom thinks everyone’s homes should cost more regardless of economic or other factors. Yet another appraiser tied into the same companies whom are monopolizing the industry with direct ties to the special interests displacing small businesses and exploiting consumers data.
https://www.aiatlanta.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Wiley-Danny-BIO-09.15.2023.pdf
https://www.asc.gov/sites/default/files/2024-06/Freddie%20Mac.pdf
“Hence, while the demand for appraisal services is fluid and can change rapidly due to changing economic conditions, the supply of real estate appraisers is relatively static and cannot change quickly.” (enter 3.6 ‘mandates’, Wiley says; hold my beer.)
Analysis of 2026 ASC Appraisal License Data / By Chase Pursley
Excerpts: Last year we published ASC Data Analysis 2025: 66,715 unique active appraisers holding 91,290 licenses. This is the 2026 follow-up.
A September 2026 dump of the ASC Federal Registry shows 62,831 unique active appraisers holding 87,424 active licenses. Licenses are down 4.2% from 2025. The unique-person count is down 5.8%, but that is not a clean year-over-year comparison, because we rebuilt how “one appraiser” is counted (details below). Use the license count when comparing years.
National overview / 2025 2026 Change
Active licenses 91,290 87,424 −3,866 (−4.2%)
Unique appraisers 66,715 62,831 −3,884 (−5.8%)*
Licenses per appraiser 1.37 1.39 +0.02
Most appraisers are still local: 93.9% hold licenses in one or two states (local), 5.4% in 3 to 9 states (regional), 0.7% in 10 or more (national). 16.1% hold licenses in more than one state, almost the same as last year’s 16.4%.
The profession did not shrink evenly. Certified General is essentially unchanged. The whole decline sits in residential: Certified Residential down almost 7%, Licensed down 11%. Licensed is now 6.6% of licenses, down from 7.2% last year.
___________________________
Those numbers were from before 3.6 fully implemented. minus 3384 appraisers last year alone. Nearly all of them were residential. Half of the 66.7k appraisers from 2025 are general. Call that 33.3k residential remaining, then 3.38k of them left recently. That’s an easy numerical relationship. Residential appraiser workforce shrunk 10% over the past year. Although that happens with yearly renewals and all, think of the scale. 282 professional licensees quit every single month last year alone.
Perspective how the industry changed. Twenty years ago total licensee head count was nearly 120k people. Nearly all the movement is in residential licensee, CG’s only gained slight ground from a proportional perspective. 120k – 33k who’s left = 87,000 appraiser small businesses residential appraisers wiped off the map. Considering long term license holders and employees whom don’t really stay in the industry, that figure could be as high as 100k or higher. All gone. How many other small business appraisers never came into existence? The destructive nature of central planing, special interest monopolization, regulatory capture. The amc and tech industry focusing on appraisal and appraisal data has in most likely analysis scenarios, destroyed over 100,000 small business appraisers already. Enter reduced qualification standards, they need more, there is not enough people left to sustain the exploitation, pass the risk and liability to someone else.
This is why I hate appraisal management companies. There is good reason to reject the model, it’s exploitative. Ethics…
The thinning of the herd. Total ASC licensee head count is the most important issue in this industry.
Brent, care to extrapolate a time frame based on those figures?
Brent, nobody is telling you that you’re going to get hauled off to court tomorrow morning. I’m just sounding the alarm on a major contractual shift, & it’s up to every business owner to decide if that exposure is worth it.
If you want a real world example of how this plays out, just look at what happened to the home inspection profession. A licensed inspector honored every ethical bound, but his cloud software silently harvested his property defect data & piped it straight to insurance carriers. His clients got hammered when one lost a mortgage & another saw their insurance spike, & both came back in a total fury accusing the inspector of breaking confidentiality.
https://appraisersblogs.com/inspectors-blocked-the-door-appraisers-handed-over-the-keys/
When a consumer gets hurt by a data leak, they don’t care about the GSEs or corporate tech platforms. They look straight at the signature on the report.
I’m walking away from the bank work.
Paul, your Facebook comparison & borrower access argument miss the fundamental difference between statutory consumer transparency & a forced commercial data license.
When you upload a photo to Instagram, it’s a voluntary choice on a public platform. Delivering a confidential valuation report to a lender under federal rules is a closed fiduciary relationship.
Giving the borrower a copy of their report under federal law is a consumer transparency right for that specific transaction. It doesn’t grant a third party data broker or insurance adjuster the legal right to harvest, store, & commercially exploit interior photos & proprietary adjustments forever.
Saying the horse is out of the barn just normalizes a corporate data heist. We can & must hold the line on the Ethics Rule instead of surrendering our profession to a defeatist precedent.
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, where are you at on the IVPI Proposal these days?
https://www.workingre.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/IVPI-Proposalfinal.pdf
Without it, there is no law, there is no order. Not in this industry.
Would the IVPI had permitted the wholesale data sharing and brokerage of this nature?
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.
Isaac, the historical background is useful, but twenty years of collecting appraisal data does not resolve the concerns about Certification 25. The expanded wording deserves scrutiny before appraisers are expected to sign it.
Certification 21 already permitted lenders to distribute reports to a broad list of recipients. Certification 25 expressly adds permission for those recipients to copy, reproduce, analyze, use, and distribute report data for “internal or external purposes.” What purposes does that cover? What enforceable restrictions apply? Who is responsible when the information is misused?
I understand TAF’s distinction between an appraiser disclosing information and a client subsequently sharing it. Signing Certification 25 alone should not be treated as proof of a USPAP violation. However, appraisers still deserve specific guidance about their obligations, and homeowners deserve a plain explanation of how their interior photographs and property information may be used. The GSEs, lenders, and recipients should clearly explain the safeguards surrounding those uses.
Your insurance discussion raises another concern. The absence of previous claims provides some reassurance, but your acknowledgment that certain privacy claims may lack a clear path to E&O coverage deserves attention. I want to understand what protection actually applies if a claim arises. That question should be answered before an appraiser has to defend one.
There is also a business consequence that deserves more discussion. Have Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AMCs, and lenders considered what happens if individual appraisers decide UAD 3.6 assignments are not worth accepting? Some may decline to bid on AMC orders. Others may quote higher fees based on the additional time, training, and expense.
How will AMCs get those orders accepted, completed, and returned to lenders on schedule? If they cannot find qualified appraisers willing to accept the offered fees and terms, orders could remain unfilled or require reassignment. That could mean higher costs, longer turnaround times, and delayed loan closings, particularly in areas with limited appraiser coverage. The effect would depend on participation, loan demand, and how the companies respond. What is their contingency plan?
I own an independent appraisal business. I decide which assignments I accept, what terms I agree to, and what fee makes the work worthwhile. Each appraiser makes that decision independently. Broader permissions to reuse our work deserve consideration alongside the workload and expenses.
The people designing this rollout need to account for the business decisions of the professionals expected to deliver it.
I couldn’t agree more. I called my E&O company today to get their take on Certification 25. When I get a response, I will update. The language is too broad. I’d like to see more specfic language about what data is shared. Especially interior photos. That should never be sold in my opinion.
https://www.workingre.com/certification-25-the-20-year-fight-over-who-gets-to-use-your-data/
Featured in WorkingRE. The lawyer said focus on licensing agreements. Sure, why not.
___________________________________
https://www.alamode.com/legal/privacy
https://www.reggora.com/privacy-policy
https://www.bradfordsoftware.com/privacy/index.shtml
Wait. Maybe I should be searching for end user licensing agreements not just privacy policies?
https://www.aciweb.com/terms-and-conditions/
https://chunter2.appraiserxsites.com/admin/DisplayEula.aspx
https://www.alamode.com/legal/eula/titan
https://www.alamode.com/legal/eula/vault
https://datamasterusa.com/eula/
I’m not even sure what I’m looking at here. Looks like agreements to protect their data with only basic references to consumer data protection which is never detailed. I learned absolutely nothing by reading any of this.
___________________________________________________________
Now here is something interesting I did not expect to find. Appraisal Scopes detailed user instructional document. Save this document, they’ll pull it.
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54ed0135e4b0a3ebc2d2194a/t/65b159a03e7ee73432140d26/1706121632841/23-APPSCP-0123-00-Appraisal-Scope-v1.0-User-Guide-SCREEN-020823.pdf
Pg 23. They have round robin distribution options. Nobody uses them. / Pg 53. Sure looks like workflow control over appraisers that the IRS may define as a setting for employees rather than 1099’s. / Wow look at this. Pg 58. Appraisers profile rating for CU system scores. / Pg 70, how to hide fees. / Pg 79 mass assignment of appraisal orders, aka spam bidding. / 84, fee schedules and documentation. These platforms have the records of all the fee splits, too bad ARCC was not able to audit them. / Pg 88, fee search process. How the tech companies facilitate violations of the federal registry guidelines on appraiser selection criteria, that companies are not supposed to search appraisers out by low fees. Yet, here is the tech which does exactly that. / Pg 90, user tabs, do not use specific appraisers lists / The Users tab is also where AMCs can see a list of appraisers who have been disabled in their platform AMCs will have the option to export, in Excel format, a list of these appraisers (blacklist sharing) / pg 101 minimum appraiser rating tools, and auto assignment (make the deals work or you’re automatically off the assignment que, it’s all automated.) / Pg 103, profit margin percentage. / Page 103, automated assignment based on appraisers CU score percentages over all / Minimum CU R&W%. When the check box for this setting is selected, the platform will exclude from assignment consideration appraisers whose CU R&W% scores are equal to or less than a minimum score To set the minimum to be used, type a CU R&W% score into the text box associated with this setting / 109 ‘hide fee options’ Sure that’s an honest way to go about things. / Pg 111, how to set automated assignment based on appraisers fee and amc’s management percentage expectations. / pg 113, auto complete and minimum CU score requirements before order processing to the client (they never get to see the report until your score is higher.) / Pg 118, vendor panels, do not use lists. If HVCC notify appraisers why they were removed from panel requirements were in effect… Get blacklisted and have that blacklist propagate through the entire system automatically, one press of a button. / Pg 126. If I’m reading this correctly, does this indicate that if one company places an appraiser on do not use lists, all other companies looking at the appraiser directory sees that entry? / Pg 131, get disabled and blacklisted, everyone gets an email about it except the appraiser / Pg 133 appraiser performance scoring metrics. Get scored on your value position. / Pg 137, view the appraisers do not use list entries by other companies before inviting them. / Pg 141, an entire section on clicking appraisers to do not use lists. / ‘Appraisal management’
Wow. Hard to believe you found that Appraisal Scope information! It’ll be gone tomorrow if not by now. I have a question for you as well. Are the sellers/borrowers aware of this change? I wonder if the lender’s documents (fine print) have changed so they cannot challenge the data sharing at a later point.
If anyone with authority and well meaning ever took a serious look at this industry. The tech platforms violate every last standard and regulatory guidance which was ever put forth for ethical appraiser management and engagement.
Current rolling default rates which are constantly rolled over and over again, are rumored to be over 10%.
The CU system and all the automation being rolled out behind it cuases recurrent price inflation on a national basis.
The bright side now that a standard full service manually orientated appraisal and appraisal review requirement from an independent small business (not franchise model) appraiser is nearly fully removed. Loan closing ratios are higher than ever. Two birds with one stone. Automation also nullifies the possibility of retractive application of C&R engagement violations, as the big tech is handling appraisal fulfillment in house at volume scale now instead. Image. Could have been the largest class action lawsuit in American history. Still could be, but apparently Morgan and Morgan, as well as the other law firms looking into this industry are bumbling idiots.
Isaac Peck over at Working RE Magazine just published a historical breakdown on the 20 year fight over our data rights, & he actually featured my current conversation & article in the piece. It’s a great read, but the most interesting part is how the insurance perspective completely validates everything I’ve talked about here regarding USPAP confidentiality.
In the article, Isaac explicitly admits that Certification 25 “removes the appraiser’s ‘I didn’t authorize that specific use’ defense.”
Think about the regulatory weight of that statement. If this new clause were just a passive observation like the corporate apologists claim, it wouldn’t impact our legal defenses at all. The only reason it strips away our defense is because our signature acts as an active, legally binding grant of prior consent to non intended users. & that active signature is exactly where the USPAP Ethics Rule violation happens, because you cannot claim you’re taking reasonable steps to safeguard confidentiality when your signature legally strips away your right to restrict that use.
It’s a huge admission from the insurance side of the industry. Be sure to check out his full article here:
https://www.workingre.com/certification-25-the-20-year-fight-over-who-gets-to-use-your-data/
Look up AppraisalPort in legal records and look up AI resdy
People need to understand data brokerage is not just what data is raked from one event. The correlated accumulated total data picture is where the income comes from. Data brokers advertise substantial revenue increases. Appraisers are now officially a part of the warrantless mass surveillance industry.
https://www.webopedia.com/technology/data-brokers/
Corelogic, top ten data brokering companies.
https://capitalmarkets.fanniemae.com/tools-applications/data-dynamics
FNMA data use. Forbearance metrics, credit risk transfer, etc. Maybe transferring credit risk is somehow less effective than avoiding and better mitigating credit risk in the first place.
Financial data brokers. Where the money is at.
https://codamail.com/articles/data-broker-directory/financial-data.html
What’s your profit margin label assignment from data brokers? Want to talk about personalized data; How about a 3d lidar scan of every single item in your home. Personal photos is not what they’re looking for.
https://calmatters.org/economy/technology/2026/09/data-brokers-explainer/
Data brokers, the 365 billion dollar industry. Projected for continued growth over 500b soon. With direct consumer submissions (voluntary data sharing) being the lessor 5% of total data acquired portion, more granular detail from peoples private home spaces is the next frontier. Enter the pdc.
https://www.ghostvault.live/blog/data-broker-industry-report-2026
Appraisers arguing the minutia of ethics with the captured agencies… Might be missing the big picture here. Ethics left the building so very long ago.
If you think this will stop at financial exploitation, think again. All it will take to morph the entire system into a force of tyranny is a policy change. People are not ready to see the big picture. Just in case… One hour, worth your time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc3dQ-bpr8U
_________________________________________________________
Dr. Jon Padfield explains how technologies that appear separate can be connected into “pattern of life” surveillance: tracking where you drive, what you watch, who you meet, what devices you carry, and even what opinions you express. The talk focuses heavily on Flock cameras, Flock Raven microphones, automated license plate readers, facial recognition, third-party data collection, and the dangers of building surveillance systems that can later be expanded by policy changes or software updates.
The presentation also discusses Florida House Bill 945, the proposed Surveillance Accountability Act, the third-party doctrine, data ownership, private companies working with law enforcement, and why warrantless mass surveillance should concern people across the political spectrum.
___________________________________________________________
Can’t give legal advice? The old knee jerk reaction. Correct me if I’m mistaken but I thought, since they oversee the rules when did a request for guidance become legal advice? Well, after that momentary attempt at self preservation they realized the error of their way, regrouped and did the right thing. But alas, they put spin on it (translation: we don’t really know and we will wait until an appriser is neck deep in the legal swamp and see how it plays out). This is ripe for a class action law suite. But, of course, it would require UNITY by the masses to make it happen. But alas, for the most part the ” every man for himself” mentality is still alive and well so that probably won’t happen. But I am curious what price is too much to salvage your livelihood? Perhaps a judge could give you that legal advice the Foundation eluded to before regaining composure? I dunno and in all probability no one else will either. This is not meant for those of you who contribute to this blog. Ya’ll are trying to make a difference and find solutions. In other words, the good guys.
You could scrape through old ASC licensing records and see if you could get in contact with the nearly 100,000 small business individually licensed appraisers whom fled this industry for different careers. The scale of mis management in appraisal is truly epic. People still on the inside have capitulated to a sort of stockholm syndrome, resigned to go with the new corruption, try hard not to think about what was taken, what could have been.
But it’s not about the appraisal industry. The entire thing was supposed to revolve around consumer protection. Hardly anyone even bothers talking about how harmful all this is to consumers of mortgage lending services. How these activities have dramatically scaled up housing costs, creating infinite bubble bust cycles with permanently bifurcated markets. They’ve applied more lenient terms to avm automated value pass through utilities of late. Allowing highest and best valuation methodology to substantiate waiver value substitutes in markets with extreme oversupply and continually declining values. Imagine being a consumer whom learned that because you had good credit, you paid a hundred thousand dollars more than you needed to. This contributes to the problem of increasing need to restructure loans and paper over an unsustainable higher default rate.
Central planning never works. They’ve destabilizied markets less than ten years into a modernized more automated valuation program. Image; The new automated valuation product development workflow from Class Appraisals patents. The appraiser is clearly no longer in control of anything, rendered less than a side node. Yet the regulatory compliance label of this being ‘an appraisal’ that complies with ‘appraisal independence guidelines’ is stickered on. That’s the new model, totally remove independent appraisers, keep the independent valuation service label on the automated products generated by the corporations.
Obviously, TAF isn’t concerned over 3.6 and now neither is my E&O. Just received my renewal and it’s cheaper this year than last year. You would think if we were committing all these violations for signing a 3.6 they would either not insure me or drastically increase my premium.
Brent, you’re completely misunderstanding what E&O insurance actually covers. Your carrier didn’t raise your rates because they have absolutely zero skin in the game when it comes to state board complaints & USPAP compliance.
E&O insurance strictly covers financial damages from civil lawsuits alleging valuation negligence. It does not insure your license, & it absolutely does not cover you for USPAP violations or state regulatory discipline. Almost every standard policy contains an explicit regulatory exclusion for any legal defense costs, fines, or losses arising from a state appraiser board investigation. If a state board cites you for an Ethics Rule violation because your signature actively greenlighted the release of confidential data to non intended users, your insurance carrier will not spend a single dime to defend you.
On top of that, as the actual insurance risk managers have openly admitted, standard appraiser policies aren’t built to handle pure consumer privacy violations either. If a homeowner sues you directly because their private interior data or functional obsolescence notes were harvested & distributed, your policy doesn’t have a clear path to coverage.
You’re celebrating a cheaper price on a policy that leaves you completely exposed to both the state board & consumer privacy lawsuits.
Your own EO insurer will rush to settle rather than defend. They will not fight the claim against you. They will rush to pay off and make the claim go away. You’re guilty ahead of time if a litigation effort has anything. Independent representation is routinely $30k or far higher.
What does it say when the appraisal industries top lawyer group says just get some cyber insurance and passes the appraisers off? They can’t offer this themselves? Why not?
Not protecting confidential data is neither a reporting error nor a reporting omission. The appraisers insurance does not typically cover this aspect. The insurance cost does not reflect. EO insurance.
Most of the insured residential appraisers, who’s left anyways, are not doing GSE work. Those that do are taking on the additional liability on their own.
I guess the only thing to do is turn in my license and exit the industry
No, don’t do that. It’s a good option if all you can get is amc work. Otherwise, try to hang on.
Well, on the other hand. At least 80,000 small business people quit in the past two decades and most of them were residential appraisers…
You’ve got to have a good reason to want to stay.
Brent, you worked way too hard to get here. Don’t throw away all those years of grind, the crazy hours of training, & the actual field experience you built up just because the GSEs changed their contract terms. Your expertise is worth way more than being treated like a cheap data clerk for an AMC panel.
You’d be amazed to know how much more you can make by flipping your business toward private & non GSE work. The appraisers who completely ditched the bank work are killing it right now because estates, divorces, tax appeals, & private litigation pay full fee without any of the corporate BS.
In that market, you run the show. You control the contract, you set your own pricing, & you actually protect consumer data privacy. You don’t have to throw your hands up & quit the game; you just have to start using your hard earned skills for clients who actually respect your time. There’s a ton of highly profitable business out there once you step off the corporate treadmill.
Sorry, I wish there was a font for sarcasm, I’m not walking away from anything.
I think I do have a solution for the photo conundrum that many folks have. I have read many comments in which appraisers say they are concerned that a homeowner could sue over a breach of confidentiality if somehow the photos the appraiser took of their living room showed up somewhere. The solution, Property Data Collectors. The data collector would insulate the appraiser in that case. The appraiser can argue that not only did they not share the photo with anyone other than the client, the same client that has an assignment condition to take photographs, but they can argue they didn’t even take the picture to begin with!
Now you’re promoting further diminishment of the appraisers role by promoting property data collectors? Here on this site?
Seems like just yesterday that an appraiser would get laughed out of the room, could be prohibited from completing GSE work, and could have their license pulled by the state if they used unlicensed inspection runners.
Because it was just yesterday. GSE microphone has entered the chat.
How many property data reports have you personally seen that were done by “unlicensed inspection runners?”
Did you not read the statement you highlighted? It’s talking about a high risk mortgage!
Did I pick the updated version instead of the older guide? Maybe I did. Those used to be standard requirements in the selling guide for all full appraisal services, not just high risk is what I remember. Am I wrong?
There is the language. Full service required, unlicensed persons prohibited from providing the service. FNMA had issued a warning to appraisers some time ago that if they were using inspection runners, as that was becoming a thing, the appraiser could be permanently banned from providing GSE appraisals.
Think of the concept. Just because there is lower risk to the lender, the consumers quality of service requirements are reduced? Imagine needing an ambulance but because you’re not critical, they send the uber guy to give you a lift to the hospital instead. Being a home owner, going through the same lending process as someone with higher LTV and worse credit, are paying the same fees, but you get the pdc gig worker instead of the licensed appraiser, and if an appraiser is involved downstream, you get the slash rate discount desktop service from a guy whom never even viewed your home in person. For the biggest financial investment of your life. Unlicensed inspection runners.
In the normal world outside of lending we call this a double standard or plainly awful customer service. Low risk people should get superior service, because they’re the better customers. Being in touch with a licensed appraiser is beneficial for them and is a safer engagement. It’s also how appraisers can train people to become competent. For as impossible as it is to train people in this industry, the difficulty is compounded further if they have to start with only complex high risk work and nothing but complex high risk work.
How many property data reports have you personally seen that were done by “unlicensed inspection runners?”
I don’t work for amc’s and don’t complete anything other than full inspection full appraisal reports. How many have you relied upon, and placed your insurance and signature behind? You know what they say, if you can’t trust anyone else to do the job properly, you’ve simply got to do it yourself. I’m not trusting part time delivery drivers, visa migrants whom barely speak english, or lonely housewife gig workers whom can’t hold down full time jobs to handle appraisal home inspections, all sourced from exploitative unaccountable third party companies whom secretly skim fees. I don’t even trust other licensed appraisers to do my inspections. I do these things myself. Staying tied to the desk all day for this job? No way.
Somehow I think you are combining multiple things you have heard and have no firsthand knowledge of and trying to make an argument, but its hard to tell.
You do understand that Fannie/Freddie have an appraisal form called a Hybrid in which they allow someone other than the appraiser to perform a site visit (exterior and or interior) right? You may not do those types of assignments, but they do exist. I have never heard of “inspection runners” before, but that sounds like you are saying an appraiser was doing a full appraisal (1004) and using someone else to do the inspection. If so, that is not the same as a data collector in a hybrid assignment. Those appraisers should lose their license if they were doing that.
You are conflating things when you talk about high-risk loans and complex properties. They have no correlation. You mention training people and not having them do complex assignments. A borrower can be very low risk as they have no debt, perfect credit and great jobs but have a 20,000 sqft multi-million-dollar home with a 5,000 sq ft guest house, tennis courts, pool, horse facilities. Complex home, low risk borrower. On the other hand, you can have a high-risk loan as the borrower has credit problems, limited cash, spotty employment but the house they are purchasing is a small tract home where there have been 3 model matches sold on the same street. High risk loan, non-complex appraisal assignment. Or it can be the complete other way around, as again there is no correlation.
Brent, if you’re going to backpedal & claim your comment was just sarcasm, there’s an emoticon for that. Throw a wink 😉 or a /s at the end next time so people know you’re just messing around.
But let’s look at your actual claim about property data collectors insulating us from liability. If you think signing off on a hybrid assignment clears you of risk because an unlicensed PDC took the photos, you are severely misinformed. Multiple investigative case studies on this blog prove that PDCs are an absolute compliance & liability landmine.
Look at what happened when Class Valuation hired Paschal Uchendu as a property data collector. He was a convicted felon out on bail awaiting sentencing for orchestrating a $1.2 million armed robbery of a courier van he was trusted to protect. Due to weak AMC vetting & new clean slate laws masking criminal records, AMCs are dispatching unvetted gig workers right into homeowners’ private spaces.
Think about the quality of that data. Another recent case study showed a “trained” PDC who jumbled a house measurement so badly they missed 600 sq.ft. of unfinished space on a second floor. The desk appraiser blindly accepted that bad PDC sketch, causing the unsuspecting buyers to pay 12% over list price & instantly landing them over $100,000 underwater the day they closed.
Worse yet, if you think the state boards won’t come after you for relying on fraudulent PDC info, look at the landmark Clear Capital ClearVal hybrid scandal uncovered by Mike Ford. An out of state desktop appraiser was caught signing off on identical interior photographs utilized for two completely different property addresses at 5557 Winwood Road & 906 Silverwood Drive. The appraiser tried to hide behind the exact same “I didn’t take the photos, the PDC guy did” excuse you’re promoting. Guess what happened? The state board didn’t care about her excuses. She was heavily reprimanded, fined, & her license was suspended.
Under USPAP & standard certifications, the appraiser is 100% on the hook for the accuracy of the data they verify & sign their name behind. Relying on an unlicensed, part time gig worker to insulate your liability isn’t a solution… it’s professional suicide.
https://appraisersblogs.com/amc-hires-a-convicted-felon-as-property-data-collector
https://appraisersblogs.com/clean-slate-laws-bad-policy-could-dispatch-more-felons-2-borrowers-homes
https://appraisersblogs.com/house-measurement-by-property-data-collector-gone-wrong
https://appraisersblogs.com/clearval-value-hybrid-appraisal
No backpedaling here, I don’t play those types of games. I knew my data collector comments would cause some appraisers head to explode, which was exactly the point.
I even love the fact that you took the time to research cases in which a data collector missed things or was a bad person. Hilarious. Just an FYI, being a data collector doesn’t mean you don’t have a license. Many do. In fact, I have seen many where the data collector has been licensed for over 25 years. That being said having a license doesn’t mean anything. You do know that appraisers (who have a license) do things wrong, unethical or even fraudulently as well. Feel free to look those up as well. I sold my home last year and the appraiser that came out didn’t measure my house. He told me if there is a sketch from the county he never measures, he just uses what the county has.