AQB Update On Proposed Changes To Appraiser Qualifications

[Non Sequitur]

I certainly would not argue that point, and quite frankly was surprised that the subsequent increase in education occurred.

The only people surprised were those who weren't paying attention. The insults were everywhere (an associates isn't a real degree, an associates = 13th grade, etc.) and the push toward the bachelor's requirement was well underway even before the 2008 requirements were implemented.

 

[Evincere]

I'm well aware of that. IMHO, the licensing system has been an almost complete failure. It is feasible that the increase in education and much more difficult exams may have a positive effect, but it is too early to tell.

I bring up professional orgs, because they have done certain things that historically have resulted in positive outcome. There is nothing wrong to include that which works; in fact, it should be done.

I have been hearing "licensing system has been a complete failure" for at least 25+ years. I note you qualify your statement by saying "almost". And I didn't realize you were even old enough to be considered one of the mustache petes. But when something is heard and repeated often enough it seems to take a life of its own as truth. Relative to today's issues it is akin to the newly minted "appraiser shortage" campaigns.

Who have been the most prominent vocally regarding false narratives of Appraiser shortages? Guys like William Fall, John Forsythe, Stevens of Metro West - the epitome of the old world shops run by designee s. May I remind you what organization they belong too and whose letters they hold? This certification/licensing failure reminds me of the newest elephant in the room- the one that's always ignored by omission. That there may indeed be a shortage of Appraisers in certain areas is correct - but what is true is that this shortage has now expanded beyond those areas to Appraisers who will NOT work for AMCs at all and those who refuse their cut rate fees.

Question. Prior to you getting the SRA designation, how did the licensing alone system work out for you?

Lets cut to the chase. Who has always considered the licensing system a complete failure? Primarily, the very organizations you bring up. In that the licensing system of 1992 loosened the cuckold designee's held on the industry. Licensing began leveling the field by expanding opportunities for those not wanting to be in the employ of others on a split fee basis that dominated the industry prior to certification. Designee s held almost exclusive sway and influence with the banks because lenders at the time considered a designation the only qualifying factor to receive work as there was no other.

Thereafter, licensing became a deterrent to designation incentives and at one point (I believe not so very long ago) the very existence of pro organizations weathered on the brink of financial disaster. The caste system hasn't evolved much - the greatest detractors to licensing are the designee s who still consider only license holders as pariahs. Point blank we do not contribute financially to the longevity or power clutch of the designee's organization.

So, naturally, certain factions whose business models were built upon designations and who were seriously afflicted financially, would consider licensing a failure.

That much of the market for residential appraisal services came to acknowledge those standards to the extent that it wiped out most of the competitive advantage of all the residential designations is a matter of record.

Basically, it gave the users of appraisal services a legal reference point where previously none existed.

Failure of licensing is subjective and a matter of perspective until otherwise proven as factual truth.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Lets cut to the chase.

Yes, licensing revealed the problem that "designations" are now exposed as what they always were - a means of turf protection via controlling the # of MAIs. Since some big lenders required an MAI, formerly the chapters limited numbers. In NWA that boiled over when Little Rock won't approve more MAIs so a bunch of members moved chapter memberships w Ozark chapter out of MO. Sent AR chapter in a tizzy. So licensing did exactly the same thing, pulling the football from under Charlie Brown, MAI,SRA, IFA, etc. And groups IFA, ASA, AI, & long gone NAMA all argued this meant more money for everyone...but alas the AMC stepped in where MAI's faded, but many AMC's are run by the same folk with those diminished MAI tie tacs. funny thing about the ptb

 

[Joe Flacco]

Lets cut to the chase. Who has always considered the licensing system a complete failure? Primarily, the very organizations you bring up. In that the licensing system of 1992 loosened the cuckold designee's held on the industry. Licensing began leveling the field by expanding opportunities for those not wanting to be in the employ of others on a split fee basis that dominated the industry prior to certification. Designee s held almost exclusive sway and influence with the banks because lenders at the time considered a designation the only qualifying factor to receive work as there was no other. Licensing became a deterrent to designation incentives and at one point (I believe no so long ago) the very existence of pro organizations weathered on the brink of financial disaster. The chaste system hasn't changed much and non designee s are still considered pariahs. So, naturally, certain factions whose business models were built upon designations and who were seriously afflicted financially, would consider certification a failure.

This is the first time I am hearing about the structure of the profession pre-licensing. I heard people say that licensing was bad for the profession but I don't think I ever understood what they were talking about until I read this post. That pre-licensing structure is a far superior structure than what we have today. What you are saying is that pre-licensing we had some of the most competent appraisers leading large firms and responsible for the staff. That's the way it should be. Today, we have thousands of appraisers doing things a thousand different ways. Things are very fragmented and there is nobody to take charge and get things straightened out. With larger firms and in house staff, you at least get some sort of consistency in thought.

I keep talking about very large firms with 100+ appraisers. If what you describe is really the way it was pre-licensing, it is possible that if licensing did not happen, then today we would have these very large local firms built through acquisitions and mergers over time.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

That pre-licensing structure is a far superior structure than what we have today. What you are saying is that pre-licensing we had some of the most competent appraisers leading large firms and responsible for the staff. That's the way it should be.

Quite the opposite, you were kept under thumb & unable to achieve the MAI.

thousands of appraisers doing things a thousand different ways

There is more than one way to skin a cat without getting hair in your teeth. CU allows little wiggle room for CRs, and secondary market protocols are formulaic which leads to some sad results some times

 

[Joe Flacco]

Quite the opposite, you were kept under thumb & unable to achieve the MAI.
There is more than one way to skin a cat without getting hair in your teeth. CU allows little wiggle room for CRs, and secondary market protocols are formulaic which leads to some sad results some times

There is more than one way to do things but most appraisers today just don't have the appraisal knowledge or skills to figure things out without local supervision. Most appraisers today don't have any business being independent. I don't want to **** people off but that is just fact.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Most appraisers today don't have any business being independent.

Really? Then why are they not sanctioned by the state?

 

[djd09]

And Bernie should be president.

 

[Joe Flacco]

Really? Then why are they not sanctioned by the state?

That's a very good question. I don't think that I am the only person that wonders why. It's bull****.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Perhaps it is because they are not as bad as you think.