A lender emails: 'We need at least $450,000 to make this loan work — can you take the assignment?' Accepting on that basis is:
Correct Answer
B) Prohibited — accepting an assignment conditioned on a predetermined result
Why this is correct: The governing concept is USPAP's prohibition against accepting an assignment conditioned on a predetermined value. The lender's request for 'at least $450,000' to 'make the loan work' is a condition for engagement, not just data sharing. Accepting on that basis compromises impartiality from the start, which is the violation. Why the other choices are wrong: Accepting the assignment 'as long as the appraiser stays open-minded' is wrong because the condition itself destroys the required impartiality. Accepting because 'lenders are allowed to share the target loan amount' is wrong; sharing a target loan amount as a condition for getting the assignment is prohibited, unlike sharing a contract price as a data point. The action is 'Prohibited only if the final report actually hits the requested number' is wrong because the violation occurs upon accepting the conditioned assignment, regardless of the final opinion of value. Exam tip: The ethical breach happens at the moment of accepting an assignment with a value condition, not when delivering the report.
Why This Is the Correct Answer
The email conditions the engagement on producing at least a stated value, which is a predetermined outcome dressed as a business need. Accepting on that basis means the appraiser has agreed, at least tacitly, to a result before analyzing anything, which destroys the independence and impartiality the assignment requires. The correct response is to decline the engagement as framed, or to obtain an unconditional engagement in writing, and to document the exchange. Choice B identifies both the prohibition and the moment it is triggered.
Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Option A: Fine, as long as the appraiser stays open-minded during the analysis
Private good intentions are not the standard, and the appraiser's confidence in her own objectivity is exactly what cannot be verified by anyone else. The rule targets the arrangement rather than the state of mind, because a value condition creates pressure and the appearance of a bought conclusion regardless of how carefully the analysis is later performed. An appraiser who has accepted work on a number also has an economic reason to reach it.
Option C: Fine, because lenders are allowed to share the target loan amount
Sharing a loan amount, a contract price, or an estimate of value as information is permitted and often necessary; conditioning the assignment on the appraiser hitting that figure is not. The distinction is the word if, which turns a data point into a hurdle for getting paid. Reading the email as ordinary disclosure ignores the phrase making the assignment contingent on the result.
Option D: Prohibited only if the final report actually hits the requested number
The violation is complete at acceptance, so waiting to see the final number misplaces when the duty attaches. An appraiser who accepted on those terms and then concluded at $430,000 has still entered an engagement conditioned on a predetermined result. And a conclusion that does land at $450,000 will be difficult to defend precisely because of how the assignment began.
The Breach Is at the Handshake
The violation happens when you say yes, not when you sign the report. A number attached to the offer is a hurdle, and agreeing to jump it is the offense whether or not you clear it.
How to use: When a stem describes an engagement communication, ask whether the value is being offered as information or as a condition. If getting the work depends on the number, the answer is prohibited at acceptance.
Exam Tip
Learn the trigger phrases: at least, no less than, needs to come in at, enough to make the deal work, and confirm the contract price. Any of them attached to an engagement is the answer to a prohibition question.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- -Believing that personal objectivity cures an improperly conditioned engagement
- -Failing to distinguish a shared contract price from a required value
- -Thinking the violation depends on whether the reported value matches the request
Concept Deep Dive
Analysis
There is a sharp line between information a client may legitimately provide and a condition a client may attach to getting the work. A contract price, a loan amount, a prior appraisal, and the borrower's estimate of value are all data points an appraiser may receive and analyze. A statement that the assignment is available if the appraiser can reach a stated number converts the engagement itself into a condition on the outcome, which USPAP's Ethics Rule places among the assignment conditions that cannot be accepted, alongside a minimum value, a direction in value, and compensation contingent on the result. Federal appraiser independence requirements in mortgage lending reach the same conduct from the other direction, prohibiting anyone with an interest in the transaction from encouraging a targeted value. Because the impairment is created at acceptance, the analysis that follows cannot rehabilitate it, and a report produced under that understanding is compromised whatever number it carries.
Background Knowledge
You need the Ethics Rule's list of unacceptable assignment conditions, including reporting a predetermined value, a minimum value, a direction in value, or an amount needed to close a transaction, and the related prohibition on contingent compensation. You should also know the appraiser independence requirements applicable to mortgage transactions, which forbid parties with an interest from pressuring an appraiser toward a target, and the practice of documenting and declining improper engagement communications.
Real-World Application
An appraiser receives an order noting that the loan requires a value of at least $450,000. She replies that she can accept the assignment only without any value expectation, asks for written confirmation, saves the full email thread in the workfile, and declines when the client will not remove the condition.
More USPAP Questions
Which statement best defines a hypothetical condition under USPAP?
According to the Competency Rule, if an appraiser lacks the knowledge and experience to complete an assignment competently, which action is NOT acceptable?
An appraiser runs only the sales comparison approach on a standard tract home and omits the cost and income approaches. Under Standard 1 this is:
A value opinion for a subdivision as if fully built out two years from now is what kind of assignment, and what does it require?
A hypothetical condition differs from an extraordinary assumption in that a hypothetical condition:
An appraiser must disclose in the certification whether they have:
A client-imposed requirement — 'use only comps from our approved list' — is best described as:
Under Standard 1, when developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must:
The certification required by Standards Rule 2-3 must be signed by:
According to Standard 1, when developing an opinion of market value, an appraiser must analyze:
People Also Study
Real Estate Market
13.6% of exam
Property Description
11.8% of exam
Land or Site Valuation
4.5% of exam
Sales Comparison Approach
16.4% of exam
Cost Approach
13.6% of exam