First In Series - Ivpi Q&a #1

[Jonsey]

Respect earned, respect given, respect returned.

Well said.

 

[Workbox]

I guess you can call me ridiculous also. Wonder how many ridiculous people are lurking around out there?

None of this is set in stone and making it seem that it's dooms day, this is cake walk compared to what the AMC's and Zaio's are doing. They are laughing at us. Sure, great questions and concerns and am sure the best of the best are working on this and listening you your questions. But it is getting to the point of lets get to work, enough of whining.

Maybe it's me, but this has enough red meat to get it to the grill.

 

[Ken B]

The proposal says what it says:

Centralized ordering and delivery system, rotational panel, individual qualifications.

How much more of a "yes" do you or anyone else need? This question was answered prior to it being asked.

The Q&A restates the obvious - appraisers and lenders have the choice to decide whether to work with the GSE under their terms or not. What they can't choose to do is to dictate terms to the GSEs for what appraisals they'll accept.

The GSE/Cuomo agreement has already gutted your MB-appraiser relationships on the GSE assignments. We had nothing to do with that. The sooner you come to terms with the GSE's decision - which is theirs to make - the sooner you'll be able to give serious consideration to your alternatives.

We've put our proposal out for all to see; and yes, it does include an IVPI-run rotational panel that the MBs will not be able to manipulate or avoid.

That's just one alternative for how this can go. Surely there are other alternative plans that are being developed. If you decide you prefer one of those alternatives then I would anticipate you'll go support it. But you're wasting valuable time if you think the GSEs will reverse their decision if (only) our proposal fails.

George, the question was originally asked because Mike got cute and stated that affiliation with IVPI was voluntary and appraisers had a choice to enroll or not to enroll. That response was a non-response and clouded the issue in the mind of those who may not have read the entire proposal and/or understood its full impact.

Some of us have asked for simple clarification and have gotten nothing more than a runaround in response.

The fact is, if the proposal is enacted as written, affiliation is NOT voluntary if an appraiser desires to receive assignments from the very vast majority of mortgage lenders.

 

[Workbox]

George, the question was originally asked because Mike got cute and stated that affiliation with IVPI was voluntary and appraisers had a choice to enroll or not to enroll. That response was a non-response and clouded the issue in the mind of those who may not have read the entire proposal and/or understood its full impact.

Some of us have asked for simple clarification and have gotten nothing more than a runaround in response.

The fact is, if the proposal is enacted as written, affiliation is NOT voluntary if an appraiser desires to receive assignments from the very vast majority of mortgage lenders.

I think that may have to do with the NVS.

 

[George Hatch]

Mike and I and everyone else on the committee have agreed to stick to the written materials and refrain from wandering off into personal interpretations. The written proposal and that Q&A are the IVPIs message, not our personal opinions. Mike is just doing what he agreed to do.

I believe the reason you guys are getting frustrated is because some of you apparently think we are holding out on you in terms of details. The fact of the matter, oft repeated, is that we haven't agreed on anything else beyond what's in the proposal itself and now in the Q&A. There are no details to provide at this point because we are still at the concept stage.

You're not going to uncover any hidden gems by continually rephrasing the same questions over and over because there are no hidden gems to uncover. The lawyer's rephrase trick would only work if we really were holding out on you, and if we were stupid enough to lie to you in the first place. We're not doing either. That's why you aren't getting anywhere with it.

But you're welcome to keep trying.

 

[Mike Kennedy]

The fact is, if the proposal is enacted as written, affiliation is NOT voluntary if an appraiser desires to receive assignments from the very vast majority of mortgage lenders.

All longer term, and newer, AF Members are encouraged to actually read the Home Valuation Protection Agreement, the Home Valuation Code of Conduct, the Independent Valuation Protection Institute PROPOSAL, and the Q&A.


http://appraisersforum.com/showthread.php?t=136026

 

[Lobo Fan]

In markets where there are a lot of jumbos, then IVPI may not be the answer. Unless they raise the minimum to $2 million or something. Whoever would have thought that FHA would be helping people into $750,000 homes. You can still buy a real nice house for $750,000 in Albuquerque. Appraisers working with private money lenders are free to go there own way. It looks like the IVPI is designed for those of us that appraise homes under FNMA amounts.

 

[Ken B]

George, thanks for the response. If such an explanation had been given in the beginning, this thread would likely have not been nearly as long.

The choice to do both is voluntary as is the choice to do mortgage appraisals for lenders which are not FHA/HUD OR VA Approved. So is the choice not to.

To an appraiser whose business consists of providing appraisals for use in support of conventional lending decisions, stating that one has a "choice" to affliate themselves with the IVPI, should the proposal be adopted by the powers that be, is like telling someone they can decide to breath or not to breath. Not much of a choice there.

 

[George Hatch]

I daresay that if we were planning on doing to you what the AMCs will do to you if they prevail then you'd have a really good reason for being concerned.

Think about this - in most areas, appraisers will practically kill themselves to get on the VA panels. I don't hear those appraisers complaining about fees or the good being pulled down by the bad, even though the panel has plenty of both.

 

[Otis Key]

Originally Posted by George Hatch
The proposal says what it says:

Centralized ordering and delivery system, rotational panel, individual qualifications.

How much more of a "yes" do you or anyone else need? This question was answered prior to it being asked.

The Q&A restates the obvious - appraisers and lenders have the choice to decide whether to work with the GSE under their terms or not. What they can't choose to do is to dictate terms to the GSEs for what appraisals they'll accept.

The GSE/Cuomo agreement has already gutted your MB-appraiser relationships on the GSE assignments. We had nothing to do with that. The sooner you come to terms with the GSE's decision - which is theirs to make - the sooner you'll be able to give serious consideration to your alternatives.

We've put our proposal out for all to see; and yes, it does include an IVPI-run rotational panel that the MBs will not be able to manipulate or avoid.

That's just one alternative for how this can go. Surely there are other alternative plans that are being developed. If you decide you prefer one of those alternatives then I would anticipate you'll go support it. But you're wasting valuable time if you think the GSEs will reverse their decision if (only) our proposal fails.

George, the question was originally asked because Mike got cute and stated that affiliation with IVPI was voluntary and appraisers had a choice to enroll or not to enroll. That response was a non-response and clouded the issue in the mind of those who may not have read the entire proposal and/or understood its full impact.

Some of us have asked for simple clarification and have gotten nothing more than a runaround in response.

The fact is, if the proposal is enacted as written, affiliation is NOT voluntary if an appraiser desires to receive assignments from the very vast majority of mortgage lenders.

Kenneth, if you haven't learned by now - that is Kennedy from step one. Unfortunately.

That said, I know for a fact that what George Hatch wrote above is a fact and that there are people across the USA working on various aspects to bring details and additional answers to the AF and to others. I'm not speaking for the group, just providing additional information. The process of discussing things across the USA is and can be very time consuming - just look at the number of posts on all these threads about the IVPI.

BTW and FWIW - all this beatch slappings, back stabbings and abrupt (rude in my opinion) posts has been a good part of the reason for me not posting near as much as I used.