Appraisal Institute's PAREA receives approval from the Appraiser Qualifications Board

[Non Sequitur]

plenty of state licenses don’t have reciprocity for other professional state licenses. Is it unique to appraising that all states must offer immediate reciprocity for our licenses? I hadn’t heard that before.

IIRC part of Dodd-Frank. I'm sure someone will jump in if I'm wrong.

 

[chad hampton]

IIRC part of Dodd-Frank. I'm sure someone will jump in if I'm wrong.

You could be right. I have no idea. I know 15 years ago FL and a few other states didn’t offer reciprocity. When I got my license there, everybody liked it, they considered the Florida appraisal board as protecting their license holders.

Would not surprise me at all if Dodd Frank did mandate simple reciprocity. I’m sure that’s what leadership wanted - that way AMC’s can bring appraisers on staff, get them licensed in 15 states and just pump out dozens of reports a day all over the country. I’ve heard “chiefs” talk about how they do that. They brag about what a great system it is.

 

[Tiffany Gibbons]

Sure I would. We always had trainees (because we were always trying to grow the business), and if I still was operating a firm I would still have trainees - they would come and train with us because we would pay for all the education/training, just as we did for all our appraisers.

I would take on a trainee and train them in a hybrid way - using the traditional approach and augmenting that with having them get experience credits through PAREA as well. Even factoring in the cost of PAREA, that would reduce my overall training costs and allow a faster path to certification (we always took trainees down the certification path rather than licensed).

Many supervising appraisers have not created an environment that encourages people to stay on staff after they are certified. Long term success with trainees requires a business arrangement that is a win for both the company and the trainee - too many set up arrangements that incentivize folks to leave as soon as they get credentials rather than sticking around and helping grow company revenue. That is just training your future competition. I stayed with my first company for 14 years, mainly because they provided the economic incentive to do so. I replicated that environment when I spun off on my own. I had folks that worked as staff appraisers for me for over 20 years. My goal was to create a support system and pay structure that produced profit for the company while making it difficult for them to leave without taking a pay cut. That basically meant sacrificing short term profit for long term company growth. It also meant investing in support staff to handle administrative tasks so appraisers could focus solely on appraisal (rather than billing, scheduling, records retention, marketing, etc.)

Sure I would. We always had trainees (because we were always trying to grow the business), and if I still was operating a firm I would still have trainees - they would come and train with us because we would pay for all the education/training, just as we did for all our appraisers.

I would take on a trainee and train them in a hybrid way - using the traditional approach and augmenting that with having them get experience credits through PAREA as well. Even factoring in the cost of PAREA, that would reduce my overall training costs and allow a faster path to certification (we always took trainees down the certification path rather than licensed).

Many supervising appraisers have not created an environment that encourages people to stay on staff after they are certified. Long term success with trainees requires a business arrangement that is a win for both the company and the trainee - too many set up arrangements that incentivize folks to leave as soon as they get credentials rather than sticking around and helping grow company revenue. That is just training your future competition. I stayed with my first company for 14 years, mainly because they provided the economic incentive to do so. I replicated that environment when I spun off on my own. I had folks that worked as staff appraisers for me for over 20 years. My goal was to create a support system and pay structure that produced profit for the company while making it difficult for them to leave without taking a pay cut. That basically meant sacrificing short term profit for long term company growth. It also meant investing in support staff to handle administrative tasks so appraisers could focus solely on appraisal (rather than billing, scheduling, records retention, marketing, etc.)

Well, what are your goals now exactly? I mean, since many of us on the forum will never be able to afford take on trainees or "staff appraisers" for company growth and profit, we would like to be able to focus solely on appraisal as well. With the pushing of PAREA, appraiser bias lies, under-supply of appraisers, "value acceptance", etc., just curious.

 

[Andee]

They are only what they were meant for, to show potential buyers if a King size bed will fit in the "Primary" Bedroom, etc.

I was on the CUBICASA website, doing some research into how they determine things, and they are trying to get appraisers to use this so we don't actually have to go through and measure the house. After I saw the mess with the house I appraised, and did a little demo run on a bedroom in my house, I would never use it. You actually have to upload the information you collect, and then they send it back to you, which can take up to 24 hours, and if you want dimensions added, you pay extra for that. They will add the basic room dimensions for free but not the wall lengths. I didn't even bother to check the room dimensions.

 

[Deleted member 122624]

I disagree. It's the AMCs that are behind this. The education companies are just the benifceries.


Having a bunch of newly day one certified appraisers is AMCs profit stream. $$$.

I can agree with this. But there are educational companies and I’m not talking McKissock, more so people who teach and run their own stuff, that want this to increase their revenues.

 

[Andee]

PAREA would make sense for upgrading. I was better educated than the CG I got most of my experience with, but I was a CR so at least I could support myself doing residential appraisal while working on commercial narratives, but the CG had to sign off on them and went on every inspection with me, but it really wasn't necessary. I did most of the research and typing of the reports and he paid me a split.

I trained under a CG and we did some commercial work as well. I liked doing the commercial work, just can't afford to do the commercial work. The cost of CoStar is exorbitant, which is what's keeping me out of it and I don't really want to work with a commercial shop.

 

[Deleted member 122624]

Well, what are your goals now exactly? I mean, since many of us on the forum will never be able to afford take on trainees or "staff appraisers" for company growth and profit, we would like to be able to focus solely on appraisal as well. With the pushing of PAREA, appraiser bias lies, under-supply of appraisers, "value acceptance", etc., just curious.

I respect Danny. He does provide good info time to time. However I also call BS. So how can someone who doesn’t run a firm today speak on behalf of those that do and stuck it out?

I’d rather seek advice from those still trying to navigate this appraisal world we are in today than someone who tried to advocate for an AMC and for changes that directly effect us today.

 

[Zoe]

delete

 

[Andee]

Yes. As I said in a prior post, if I still had trainees I would definitely put them through the PAREA to augment the training that I provided. I urge you to look at what they are doing. I admit that when waiting for the demo I was anxious about it, but what they put together is really quite good.

How do they get the practical experience of measuring a house? I don't mean a square box or a rectangle, I mean an actual house that has curves and angles, and really long straight lines.

 

[Andee]

I definitely disagree with full-scale implementation of PAREA by the states without any sort of real world experience requirement.

I made a suggestion to them when they first sent this out for comment that they should have a list people willing to mentor but not make it a full mentorship, more like teach them in sections, someone to teach report writing, someone to take you out on inspections, someone that works with you on adjustments, or however they wanted to break it down. This way your exposed to more than one person, more than one style, and people that actually are willing to train you, but it should coincide with what your working on in the PAREA program, and they have to sign off that you actually did it before you can move on.