AQB's latest dumbing down by 'Stakeholders' Dropping the College Degree Requirement

[djd09]

15th st is located in d.c....d.c. is a cesspool of filth...their system is just a by product...USPAP is useless taf is corrupt

 

[George Hatch]

Obviously, you know what Chad was saying, and it wasn't about appeasing the majority vote. Rather, that 99% of comments made could be voicing various legitimate concern and reason for it, only to be brushed aside to do what they wanted anyway. This isn't the first exposure draft I've seen go that way.

To the original post, I don't know if college always helps an appraiser to be sufficiently competent to do the job, maybe just better educated in general. It's easier to require that an appraiser applicant has passed a 2yr degree than to make QE classes to cover basic education like general studies do. I've also seen a few high school dropouts with more intellect than some college grads, though... so I suppose increasing the exam difficulty and dropping the degree requirement would suffice. It could be a sort of "CLEP" exam and appraisal exam in one. Or require a general CLEP exam to ensure the applicants understand general studies well and leave the licensing exam alone, and just require both. It bothers me when an appraiser struggles with basic grammar and writing but somehow will be an expert in supply/demand analysis? Ehhh, alright... if you think so. But the public won't.

Actually, he and others have meant it exactly as I characterized it. That was his entire point for quantifying the outcome in that manner; just like some of these guys were trying to get their favorite candidate for ASB appointment "elected" by sending in letters and such a while back.

The PREAMBLE in USPAP we have today is the result of a single unsolicited suggestion that was submitted to the ASB. A single appraiser rewrote it in a manner that resonated with the ASB as being better than we had, enough that they eventually adopted it. Hence their point that the quality and perspective are what counts in their decision making, not how many responses consisting solely of "I hate it" that they receive. The purpose of an exposure draft is to solicit perspectives they haven't already identified or considered. That they aren't already aware of.

Speaking of, virtually 100% of the criticisms people on this forum have about the material is limited to "I hate it" or "I hate it because of the money" without any specifics whatsoever. It's as if they all play Taylor Swift songs on constant rotation while they're driving because that's about as deep as their reasoning seems to go.

 

[J Grant]

Actually, he and others have meant it exactly as I characterized it. That was his entire point for quantifying the outcome in that manner; just like some of these guys were trying to get their favorite candidate for ASB appointment "elected" by sending in letters and such a while back.



Speaking of, virtually 100% of the criticisms people on this forum have about the material is limited to "I hate it" or "I hate it because of the money" without any specifics whatsoever. It's as if they all play Taylor Swift songs on constant rotationhile they're driving because that's about as deep as their reasoning seems to go.

People have been giving their reasons all along throughout these and posts for their positions objected to it when I pointed out that you denigrate appraisers in these posts. You just did it above. Discredted all that people have been writing and why. They provided their reasons in posts throughout the various threads, though they do not continually post the reason in every thread so as not to be repetitive.

 

[George Hatch]

I'm talking about the material in USPAP and the AQB Qualifications criteria. Not your incessant screeching about bundled fees and AMCs.

The "barrier to entry" argument itself is just another example of "I hate it because of the money" rather than a competency-based objection. We just had a forum veteran who went his entire career without college. Who are you or anyone else to say that he needed an academic education in order to perform his assignments competently. Literally, how dare you?

 

[J Grant]

Probably a majority of the (still practicing) regulars on this forum do AMC work. Do you think we have reason to assume there has been a high percentage of grossly overvalued appraisals that's more/less specific to the AMC assignments?

There's another thread going right now that's complaining about reviewers doing too much. All of the "racial bias" cases are alleging a gross undervaluation and it appears all or almost all of them were AMC assignments. Additionally, one of the value-related complaints about appraisals that is making the rounds right now is that appraisers have been refusing to make market conditions adjustments even though they're noting increasing value trends in their neighborhood analyses. How do these factors square up with an assumption that the low cost appraisers have been grossly overvaluing properties? That is, doing so much more often than the non-AMC assignments.

In theory, an appraisal report can contain spelling errors and cutting corners in the analysis and other shortcuts and sloppiness without posing a significant risk of a gross overvaluation. "Sloppy" can also be "overvalued", but sometimes sloppy will just be sloppy. Assuming appraisers always do less when the fee is lower than they do when the fees are higher.

I don't recall people alleging gross over-valuation by AMC-engaged appraisers,

however, nearly all of us here ( just ask us ) have perceived being denied work from AM< C's if we come in low or below a CS price on more than a rare occasion. This means they are passing the value pressure from mortgage lenders along on the back end silently. They will never admit it, if you call them and ask where the orders went, they say they are slow. They can also say it was a quality issue ( when it was a value issue). I would say appraisers have no more protection now and perhaps less protection than when the HVCC started with lender pressure with an AMC. (or an unethical lender client)

It is also possible that waivers are overvaluing properties since the lender puts in the value they want in a refinance (( as long as it falls within the FF proprietary AVM range and nobody outsides gets to see that range or what comps were used or the reasoning behind it - a closed system ). WAivers also make the SC price the value ( as long as it falls within the AVM range ) A waiver is not part of public records the way a conventional mortgage vs FHA or VA is and I have not seen them dislsoesd on MLS, making it very difficult to tell if they are affecting market prices.

 

[J Grant]

I'm talking about the material in USPAP and the AQB Qualifications criteria. Not your incessant screeching about bundled fees and AMCs.

By calling it incessant screeching, you just devalued and discredited the points I made about bundled fees and AMCs. According your opinion, your posts are neutral,, unbiased reality or reasoning and appraisers are screeching and not fact-based and all feelz. But your posts do show a point of view that favors stakeholders over lenders , and you often make disparaging comments about the appraisers, as you just did, below in bold, and that is what I was referring to. In your post 162 you wrote the below, it was not simply about USPAP and AQB.

Speaking of, virtually 100% of the criticisms people on this forum have about the material is limited to "I hate it" or "I hate it because of the money" without any specifics whatsoever. It's as if they all play Taylor Swift songs on constant rotationhile they're driving because that's about as deep as their reasoning seems to go.

 

[George Hatch]

You are the personification of my commentary. It's as if I wrote those comments with you in mind. (I didn't, but the shoe does fit you).

I'm talking about what it takes to become competent to perform the job. That is the role of minimum qualifications criteria. I believe that is a logical and principled perspective to be using in this discussion. The issue of what is/isn't competent appraisal practice will continue exist even if 95% of all fee appraisers get starved out of business. Competency don't care about your feelings or your economic well being. Or mine.

You're talking about the money and economic viability of the fee appraiser business to the exclusion of all other forms of appraisal practice; which that is a competently separate topic. It is not an insult for me to make that observation or repeatedly explain the distinction to you when you're constantly injecting the non-sequitur into every standards or qualifications discussion, either.

 

[J Grant]

You are the personification of my commentary.

Why am I responsible for the fact that you just wrote the below and consistently post similar sentiments? And then deny it ? You understandably dislike that I point it out. And I point out that it has served to discredit the points that appraisers make here. If it was done on occasion, I'd say it's just venting, but it is done frequently-in threads on these topics.

Speaking of, virtually 100% of the criticisms people on this forum have about the material is limited to "I hate it" or "I hate it because of the money" without any specifics whatsoever. It's as if they all play Taylor Swift songs on constant rotationhile they're driving because that's about as deep as their reasoning seems to go.

 

[George Hatch]

Why am I responsible for the fact that you just wrote the below and consistently post similar sentiments? And then deny it ? You understandably dislike that I point it out. And I point out that it has served to discredit the points that appraisers make here. If it was done on occasion, I'd say it's just venting, but it is done frequently-in threads on these topics.

Speaking of, virtually 100% of the criticisms people on this forum have about the material is limited to "I hate it" or "I hate it because of the money" without any specifics whatsoever. It's as if they all play Taylor Swift songs on constant rotationhile they're driving because that's about as deep as their reasoning seems to go.

Asked and answered. A discussion about qualifications or standards is about THAT content. Not your other complaints.

 

[chad hampton]

we have to be the only profession in the world where active participants argue on behalf of lowering the bar of entry. I’ve never seen anything like it. Doesn’t have to be a four-year degree, and it could be a degree in anything, maybe associates degree in a specific discipline would suffice. But to eliminate any and all education requirements is idiotic. But it does fall in line with what I’ve come to expect from leadership over the last 15 years.

I was at an appraisal board meeting years ago, and someone on the board, I forget who, put it best - anything that’s worth getting should have some sort of bar that must be achieved or a little difficulty in achieving it. Otherwise it has no value.

20 years ago I thought taking two week class and working under somebody for 24 months was a pretty damn easy bar to get into a career. A hell of a lot easier than what I did for engineering.

Now we’re on a path to graduate high school pay the appraisal Institute $5000 for a couple YouTube videos and you can be an appraiser too. And it’s always the same people and groups at the top that are pushing the profession in this direction. After being on the wrong side of every issue for the last 10+ years, you think some people would change their tune.