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

[OSU Beavers]

The big stink 20-25 years ago was that some appraisers were just sitting at home signing reports while they had a half dozen "runners" driving around taking pictures and even completing unsupervised inspections.

Thank you so much to the Appraisal Institute for normalizing that perverted distortion of the Appraisal Profession.

 

[glenn walker]

The big stink 20-25 years ago was that some appraisers were just sitting at home signing reports while they had a half dozen "runners" driving around taking pictures and even completing unsupervised inspections.

Thank you so much to the Appraisal Institute for normalizing that perverted distortion of the Appraisal Profession.

The Institute thanks you for your thanks- PAREA may save them from extinction as they will capture members on the front end of the appraisers career.

 

[George Hatch]

The big stink 20-25 years ago was that some appraisers were just sitting at home signing reports while they had a half dozen "runners" driving around taking pictures and even completing unsupervised inspections.

Thank you so much to the Appraisal Institute for normalizing that perverted distortion of the Appraisal Profession.

Technically

The big stink was appraisers fraudulently signing "did inspect" and using runners despite agreeing to do the work themselves. They were saying one thing and doing another. They were cheating their clients and competing unfairly with those of their peers who weren't telling those lies.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

My Guess is PAREA graduates will have lots of good job offers with large agencies and banking corporations. I doubt many will be out in the field doing appraisals.

Perhaps some with AMCs for their signature on their reports and as their "chief" appraiser.

 

[John Hassler]

No politician can know more on an obscure topic like this than what their "experts" are telling them. It's not VP Harris' fault that her experts aren't actually looking at the appraisals.

The BLS info is not obscure. I learned about their statistical methods by looking up the footnote in the PAVE report.
We're not talking about "Kamala's down and dirty discount appraisal service". This is the VP who has a staff of assistants. Being that she was an AG and a DA she knows about shading facts. I hold people up the food chain to a higher and higher stand. She's near the top and I have high expectations. That's how it works in John world. George world may see this as incompetency or something else entirely.

Along these same John world lines, I am extremely disappointed with the PAVE report. I was expecting an objective and honest analysis with recommendations, if any, addressing true injustices. Instead, most every analysis is shaded in one direction. It's like reading a divorce appraisal where the strengths of a property are understated and the weaknesses overstated (or vice versa). If the PAVE report were held to USPAP standards, the authors should lose their licenses as the analysis is slanted to favor a preconceived client conclusion. It has the appearance that facts were gathered to fill in a prewritten conclusion.

 

[EddieB]

Technically

The big stink was appraisers fraudulently signing "did inspect" and using runners despite agreeing to do the work themselves. They were saying one thing and doing another. They were cheating their clients and competing unfairly with those of their peers who weren't telling those lies.

Technically, you repeated his words but just added fraudulent and cheating.

The big stink also involved many appraisers marking increase or stable markets without fully analyzing. The stink is also on the ordering system that was being abused.

So what did we get after those corrections and what will we get with these newly minted PAREA appraisers along with big data system?

I eagerly wait…..

{edited to add}

From the sidelines

 

[George Hatch]

Technically, you repeated his words but just added fraudulent and cheating.

Not really. I realize that the superficial comparison of appraisers not personally inspecting might appear to be the same workproduct , but in terms of personal conduct:

An appraiser using runners in violation of the SOW they asserted and then lying about it in their appraisal report​

is not equal to​

An appraiser working a desktop assignment, adhering to the SOW they asserted and including the appropriate disclosures, assumptions and limitations in their appraisal report.​

​

In the "runner 1004" version the clients and users are being lied to about what the appraiser actually did/didn't do. Moreover, the appraiser is competing unfairly with their peers and then pocketing the difference between what they got paid to do vs what they did.

In the "desktop" version the clients and users are being fully informed about what the appraiser actually did/didn't do. The competing appraisers performing the same types of desktop assignments are operating on the same playing field.

​

​

​

 

[Non Sequitur]

More AI PAREA news, Texas is on board:

PAREA launch​

Commissioner Buchholtz provided the Board with an update on the Practical Applications of Real Estate Appraisal (PAREA). Two PAREA providers, McKissock, and the Appraisal Institute (AI) have estimated launch timelines. McKissock's is in 2024. AI announced it received AQB approval on May 18 and has plans a to launch a “broad” program this September.

AI has indicated it will first host a pilot program in 20 “PAREA ready” states, including Texas. Select participants will have already completed their Qualifying Education prior to joining the pilot.

TALCB is working on obtaining more information on PAREA launches and will provide updates when new information is released.

TALCB May meeting recap: addressing bias, PAREA launches, new online resources | TALCB

www.talcb.texas.gov

 

[RCA]

All this ambiguous, eroded (by time), inaccurate, obfuscated, partially true, partially false, wholly off-base nonsense.

1. It's a question of degree. All traditional residential appraisal reports based on the SCA are fundamentally flawed, subject to subjective judgement of unmeasured features such as condition, quality, view, functional utility and wholly unconstrained by underlying mathematical relationships. Having said that, some appraiser's subjective judgements are better (founded by experience and logic) than others, - but that's an issue that is hard to monitor and control when dealing with trainees. You have to minimize the impact of subjective valuation in appraisal - a doable task that TAF, the AI and other appraisal organizations have never even tried to undertake, because they lack the intellectual capacity and also resist hiring mathematicians and other scientists and competent analysts, along with legal experts, to do the necessary work on their behalf.

2. An appraiser supervisor can do a reasonable job of overseeing and reviewing appraisal reports, in the vast majority of cases, by studying decent quality photographs from field appraiser trainees. - So that immediate supervision of reasonably intelligent appraiser trainees is simply an expensive luxury - that can be done away with. Apparently, it was a requirement set up through some kind of compromise in order to reduce an influx of appraisers (but it had the opposite effect - giving appraisers willing to skirt the regulations a HUGE advantage).

2a. One might conclude from #2 that unnecessary regulations are an advantage for a select group of established appraisers who have the wherewithal (e.g. connections or infrastructure knowledge) to avoid profit diminishing restrictions provided by said regulations). But of course time changes everything. Said "established appraisers" may eventually fall out of favor with their connections, or their connections fall out of favor higher up the chain or simply disappear for one reason or another.

The whole appraisal system was highly flawed to begin with. And it still is. It does get the job done with minimal short-term cost - but the long-term cost is on the order of hundreds of billions of dollars, if not trillions.

 

[Dublin ohio]

I was expecting an objective and honest analysis with recommendations, if any, addressing true injustices.

Considering some of the input they considered and the opinions of most of the members of the task force. I expected nothing less than what it is. It was obvious from the beginning. It was never about injustices or equality. It was always about equity.