Another pet peeve

[sputnam]

Sorry... but 'Appraiser's experience' is not valid support for anything. Yet, I regularly see that offered as support... especially in the Cost Approach.

 

[George Hatch]

I assume you're referring primarily to the reporting requirements of the GSE conduits and their variants. Those user-driven requirements are spelled out in writing, so an appraiser who isn't following instructions is causing problems for their users. A requirement or expectation that isn't spelled out somewhere is only a wish.

Meanwhile, "experience" has been considered so significant to what we do that meeting that (up until PAREA) the requirement to accrue thousands of hours of experience (and obtaining exposure to all that data and analysis and judgement) has functioned as the primary barrier to entry for obtaining a license. Or getting on a lender's approval list.

Zooming out a little, my interpretation of the issue is that one aspect of your peeve is the appraiser is doing one thing (operating off "the list" or by rote) but saying another (I did paired sales or interviewed a dozen brokers). Basically, you're peeve is about the dishonesty.

 

[alebrewer]

Agreed. Experience gained while executing bad habits/poor training results in: a poorly trained individual. The only experience that is relevant WRT molding a well qualified individual is experience gained under a well qualified trainer/teacher. That is, IMO, the foundation of the utter failure that our 'training' system has been. The only qualification to be a teacher is 3 years' experience as a CR (or CG as the case may be). So the system is set up to allow poorly trained individuals to train the next generation of poorly trained individuals.

So that 'Based on my 30 years' experience' BS they throw out as basis for their analysis is just that - BS.

I don't know that PAREA was/is the correct answer, but I know the current model is broken.

 

[George Hatch]

Regardless of how someone was trained, their own exposure will far exceed the level of information they're working with years on down the line.

In my view an appraiser might not be familiar with working a certain black box app but that doesn't mean they were never exposed to and tested on the fundamentals or in any other mode of analysis working toward the same results. And it also doesn't mean they're incapable of learning to do better on their own.

How many of us here on this forum have far exceeded the examples set by our first supervisors? As far as the regulars I daresay its everyone, even if that isn't the case among all appraisers.

The main reason Skippy hasn't been making market conditions adjustments is because his clients haven't been "not accepting" his work up until now. As they crank down on him he will comply - not because they taught him anything he didn't already know but because they are now more actively enforcing their expectations. And because he's going to starve if he doesn't comply.

The issue doesn't hinge on technical competency or ability. It hinges solely on effort. IMO

 

[alebrewer]

How many of us here on this forum have far exceeded the examples set by our first supervisors? As far as the regulars I daresay its everyone, even if that isn't the case among all appraisers.

That most definitely would not be a random sampling. The fact that folks are on sites like this is - in and of itself - an indication they want to learn and they care about appraisal topics. In general, though, due to the broken trainee system, the tendency to self isolate, and the very poor quality of most CE classes/schools, I disagree that time - in and of itself - results in someone being a 'better' appraiser. Time (or exposure to use your term) may result in folks learning how to adapt to user expectations, but not necessarily in becoming better qualified.

This can be easily verified by observing the speed at which adjustment technology solutions are being scarfed up at the moment. Users of our services have decided they want to see more quantification of our analyses - appraisers don't know how to do that - so they buy analysis software to assist them. I mentored an appraiser last year who had never heard of the concept of minimizing the adjusted sales range - he's been in the biz for over 20 years.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Yet, I regularly see that offered as support... especially in the Cost Approach.

Few people understand the CA. They claim the "book" under-calculates cost, but few of those seem to understand you must add Entrepreneural Profit - and a lot of folks estimate land value by PFA...which makes me question their site adjustments in the SA.

Meanwhile, "experience" has been considered so significant to what we do that meeting that (up until PAREA) the requirement to accrue thousands of hours of experience (and obtaining exposure to all that data and analysis and judgement) has functioned as the primary barrier to entry for obtaining a license.

There are times our own judgment has to be taken into account. What commercial appraiser has not been confronted by a rural commercial building that is impacted by not being closer to a populated area. In the late great recession, I saw someone pay double the local land value, then build an $800,000 building on the site for a plumbing contractor. It went under. It sat on the market for 3 or 4 years. I estimated that at least half the cost would disappear, and, in fact, it was even more. The price slowly fell until selling for about $400k. It is now a cabinet shop and has been offered for sale and not sold several times.

Same with a roping arena on 340 acres. It languished for nigh 10 years. Finally, they sold it for $750k. The bank had it forever at $1,000,000 (which I am sure they were owed even more.) The land without the building would have brought at least as much as without the building had they simply divided the place into 4 or 5 parcels (and they owned the land on 2 sides of a road.) A favored county judge had even built them a paved road past the place when the original owner built the place. The ag appraisers knew it was an albatross around their necks but I saw an appraisal of the place and it badly misjudged both the final value and the marketing time. six months vs 8 plus years. Zero for functional or external obsolescence. Those are judgment calls. You won't find a paired sale. This is your heuristic knowledge.

 

[George Hatch]

I'll say something else on the issue of technical competency. Nobody coming here and asking for that kind of help is ever interested in revisiting the fundamentals so they can actually learn how work their way through the problem. Almost without exception what they're asking for is an EASY button to push to get this one reviewer off their case within the next 60 minutes without having to actually work the problem on their own.

They want the prefabricated cut-n-paste app or boilerplate, not any actual instruction. That's not a competency issue, it's a conduct issue. IMO

 

[BRCJR]

Agreed. Experience gained while executing bad habits/poor training results in: a poorly trained individual. The only experience that is relevant WRT molding a well qualified individual is experience gained under a well qualified trainer/teacher. That is, IMO, the foundation of the utter failure that our 'training' system has been. The only qualification to be a teacher is 3 years' experience as a CR (or CG as the case may be). So the system is set up to allow poorly trained individuals to train the next generation of poorly trained individuals.

So that 'Based on my 30 years' experience' BS they throw out as basis for their analysis is just that - BS.

I don't know that PAREA was/is the correct answer, but I know the current model is broken.

I am a Licensed level Appraiser. I truly believe my past experience as a professional trainer with a very large corporation (120,000 employees at peak) gives me a "leg up" on most when it comes to training.

I cannot, my own issue, take on a Trainee because of my license level. I do believe I could give back to the profession if I could do so.

I have written a 7-hour CE class approved by multiple states. I can teach CE but cannot teach a Trainee that provides qualifying experience.

There are five basic steps to training. If followed, it should yield a properly trained individual, so long as they apply themselves as expected.

1. Explain what is to be done (over and over again if necessary)
2. Demonstrate what is to be done (over and over again if necessary)
3. Allow the trainee to try out the task (over and over again if necessary)
4. Critique what the trainee has executed (over and over again if necessary)
5. Follow up (over and over again)

One of the things I witness is a failure to remember:

Training is never final.

 

[alebrewer]

I am a Licensed level Appraiser. I truly believe my past experience as a professional trainer with a very large corporation (120,000 employees at peak) gives me a "leg up" on most when it comes to training.

I cannot, my own issue, take on a Trainee because of my license level. I do believe I could give back to the profession if I could do so.

I have written a 7-hour CE class approved by multiple states. I can teach CE but cannot teach a Trainee that provides qualifying experience.

There are five basic steps to training. If followed, it should yield a properly trained individual, so long as they apply themselves as expected.

1. Explain what is to be done (over and over again if necessary)
2. Demonstrate what is to be done (over and over again if necessary)
3. Allow the trainee to try out the task (over and over again if necessary)
4. Critique what the trainee has executed (over and over again if necessary)
5. Follow up (over and over again)

One of the things I witness is a failure to remember:

Training is never final.

I've got a buddy who trains trainees. Even though he and his trainees (over the years) have developed SEVERAL spreadsheets for determining TEL, depreciation, extraction, allocation, and functional obsolescence (I'm sure there are more), he requires each 'new' trainee to develop them from scratch. The ones that can't find other supervisory appraisers.

I never did that to my trainees, but it's proven to be pretty effective - when those folks get licensed/certified, they're good appraisers.

 

[Mark K]

Sorry... but 'Appraiser's experience' is not valid support for anything.

Maybe so but in my experience I've seen judges accept exactly that statement in courtrooms.

Appraiser on the stand: "In my 30 years appraising experience in that market area I know that...." If a judge says that's adequate support then it's adequate support...for that case.