AQB Update On Proposed Changes To Appraiser Qualifications

[The Warrior Monk]

Show me the data in support of these goals and we can discuss it. We cannot discuss on equal terms - and yes, I've been doing it, too - our anecdotal observations. Feelz don't count.

Fact is, neither you or I know. The increase in qualifications coincided with a market crash that imploded the demand side, resulting in a significant supply/demand imbalance. That balance appears to be inverting, it will likely take another decade before we really know the true effect of the post-2008 AQB minimums.

And while we're having that discussion let us not lose sight of the point that the role and stated purpose of a licensing program is different than the wider role of a professional org. As they should be.

I'm well aware of that. IMHO, the licensing system has been an almost complete failure. It is feasible that the increase in education and much more difficult exams may have a positive effect, but it is too early to tell.

I bring up professional orgs, because they have done certain things that historically have resulted in positive outcome. There is nothing wrong to include that which works; in fact, it should be done.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Whether we all agree with college or not, it really does weed out those who aren't analytical in most cases, don't you think?

Considering the state of education? My alma mater no longer requires any biology, geometry, or calculus classes for geology students. Analytics per se is rarely taught, so most degrees are devoid of all but the most cursory of coverage. Perhaps the better degree would be behavioral psychology. I am unsure what college prepares one for, perhaps last decades jobs.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

I never wanted to associate myself with that culture for that reason.

Two likes for than insight. Richard Feynman

 

[George Hatch]

I saw what the worst of the worst looked like prior to licensing, so I can see what licensing has done to raise the level of play among appraisers. Which was and is the stated intention of licensing - to assert a minimum standard for everyone that never previously existed for anyone.

That much of the market for residential appraisal services came to acknowledge those standards to the extent that it wiped out most of the competitive advantage of all the residential designations is a matter of record.

 

[Non Sequitur]

It's funny how those who claim licensing is a failure believe licensing will become a savior when it looks the way they believe it should.

A blue eyed savior for the appraiser masses.

 

[gregb]

I saw what the worst of the worst looked like prior to licensing, so I can see what licensing has done to raise the level of play among appraisers. Which was and is the stated intention of licensing - to assert a minimum standard for everyone that never previously existed for anyone.

That much of the market for residential appraisal services came to acknowledge those standards to the extent that it wiped out most of the competitive advantage of all the residential designations is a matter of record.

When licensing went into effect in California in 1992, I saw several appraisers with and without designations or much commercial experience, receive the AG certification. Not sure if they even needed to provide work samples, or take an exam.

 

[George Hatch]

Fact is, neither you or I know. The increase in qualifications coincided with a market crash that imploded the demand side, resulting in a significant supply/demand imbalance. That balance appears to be inverting, it will likely take another decade before we really know the true effect of the post-2008 AQB minimums.



I'm well aware of that. IMHO, the licensing system has been an almost complete failure. It is feasible that the increase in education and much more difficult exams may have a positive effect, but it is too early to tell.

I bring up professional orgs, because they have done certain things that historically have resulted in positive outcome. There is nothing wrong to include that which works; in fact, it should be done.

I never had a problem with the 2008 changes because I thought that was a reasonable compromise and that the process was doable for most entry level trainees. It was going to take them 2 years to get their experience hours anyway, so knocking out one course/semester at the local JC puts them where they needed to be even if they had started with zero. That collection of courses at least had the virtue of directly addressing a perceived deficiency. Much of what you need and little of what you don't.

I'm just very disappointed that we didn't give the 2008 qualifications a fair shot at demonstrating whether or not adding ANY college coursework to the qualifications was worthwhile before we quadrupled the amount of that coursework; and grossly diluted the direct applicability of the individual courses to what we do by including a bunch of courses that are a complete waste of time/effort except to the extent that the degree itself adds to everyone's ego.

 

[George Hatch]

When licensing went into effect in California in 1992, I saw several appraisers with and without designations or much commercial experience, receive the AG certification. Not sure if they even needed to provide work samples, or take an exam.

Everyone had to document their coursework, document their experience (one way or another) and take the exam. I knew appraisers at virtually all levels of experience that failed the exam, some failed 3 and 4 times and some never did pass.

During that transition period the state was issuing Provisional licenses (with an AP prefix) for appraisers who had not yet demonstrated all their qualifications. A certain percentage of those appraisers moved up after the completed everything, but some of them never did get past that before the AP licenses were retired in the mid-1990s.

I don't recall exactly whether work samples were required but even if they were we had too many people going through the pipeline for a serious review of them. I know the bank I was working for at the time vouched for my non-residential experience for my CG.

So yeah, a number of people got licenses during that transition who actually lacked all the requisite experience. But then again, many licensees never renewed after the first cycle because they hadn't been using an appraisal license in their day jobs to begin with. I knew a bunch of CGs whose non-res experience consisted of 100% multi-family, and who never did move any further than that, as well as a bunch of CGs who - to this day 25 years later - still only appraise SFRs.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

I saw what the worst of the worst looked like prior to licensing, so I can see what licensing has done to raise the level of play among appraisers. Which was and is the stated intention of licensing - to assert a minimum standard for everyone that never previously existed for anyone.

Even though I came in right before licensing, I also got to see some of what existed; incomprehensible garbage. That type of "report" never met any standard by anyone, and those type of people don't exist anymore. However, IMHO, licensing raised the bottom by because it required expectations that did not exist prior. But at the same time the standards were lowered the top; e.g., licensing standards became the substitute for what was expected of a SRA/MAI designation.

That much of the market for residential appraisal services came to acknowledge those standards to the extent that it wiped out most of the competitive advantage of all the residential designations is a matter of record.

Basically, it gave the users of appraisal services a legal reference point where previously none existed.

 

[The Warrior Monk]

I'm just very disappointed that we didn't give the 2008 qualifications a fair shot.

I certainly would not argue that point, and quite frankly was surprised that the subsequent increase in education occurred.