I can appreciate the skepticism (and sarcasm).
I just sat in a presentation about the program (very abbreviated) on Monday. I'm going to hear a more detailed presentation in August. The objective is (among other things):
A. Provide a framework that appraisers in the field can adopt to create their own, effective training program.
B. Encourage lenders (and AMCs, but it is the lenders who are driving the bus on this one) to accept work from trainees, adequately supervised.
C. Counter the argument that there is a long-term shortage of qualified appraisers and that no replacements are entering the field.
D. Create a system where smaller fee shops can thrive again (which would counter some of the larger, national staffing firms).
I know anything that is remotely associated with Joan T or CRN or AMCs is viewed with a jaundice eye. I get that.
This program (as was presented to me and others) doesn't cost a dime and was developed by AMCs and other stakeholders to bring attention to the challenges in hiring and adequately training new entrants into our profession. It is free and offers a road map that appraisers can use if they are interested in bringing on a trainee. And, it is also designed to encourage lenders to allow a trainees to directly sign the reports while being appropriately supervised. "Appropriately supervised" means that at some point along the training process, the trainee can go out to do a basic inspection without the oversight of their supervisor.
Pre-housing bust, I had a small fee shop. There was no road map to training. I had to devise my own system and set my own standards.. I was successful, never had an issue with quality, and trained a fair number of appraisers who were very competent. I wish I had a program to use a template back then, rather than devising my own methods/process.
At the high point, I had 15 appraisers working with me and a support staff of 4 in the office. Everyone was earning a decent living and while, once trained and licensed/certified, the appraisers could leave to go on their own, most stayed on because the synergy of working in a firm maximized efficiency and (for each of us) profitability. No one was forced to stay with me because of lack of alternative opportunities. And, the size of my firm allowed us to work closer with direct-lender clients and become their go-to appraisal firm in our market (prior to WAMU switching to EAppraiseIt, my firm was the largest appraisal vendor for them in the SF Bay Area). WAMU was not our biggest client.
My point is this:
Residential appraisers have the ability to win back that kind of business relationship. A limitation to becoming a bigger player is a one-person shop can only do so much.
Training new entrants into the residential profession is a challenge when many lenders do not allow "trainees" to sign the report.
This program is simply a framework which appraisers can use and form their own template if they want to take on the challenge and responsibility of training a new appraiser with the objective of growing their business beyond a 1-person shop.
And, it encourages lenders to allow trainees (adequately supervised) to co-sign reports.
Maybe not necessary in L.A. or San Francisco. Not a bad program in Washington, Oregon, or more rural areas. Pro-appraisal professionalism as well.
For the record, I did not participate or have anything to do with this program's development. I certainly share the objectives of (a) creating a professional setting for appraiser training and (b) encouraging lenders to engage appraisers who supervise appraiser trainees.
I expect many to not share my view on the advantages and opportunities that such a program can create for the boots-on-the-ground residential appraiser who wants to grow her firm and take on trainees.
community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.
