McKissock dumps PAREA

[djd09]

I don't work for anyone other than my clients. I don't sell anything to anyone other than appraisals. I'm not a member of any of the professional orgs, or any other orgs other than this forum. I'm not pimping a newsletter or selling CE courses by generating paranoia among appraisers. All I'm doing is running my mouth as per my personal opinions.

have you ever signed any NDA's?

 

[George Hatch]

^^^ Case in point. Regardless of how many times I have explained otherwise this idiot can't even quote the term in the context it's being used. The public trust in appraisal practice STARTS with the appraiser/client relationship and extends to the intended users. There is no public trust in appraisal practice without those users having a reason to believe the credibility of the appraiser's work. We can't isolate appraisal credibility from "meaningful and not misleading to intended users", and we can't isolate trust in the appraisal profession from "meaningful and not misleading to the "stakeholders" we all work for. THEY'RE the ones who are doing the trusting when they use appraisals. Not the general public.

 

[George Hatch]

have you ever signed any NDA's?

Not since before I started appraising.

What I will say about my transparency is that I have contributed to what other people have written without attribution. If I could figure out a way to write articles anonymously without a publisher asking for a bio I'd do it. I'm not aware of any pics of me on the internet because I don't WANT to have such a presence in public.

Unlike most others here, I post under my real name because I don't mind being held to account for what I say. That's the extent of my online persona.

 

[djd09]

Not since before I started appraising.

you didn't sign one from being an USPAP instructor?

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

Well, they ARE stupid. I mean how dumb does someone have to be to believe these fees are enough to buy any changes to these standards or qualifications? These idiots can't even point to any changes in standards or qualifications that they think favor their enemies as proof of their allegations of corruption. There's not even any smoke, let alone any fire to be fighting.

PAREA has been coming on for many years at this point and the constant fretting about the numbers dropping too low to recover from has been cited as the primary rationale from the outset. DESPITE the fact that appraisers are getting starved out of the business for lack of work even as we speak. No matter what the fee is, if an appraiser is only averaging 6 or 8 assignments a month that's not enough to get by on.

As for my comments, they're framed for YOU and others like you. The task at hand is to proceed based on "what is" in this business because by definition, "what should be"....isn't. There is no fight for appraisers to even wage with the AMCs because it's been the lenders who have been calling the shots, not the AMCs. Moreover, the reason the lenders are doing it is because they can; because govt isn't going to stop them. And waiting for the govt to intercede on behalf of the appraisers, to give to them that which they are incapable of taking for themselves, is an exercise in futility.

I don't work for anyone other than my clients. I don't sell anything to anyone other than appraisals. I'm not a member of any of the professional orgs, or any other orgs other than this forum. I'm not pimping a newsletter or selling CE courses by generating paranoia among appraisers. All I'm doing is running my mouth as per my personal opinions. Same as I've been doing for over 20 years on this forum.

I'd love 6-8 assignments a month right now.

 

[Carnivore]

There are other plausible reasons for PAREA. Technology advancements is one of them. Another is the AQB, I am sure is keenly aware the current bunch of appraisers are ageing out. Good Lord, help us. Fee's will rise because of less competition. Well that's the market for you. 'We better figure out a way to keep Appraiser numbers higher so fee's won't go through the roof. I know, lets cut out the need for so many trainers by condensing the experience requirements. Instead of 200 reports minimum, to several. That way potential candidates won't be discouraged from entering.

 

[George Hatch]

you didn't sign one from being an USPAP instructor?

I don't recall there being any non-disclosure elements in the Instructor's agreement. I'm not aware of any info in that program that is considered proprietary or confidential because if there is then I'd probably be in violation of it.

Think about it: education providers WANT course participants to understand the material.

The Instructor's agreement is about requiring instructors to stick to the material and to not misrepresent what the material actually says. They will revoke a cert for that kind of thing. I think there's also a clause in there that prohibits instructors from contradicting the material or criticizing TAF. One of the reasons I allowed my instructor cert to lapse (other than the migration to online instruction) is so that I CAN express myself freely about TAF without my cert being subject to revocation.

That's how I can criticize the ASBs adoption of "misleading" in the 2020 version of USPAP as being poorly considered, or criticize their consideration of "draft reports" as if the reasoning for it made any sense or was in any way consistent from a concepts and principles basis.

One other thing I'll clarify about the teaching experience, which is they don't require the instructors to have instructed trainees or teach QE courses. Maybe it's changed since then but the minimum was for a certain number of hours teaching CE courses or other appraisal instruction.

 

[Zoe]

I'd love 6-8 assignments a month right now.

That is why Mckissock dropped the class. People weren't beating the doors down to take it.

They might have to work 2 years to even break even if they didn't have a scholarship and they might quit after 6-8 months even if they had a scholarship.

 

[djd09]

I don't recall there being any non-disclosure elements in the Instructor's agreement. I'm not aware of any info in that program that is considered proprietary or confidential because if there is then I'd probably be in violation of it.

Think about it: education providers WANT course participants to understand the material.

i don't recall is lawyer bs for not wanting to answer the question... anyways, breaking off from the party line is not allowed and that is why TAF spies on the classes

 

[George Hatch]

i don't recall is lawyer bs for not wanting to answer the question... anyways, breaking off from the party line is not allowed and that is why TAF spies on the classes

I already said that. The whole purpose of the program is to get more consistent instruction, fewer errors and deviation in the instruction and so on. Which when it comes to appraisers taking that information into their professional practice is exactly what you would want from an instructional perspective - factual accuracy and consistency. Nobody should WANT instructors who do their own thing. Not for this type of course.

The reason for the I don't recall is because I signed that agreement 20 years ago and I haven't reviewed it since. So I can't say for certain that it didn't include some clause that could be construed as an NDA. I reckon "I don't know for sure" is an honest way to answer that question. There are other instructors on this forum - you could try asking one of them if I'm lying.