AQB Second Exposure Draft - Proposed Changes to Real Property Appraiser Qualification Criteria

[chad hampton]

All of those positions you mentioned work under an experienced mentor in some way.

I do agree there should be a degree requirement and the word "trainee" should be eliminated. It has bad connotations. When I started, I was a registered appraiser. Then they came out with the "trainee" title. I thought it was bad then and still do. And it should be universally accepted than a registered "trainee" appraiser be allowed to get field appraisal experience when the supervisory appraiser deems them qualified to do so. Or as they have in NC, the supervisor must accompany them on the first X number of appraisals (I don't remember the number we have here). I think it's 50, but imo that's too many.

But this basic change would benefit me, you, and most everyone else on this board. And it would immediately get new blood into the profession and most likely eliminate parea. So it will never happen.

They set up a system in such a way that if you follow the rules, you lose money for months or years. Then they ***** that appraisers wont take on trainees. Its a truly bizzarro system leadership has created.

Start up and AMC and use runners, that's allowed.

 

[Zoe]

I have thoughts.

1. Most professions have a central and singular base. Name the profession. Appraisers had diverse group of organizations competing against each other.

2. AQB has power and somebody is feeding their kitty.

3. Independent fee appraisers don't have a voice.

 

[Zoe]

Here is where it hurts the establishment


Public trust.

Public trust is on back burner.

 

[alebrewer]

They set up a system in such a way that if you follow the rules, you lose money for months or years. Then they ***** that appraisers wont take on trainees. Its a truly bizzarro system leadership has created.

This was an intentional move to discourage entry into our profession. I know of no other profession with so little opportunity to become credentialed as the appraiser profession. Prior to PAREA, the only way you could get a credential is to know someone or be a REALLY great salesman (selling yourself, that is). And even if you are that REALLY great salesman - be prepared to make $0 for the first couple of years. The system was - and is - a dumpster fire. And don't get me started on quality of training. Completely broken. At least in the medical, architectural, and other fields - when they get credentialed they're actually capable of performing. Not so much in the appraisal profession. Reason? We have incompetent credential holders training the next generation of incompetent credential holders, who then train the next generation of incompetent credential holders. See the pattern?

 

[alebrewer]

I have thoughts.

Gold, Zoe! Pure gold.

 

[DWiley]

And most are not willing to train someone who only leaves to go in direct competition with their mentor including (almost invariably) poaching the mentor's long-established clients.

I put that on the mentors. I had a firm and I trained many over the years. Only one ever left within the first 2 years of getting certified. When I sold my firm, everyone there had been there for many years. I did that by creating an arrangement that was mutually beneficial, and not trying to squeeze every employee blind. I set up a system where they could make more money by staying than they could by leaving, and I still made money as well. Its called running a buisness.

 

[George Hatch]

The mentor situation was the established and obvious solution prior to licensing. Licensing changed that, but so the advances in technology, desktop PCs, digitized data sources in both CR-RM and online, email and the internet.

In 1990 you just about *couldn't* have operated efficiently as a sole practitioner. Not on a production scale. Appraisers had to work in groups in order to cover the office and related overhead it took to operate as a fee appraiser. I remember one analysis at the time concluding that the minimum size of a full service fee SFR appraisal operation started at 4 appraisers + 1 admin. Less than that resulted in undue overhead burdens.

In 1990 the concept of PAREA could not have been developed or implemented. (which I still don't think PAREA is an actual substitute for competent supervision). In 1990 nobody could have foreseen how the big players would vertically integrate these various operations and exploit the economy of scale to the extent that they have. Among other tech-enabled opportunities.

My point is that some of these elements were always subject to change depending on the technological basis at both the appraiser AND THE USER levels, which most of the participants in this discussion seems intent on gaslighting.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

everyone there had been there for many years.

Not everyone is that lucky. Yeah, I had a woman work for me for 20 years on and off (she took off time to care for her in-laws until they died) and one other who stayed his entire career. I kept $50 from each report. But I watched people train under competent appraisers to see them take off on their own ASAP and compete directly with their mentor.

In 1990 you just about *couldn't* have operated efficiently as a sole practitioner.

I was able to log a lot of hours on my own and those reports stood muster as experience. I took extra courses back when courses were about technique and not compliance. I bought books and an early subscriber to Amazon when it was solely a book seller. I even bought pamphlets from the dreaded NAREA that were helpful as well as AI books. I bought old textbooks, most of Harrison's inventory of books, and pestered banks for appraisal copies (yes, it is perfectly legal for banks to share what they have.) I studied my mentors' reports. But I only needed them when the de minimus was approached. The boards tightened this up over time to where you were required to have a supervisor. As one of my mentors said, speaking of farms, "you know these better than I do." Even so, I had to have her signature. But I wrote every word of it.

But today, the mentor has to take classes, is 100% responsible for the work of the trainee, and his own E & O jumps in cost. When my longtime assistant retired, despite her own insurance, I saw my E & O drop by one-third then to less than half the following year.

 

[DWiley]

Not everyone is that lucky

That was my point. It wasn't luck. It was intentional. It was the design of the business.

It is insane to bring in a trainee, treat them like indentured servants, then expect them to hang around as employees. My people did not leave because they could not afford to leave. I set up a system with support personnel, benefits, etc. that allowed them to make more on the staff than they could make working as a lone ranger, and still have much of the same flexibility.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

It is insane to bring in a trainee, treat them like indentured servants, then expect them to hang around

Yes, but also insane to expect the mentor to actually lose money. After all, a lot of people approach the mentor, not vice versa. And I know I made less that the trainee for months until they actually were saving me time. Reviewing a work and attending the inspection is as time consuming as what the trainee is doing.

There is no upside to training. And if trying to train someone to do commercial work (the bulk of my biz was small biz and farms) I always run into the issue of no one willing to work with anything but forms, so I ended up buying Narrative One so I could review and edit their work.