GSE Waiver & Data Collection Data

[CGinMN]

Wow, those are huge percentages. If true that's shocking. I would never have guessed at that.

Even George doesn't take the truth for granted.

After all, getting the subject's Q/C ratings wrong will have more effect on the outcome via the effect on comp selection than will the combination of adjustment factors to those comparables.

Getting the Q/C ratings only matters because of automated underwriting and automated review. Any manual review will demonstrate whether the appraiser is playing fast and loose with the truth, or as most often is the case, they interpret the condition ratings differently than the review, which is ok because the condition rating is an opinion, not an objective fact.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

Most have a team.

I have one right now. Three appraisers signed it. Two are in different states. Funny thing is that they left out the front view of the high voltage pl and one of the comps were located next to the tower with no adjustment.

Do you have the whole team call? Perhaps a couple try to physically track down the source of information so they can meet that 24 hour deadline...or do they just do the skippy thing and not verify. I will take my guess.

 

[DWiley]

For you, your legacy kind of is riding on the "pre-ordained outcome" working out. With the white paper, you are the architect of the whole thing. You really really really want the data to support your vision.

It's more like design the test for the conclusion you need.

As far as condition ratings, they are not perfect definitions and have a wide range. So who was the judge of what is an error and what is not? Different people would have different opinions of what is the wrong rating.

Man, you have got some bad info from somewhere. You literally made me laugh out loud. Thanks! Not as good as Nate Bargatze, but still very funny.

The notion that hybrids were "my vision" is just silly. Companies in California and Chicago were doing them long before I even heard of it. The GSE hybrid test and learns started years before I joined.

The paper I wrote on hybrids a couple of decades ago was only an analysis of whether the process violated USPAP. I actually thought it was stupid of them to pay me to write that, since USPAP has clearly never required a physical inspection by the appraiser. It did not promote their use in any way. It simply said it didn't violate USPAP.

 

[CGinMN]

To say that a team that spent 7 years developing a pilot program isn't invested in the outcomes is crazytalk.

 

[DWiley]

Even George doesn't take the truth for granted.

Getting the Q/C ratings only matters because of automated underwriting and automated review. Any manual review will demonstrate whether the appraiser is playing fast and loose with the truth, or as most often is the case, they interpret the condition ratings differently than the review, which is ok because the condition rating is an opinion, not an objective fact.

Getting the C rating wrong is an error, but it is an error that might not affect risk if the same error is made in rating the comps.

Omitting/missing/not reporting repairs/inspections. That is a different story.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

Even George doesn't take the truth for granted.

Getting the Q/C ratings only matters because of automated underwriting and automated review. Any manual review will demonstrate whether the appraiser is playing fast and loose with the truth, or as most often is the case, they interpret the condition ratings differently than the review, which is ok because the condition rating is an opinion, not an objective fact.

More important that apples are compared to apples. If two are similar in condition and one appraiser would call it c3 and another c4 but it doesn't effect the results then IMO its not a big deal, except when it comes to stealing our data.

The stats of ~200% more accuracy with a PDR over an appraiser don't pass the smell test. They gave as much evidence as when someone selling something for your home says it will increase the value of your home by xx%.

 

[Joe Flacco]

Man, you have got some bad info from somewhere. You literally made me laugh out loud. Thanks! Not as good as Nate Bargatze, but still very funny.

The notion that hybrids were "my vision" is just silly. Companies in California and Chicago were doing them long before I even heard of it. The GSE hybrid test and learns started years before I joined.

The paper I wrote on hybrids a couple of decades ago was only an analysis of whether the process violated USPAP. I actually thought it was stupid of them to pay me to write that, since USPAP has clearly never required a physical inspection by the appraiser. It did not promote their use in any way. It simply said it didn't violate USPAP.

You were certainly promoting it as the future on this forum even before I joined. I've come across a lot of your older content discussing it.

Just own it

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

To say that a team that spent 7 years developing a pilot program isn't invested in the outcomes is crazytalk.

What is the word I'm looking for....bias.

 

[DWiley]

To say that a team that spent 7 years developing a pilot program isn't invested in the outcomes is crazytalk.

We just canned something we had been developing/testing for over 5 years. It about the results and the impact on risk management. Period.

 

[djd09]

'appraiser elimination' was the only truthful part of that article...