GSE Waiver & Data Collection Data

[glenn walker]

We are told that the WAIVERS are low risk from the GSE viewpoint. Yet every loan carries some risk, and the taxpayers assume the risk for the collateral value of a WAIVER-backed loan. (When a loan has an appraisal, the lender is obligated to buy back if there was a collateral value issue.) The lender is relieved of that obligation with a WAIVER ( the lender is relieved of reps and warranties )

How nice for that lender. And how nice for that borrower that they are saved paying an appraisal fee. But why is the tax apyer picking up the tab for it by assuming the risk?

If a WAIVER risk is so low, and their AVMs that deliver the value range for the WAIVER so "accurate", why aren't the GSE's assuming the risk for them?

Because their transferring the risk to the lenders. But not all waivers have full proof warrantys and unless the lender also does their own due dilgence the lender can be forced to do a Post Closing funding. That's why the owners of the lender we did reviews for didn't fund on a waiver if we ran our own data and comps that indicated a large potential value differences . The rural or ones with land or complex were elevated to a full interior exterior 1004 appraisal.

So it's s fallacy when apprasers say there is no risk by using a waiver. Also the larger the lender the less risk as it's a small percentage of what they fund and sell but for a small mortgage banker or small hay seed bank or credit union any buy back hurts.

 

[George Hatch]

Beyond that I'm not sure why you're here promoting and defending waivers and hybrids. There's not a damn thing boots on the ground appraisers can do to influence or change what the GSEs are doing, something must be up we're not aware of.

What I'm "promoting/defending" is the objective distinction of what is/isn't an appraisal. As you should expect of any USPAP familiar.

Not the wisdom or foolishment of the GSEs using anything less than a conventional 1004 for 100% of their deals regardless of the specifics of any of those deals. That's arguably a separate discussion.

 

[Non Sequitur]

What I'm "promoting/defending" is the objective distinction of what is/isn't an appraisal. As you should expect of any USPAP familiar.

Not the wisdom or foolishment of the GSEs using anything less than a conventional 1004 for 100% of their deals regardless of the specifics of any of those deals.

Oops, I didn't realize you were posting as Justinjla. I'll try to pay attention.

 

[George Hatch]

Oops, I didn't realize you were posting as Justinjla. I'll try to pay attention.

If you disagree that's what I've been doing then lets discuss it.

Almost all of the rationale of the "who is doing what?" line was previously developed during the ZAIO wars when they were trying to sell their 60-second AVM output as the (signed & 2-3 certified) appraiser's 2055 opinion prior to the appraiser actually developing any opinion about that AVM result. Or even seeing that AVM result. I didn't suddenly start engaging in that same reasoning with these hybrids when this discussion popped up.

The appraiser only does what they're actually doing.

 

[Non Sequitur]

If you disagree that's what I've been doing then lets discuss it.

Almost all of the rationale of the "who is doing what?" line was previously developed during the ZAIO wars when they were trying to sell their 60-second AVM output as the (signed/2-3 certified) appraiser's opinion prior to the appraiser actually developing any opinion about that result. I didn't suddenly start asking the question when this discussion popped up.

Discuss why a Fannie executive is posting to the forums promoting/defending waivers and hybrids? Not sure I follow how you think anything I posted was directed toward you.

 

[George Hatch]

Discuss why a Fannie executive is posting to the forums promoting/defending waivers and hybrids? Not sure I follow how you think the post was directed toward you.

Because you were responding to the quote which appears atop your response. The way you worded your response is why I think it was directed to me.

As for the other poster you're mentioning, I'm a little surprised anyone from Fannie or Freddie would engage in a discussion about the business aspect of their programs on an open forum.

 

[Non Sequitur]

Because you were responding to the quote which appears atop your response. That's why I think your response was directed to me.

As for the other poster you're mentioning, I'm a little surprised anyone from Fannie or Freddie would engage in a discussion about the business aspect of their programs on an open forum.

I'm not sure what you're seeing, I quoted Justinjla. Either way, I'm glad we're both a little perplexed that he's here.

 

[Mejappz]

Oops, I didn't realize you were posting as Justinjla. I'll try to pay attention.

I’ll let you figure out what all these people have in common. I’m pretty sure you will in seconds' time

 

[George Hatch]

I'm not sure what you're seeing, I quoted Justinjla. Either way, I'm glad we're both a little perplexed that he's here.

Mejappz just illustrated why I'm mindful about some of these comments. I've been repeatedly accused of being an anti-appraiser advocate for the GSEs and AMCs.

 

[Non Sequitur]

I’ll let you figure out what all these people have in common. I’m pretty sure you will in seconds' time

George is cool, he’s reading the posts out of order.