First In Series - Ivpi Q&a #1

[TJSum]

My concern is that the bar to join the group would be set too low.
For example, in a given market area you have a CR with 15 years experience who does quality work. You also have a CR with five years experience who is a notorious number hitter. You also have a CG with two years experience who has 4 trainees.
Will all three of them qualify?

The way I read page 10 section #2 of the proposal, they all would.

This is one unintended consequence the originators of the IVPI might want to rethink. For simplicity, lets say these three appraisal "companies" are for any one particular market in the rotational system. Also let us state three trainees for appraiser C to comply with the law.

Appraiser A would receive 1 order for every six.
Appraiser B would receive 1 order ofr every six.
Appraiser C would be involved in 4 of every six orders.

No offense to any trainees out there, but this would lead to an explosion of "trainees", because that would be the only way to increase ones business. How would that promote the Pubic Trust and also how would this work out better for any appraiser who would not play this game.

Another thing to think about, Brad Ellis just gave some numbers for GSE loans on another thread. Currently the average is 2.5 million, based on what I have read on the forum there are 122,000 appraisers at this time. Lets say only 50,000 sign up with the IVPI, that yields one assignment per week for the average roster member.

I am very conflicted, I have nothing but respect for the originators of the IVPI and rarely have disagreed with them, but when this proposal is subjected to real world questions, I have many, many concerns.

 

[Marcia Langley]

TJ,

Trainees would not be registered, only licensed appraisers. Please refer to the proposal and Q&A number 4.

The number 122,000 includes every listing at the national website including many duplicate listings and all appraisers who don't even do residential work.

If your numbers are correct, then we can infer that the number per week would be greater than one.

----------
----------

It would be nice if we could keep this thread on topic with the first five Q&As provided in the first post. More Q&As will be comming out, soon, and they will address more questions that have been raised by appraisers.

 

[TJSum]

How do they know what Questions to address in the next release if we do not ask them?

The way I read the proposal, trainees would be included in the rotation, as long as they have a supervisor as an IVPI member mentoring them. If they are taken out of the rotation, that causes problems too, there will no longer be any avenue for trainees if it is as you read it.

Under my numbers, I was not using the full 122,000, way less than half of them at 50,000. I thought is was a pretty realistic estimate.

 

[George Hatch]

TJ,

The proposal itself includes an entire section at the bottom of page 10 that addresses what it will take to be on the panel. First on the list is the individual has to be a Licensed (big L) or Certified appraiser. That doesn't include trainees. Moreover, the panel mamber has to physically inspect, which is already a requirement in some states for all appraisals involving trainees.

 

[Marcia Langley]

How do they know what Questions to address in the next release if we do not ask them?

Please don't misunderstand me. The more questions, the better. I only meant that if people have questions related to aspects of the proposal that are not related to the five Q&As it would be better to post them on another thread. like the big one that introduced the proposal.

And my remark was not directed at you.

 

[TJSum]

Sorry George and Marcia if I mis-read the proposal. I was under the impression a "trainee" could be part of the rotation as long as they had a mentor who was a member of the panel mentoring them. And yes, the supervisor would also have to inspect the subject. I will have to re-read because it is still not clear to me whether the trainee works on reports assigned to his/her mentor or reports assigned to him from the rotation. Either way, this is going to cause problems, so the point of bringing it up is for the panel members to know this may need reworked if IVPI is accepted.

 

[Em Tee]

I will have to re-read because it is still not clear to me whether the trainee works on reports assigned to his/her mentor or reports assigned to him from the rotation. Either way, this is going to cause problems, so the point of bringing it up is for the panel members to know this may need reworked if IVPI is accepted.

What problems do you foresee? I like the idea of only Licensed or Certified Appraisers being assigned report. Could you imagine if a Certified Appraiser has 3 trainees, and they each are receiving orders, how is the Certified supposed to inspect and train all them sufficiently?

 

[Greenback]

I'm a Louisiana State Licensed (Big L)
Real Estate Appraiser Trainee.

Sincerely,

 

[Greenback]

"""...Moreover, the panel member has to physically inspect, which is already a requirement in some states for all appraisals involving trainees.""" ~ Posted by Mr. Hatch

 

[TJSum]

To be clear, I have no dog in this fight. I have no trainees, never have had one and don't plan of any in the near future. I am just studying the IVPI proposal to see if there are "loopholes" in it that could cause real world problems lessening the proposed intent of improving the system.

At the top of page 9, it states at point #2;

"Only the IVPI approved appraiser can perform the appraisal; THE ONLY EXCEPTIONS BEING A TRAINEE, or their equivalent, working under the IVPI appraiser's direct personal supervision."

The question still stands as it is not 100% clear, would the trainee's appraisal be part of the rotation, or would the trainee's work just be done to the mentors rotational assignment?

If the trainee can only help on the mentor's assignments, I am sure most will see how hard it will be for any trainee to pick up a mentor under this circumstance. I will not make any judgement on the pro/con's of that, I am sure many will say good, but those trainees and future trainees might have a different opinion.

Based on the feeback, my major concern was unwarranted, that if the trainees were included in the rotation (while being mentored by an approved IVPI appraiser), this would have caused major problems outlined in my prior post.