A revision was made to clarify that appraisers/reviewers “must retain true copies of ALL written reports in the workfile.” Don’t overwrite those pdf’s – save a copy of every generation of the report delivered to the Client.
Edits were made to clarify that “data and information” (in addition todocumentation) may be included in the workfile, by referring to its location elsewhere. This includes items of which the appraiser may not have physical custody.
Revisions were made that eliminate the requirement to identify and report the effective date of an appraisal review. Three dates are still required to be reported in an appraisal review in order to identify the perspectives of the original appraiser and the reviewer. The 2016-17 requirements:
• Identify the effective date of the opinions or conclusions in the work under review
• Identify the report date (signature date) of the report under review
• State the date of the appraisal review report
Changes were made to the “Assignment Results” definition in order to make clear thatappraisers may share non-confidential information with other appraisers. This is meant to facilitate higher-quality appraisals by allowing the exchange of information.
The language specifically states “Physical characteristics are not ASSIGNMENT RESULTS.”
Additionally, the ASB added two paragraphs to the Confidentiality Section of the ETHICS RULE to help ensure that anyone who may have access to confidential information or assignment results is made aware of the prohibitions on disclosure of such information or results. The new language says this:
The ASB adopted language similar to what was previously included in Statement #9 requiring that anytime the Client’s identity is withheld from the Report, the Appraiser must retain the Client’s name in the workfile and state in the report that the Client’s name was withheld at the request of the Client. The requirement applies to all Reporting Standards in USPAP, whether or not the report is an Appraisal Report or a Restricted Appraisal Report.
Past editions of USPAP required that the Appraiser develop an opinion of “Reasonable Exposure Time” whenever “exposure time” was a component of the value definition being utilized in the assignment. There may be times when exposure time (but not “reasonable” exposure time) may be a component of the value definition, and in those cases it would not be consistent or logical to develop an opinion regarding “reasonable exposure time” as the opinion about exposure time should be consistent with the value definition.
Because of their location after STANDARD 10, many appraisers completely forgot about the existence of the STATEMENTS. Also, the ASB felt that much of the material was actually “guidance” and not USPAP “requirements.” For these reasons, and to make the document more user-friendly, any actual “requirements” were move to other (more appropriate) locations within USPAP, and the material considered “guidance” was reissued as new Advisory Opinions (see below).
Material from the retired STATEMENTS, which was considered to be “guidance” was reissued in the form of new or revised Advisory Opinions. Additionally, some of that material was updated to reflect current practices and terminology. The changes consist of…