Certified Residential vs Certified General

[Non Sequitur]

AMCs are still trying to pass this STR crap off to residential appraisers. Why? Because a CG won't fill out a form for $150. But if anyone is interested, here's the former chief appraiser of AppraiserLoft, now with NAN, giving step by step instructions:

 

[Sadie]

Call it a different name then - the idea is a step commercial license that does limit the $ amount/complexity of commercial properties for the sep license. To appraise any and all properties, one would need to qualify for the existing cert gen license.

Licensed General?

 

[Dale Floyd]

I saw two reports in October, which are the most atrocious pieces of crap I've ever seen.

One was signed by an MAI and two SRA's which was full of errors and very questionable reasoning. No support of anything shown, but it was entertaining. That MAI was a huge fan of himself too as everything pointed towards his expertise and background. I guess that should be enough to prevent anybody from actually looking at the inaccuracies within.

The other was signed by a CG in another state about a property in Tennessee, full of USPAP violations and completely misleading. It was done as a personal appraisal, completed on the 1004 which is always a red flag. It literally had these exact words in the beginning of the report, and I quote: "I extraordinarily assume that the use of this report is not from a perspective that would effect the appraisers consideration of value." His grammar was horrible throughout. He used comparables that were, well, incomparable to the property he was appraising.

In neither case, was I asked to review. In one instance, the report was sent to me in order to reveal comparables for consideration in another assignment. In the other instance, the report was sent to me to extract the deed exhibit, and the client didn't know how to send just the one page.

I say again - The whole Certified General versus Certified Residential versus Licensed versus Limited versus Trainee needs to be tossed, and competence should be the only controlling factor of who can appraise what after a license is obtained. Just as J Grant said, make the exam comprehensive and the qualifications strict enough to matter in order to obtain the license, and go from there.

 

[Mark K]

I saw two reports in October, which are the most atrocious pieces of crap I've ever seen.

One was signed by an MAI and two SRA's which was full of errors and very questionable reasoning. No support of anything shown, but it was entertaining. That MAI was a huge fan of himself too as everything pointed towards his expertise and background. I guess that should be enough to prevent anybody from actually looking at the inaccuracies within.

In my 35 years of appraising I submitted 4 reports to the state. 2 were completed by MAI's. Both were the most pretty looking but fact-free POS reports I'd ever encountered. The label "MAI" means very little (at least to me) in regards to competence. A few of the holders basically use the title as a license to steal and to be hired 'hit men', hired by lawyers and property owners and will give any number they're paid to give.

 

[sputnam]

AMCs are still trying to pass this STR crap off to residential appraisers. Why? Because a CG won't fill out a form for $150. But if anyone is interested, here's the former chief appraiser of AppraiserLoft, now with NAN, giving step by step instructions:

Most lenders don't want the appraiser to value an STR as a going concern. Mostly they are asking about the income from the property to aid in qualifying the borrower for the loan.

 

[George Hatch]

I don't have a single client who wants the value of the business included with the appraisal of the real property. Not for a gas station, not for a small hotel/motel, not for a liquor store, not for a group home, and not for short term rentals. And definitely not for anything cannabis-related.
Now larger hotels and commercial equestrian stables and certain other uses it becomes a different situation. And a lower LTV.

 

[George Hatch]

I saw two reports in October, which are the most atrocious pieces of crap I've ever seen.

One was signed by an MAI and two SRA's which was full of errors and very questionable reasoning. No support of anything shown, but it was entertaining. That MAI was a huge fan of himself too as everything pointed towards his expertise and background. I guess that should be enough to prevent anybody from actually looking at the inaccuracies within.

The other was signed by a CG in another state about a property in Tennessee, full of USPAP violations and completely misleading. It was done as a personal appraisal, completed on the 1004 which is always a red flag. It literally had these exact words in the beginning of the report, and I quote: "I extraordinarily assume that the use of this report is not from a perspective that would effect the appraisers consideration of value." His grammar was horrible throughout. He used comparables that were, well, incomparable to the property he was appraising.

In neither case, was I asked to review. In one instance, the report was sent to me in order to reveal comparables for consideration in another assignment. In the other instance, the report was sent to me to extract the deed exhibit, and the client didn't know how to send just the one page.

I say again - The whole Certified General versus Certified Residential versus Licensed versus Limited versus Trainee needs to be tossed, and competence should be the only controlling factor of who can appraise what after a license is obtained. Just as J Grant said, make the exam comprehensive and the qualifications strict enough to matter in order to obtain the license, and go from there.

The labeling only speaks to qualifications, not performance. If you're saying the appraiser didn't perform to their own demonstrated qualifications - despite passing the courses and the licensing test - that's a very different allegation than saying they never learned how to do what they were doing.

Being minimally competent is a subset of being qualified. The purpose of the qualifications criteria is to ( wait for it) demonstrate those qualifications. I can prove I took/passed the requisite training courses, I can prove I accrued the requisite experience hours, I can prove I passed the testing and whatever academic education, etc.

Which that qualifications is *exactly* what the issue is with most CRs who are working beyond the scope of the minimum training and testing and experience criteria for their license. Even if they did work on some non-SFR assignments under supervision in the past that doesn't mean they ever attained the technical competency or the experience that is required to operate on their own. Same was when a non-appraiser is doing most of a 1004 but the appraiser is finishing it off. Every SL/CR here understands that the oh-so-common refrain of "I worked on 1004s" almost never means that unlicensed individual has enough competency/experience across the entire 1-4 scope of practice to operate independently on their own.

And for CGs haven't appraised anything other than houses for the last 30 years despite being trained and exposed to different property types in the past, that happens, too. I know a few MAIs and a couple CGs who have operated that way. They actually did accrue the qualifications in the past but didn't maintain certain elements due to misuse.
-------------------

The other things that I've personally seen happen include

Licensees signing off on work they didn't perform and misrepresenting what they did/didn't personally do​

Live reports being used as a template by someone else as if one size fits all​

Live reports being altered after the fact by a 3rd party​

Outright identity theft - the signature was stolen​

That last one actually happens IRL, but it is also used as an excuse by the appraiser who actually did perform the appraisal.

This is why when I review I don't speak to what the appraiser did/didn't SR1, but only to what the SR2 report does/doesn't say. I cannot just assume the signature belongs to the individual who actually did the work. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

TLDR - the label speaks to demonstrated qualifications, not IRL performance on that particular assignment. Regardless of what I've done in the past I am perfectly capable of screwing up whatever appraisal I'm working on today.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

strict enough to matter in order to obtain the license, and go from there.

So, will this one-size-fits-all certification require everyone to take a math heavy test to get the license? You know, like a CG would take and might include classes like our state suggests?

General Appraiser Market Analysis and Highest and Best Use 30 hrs​

General Appraiser Sales Comparison Approach 30 hrs​

General Appraiser Site Valuation & Cost Approach 30 hrs​

General Appraiser Income Approach 60 hrs​

General Appraiser Report Writing & Case Studies 30 hrs​

Statistics, Modeling and Finance 15 hrs​

I know many res appraisers who would balk at taking a stats course and CRs avoid the cost approach like a plague. And most of the sanctions in the two states I work have flagged the lack of support for the site value. Sorry, how can you give someone a license to do it all yet not require they have the proper education to do at least the easy ones?

 

[Dale Floyd]

So, will this one-size-fits-all certification require everyone to take a math heavy test to get the license? You know, like a CG would take and might include classes like our state suggests?

General Appraiser Market Analysis and Highest and Best Use 30 hrs​

General Appraiser Sales Comparison Approach 30 hrs​

General Appraiser Site Valuation & Cost Approach 30 hrs​

General Appraiser Income Approach 60 hrs​

General Appraiser Report Writing & Case Studies 30 hrs​

Statistics, Modeling and Finance 15 hrs​

I know many res appraisers who would balk at taking a stats course and CRs avoid the cost approach like a plague. And most of the sanctions in the two states I work have flagged the lack of support for the site value. Sorry, how can you give someone a license to do it all yet not require they have the proper education to do at least the easy ones?

We could debate which courses should or should not be taken all day long, but no educational course will prepare an appraiser to complete an analysis of a multi-hospital complex. That comes only through competence beyond the norm, involving much more than some required courses or being a trainee by another CG lacking that level of expertise, yet the piece of paper says differently. In turn I’ve not seen a course that deals with the single manufactured home that was enclosed as part of a new log home on 45 acres with a guest house overlooking the Tennessee river viewing a flood way across the front either.

My point is the same. Who is competent to do either? The second of those examples shouldn’t be done by most CGs that I know, because they would be clueless how to even start. But they are a CG and they can proclaim they are able to do any if it. A CR might be considered lacking the piece of paper, yet is called to actually get it figured out because of experience and background in understanding those properties. There is no course making anybody competent for these things, yet we say a CG can do them and a CR can’t. Why? Competence should always rule the assignment. That’s what USPAP literally says.

Again - this no longer matters to me, but the profession isn’t growing and the pool of CGs is woefully shallow in numbers and competence in many aspects in our state.

 

[Essexfenwick]

Get designated or do something else.

MAI or SRA. The easy stuff is going away and hard stuff clients generally want credentials.

Appraisers who don't commit basically have one foot out the door and just lazily badmouth credentials in hopes they can ride it out without having to upgrade their credentials or learn a new income source.