• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online  community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

AQB's latest dumbing down by 'Stakeholders' Dropping the College Degree Requirement

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nowadays the students (or their parents) would sue the pants
Yes, my mistake was to not get a lawyer, but when you are broke, you go to work. I thought about finishing at a different school, but they all want a year of residency even if they accepted your hours, which they have some different requirements. SWMSU was the best offer but again, a full year required. (I checked again back 15 years ago.) The cost was horrific. $36,000 to get a masters from the Univ. of Oklahoma. OU has a technology degree for geologists. I would not go back to the Univ. of Arkansas if they gave me a gold-plated diploma.
 
"...Senior citizens can earn graduate degrees for free in TN, probably all online to. My graduate school was all online."

The increasing availability of accredited online degree programs has the potential to upend the entire "college loan" debate. Especially when (for most occupations) the employers don't care which school a worker attended.

CLEP testing costs $95 per course. English Literature, College Composition, College Mathematics, College Algebra, Calculus, Macro Economics, Micro Economics. They even offer the course material in PDF for cheap and practice exams for free. I don't think a student can earn an AA with all-CLEP courses but some of the ones who do accept 20 or 30 of the CLEP exams also offer their own coursework online. Nobody needs to leave home or go unemployed to get the education.

We have a family member who earned his BS/Computer Science and all the additional technical certifications for cyber security entirely online. It wasn't free, but he paid off his loans within 5 years of graduating.
Yes, I Clepped out of English Composition 1 and 2 by taking Advanced Placement English and the AP test in HS. You can also challenge the class tests from IAAO, AI, etc.to get a designation as well. All my Appraisal Institute classes counted toward my BA too.
 

Ex-Freddie Mac Appraisal Chief Talks Bias And Sizing-Up Risk​

By Georgia Kromrei · May 29, 2024, 3:27 PM EDT

As regulators tackle bias in single-family housing, Martin Skolnik, who served as chief appraiser for Freddie Mac's multifamily division for 13 years, suggests applying the same scrutiny to multifamily appraisals....


degree or no degree...you are all racists :rof: :rof: :rof:
 

Ex-Freddie Mac Appraisal Chief Talks Bias And Sizing-Up Risk​

By Georgia Kromrei · May 29, 2024, 3:27 PM EDT

As regulators tackle bias in single-family housing, Martin Skolnik, who served as chief appraiser for Freddie Mac's multifamily division for 13 years, suggests applying the same scrutiny to multifamily appraisals....


degree or no degree...you are all racists :rof: :rof: :rof:
And tell me what happened to all the government sponsored housing made during the "Great Society".
The nuclear family was destroyed, most of the housing built was torn down within 30 years, and the poor remain poor. The only outcome were expensive Medicare and Medicaid programs remain today.
 
And tell me what happened to all the government sponsored housing made during the "Great Society".
The nuclear family was destroyed, most of the housing built was torn down within 30 years, and the poor remain poor. The only outcome were expensive Medicare and Medicaid programs remain today.
Well, there are untold social justice warriors on taxpayer payrolls adding suction to public troughs!
 
Thank you Medicare and Social Security....
 
I have never counted up the exact number I brought through the process in my 29 years in the field. Off the top of my head I would say it was between 10 and 15. I preferred hiring brand new folks, because I found it easier to train them from scratch rather than retrain.

For a trainee we would have them start by spend a few weeks with the office staff learning how the admin stuff worked - ordering, follow up on status, putting reports together, etc. Then we would have them go out with the staff on a rotating basis, just observing what each one did and how they did it. We would generally start the formal education (101, 102, etc) only after they had a few months under their belt doing that. Having that background made the courses easier for them to understand.

After they have their procedure courses we would start letting them take a swing at helping with the analysis. And, yes, when they first started we would give them something very simple and give them a list of adjustments to use, just so they could focus on the mechanics of it all. Of course there was a lot of follow up training to reinforce what they learned in classes about supporting adjustments, extracting economic life and effective age.

I know from the first hand experience of reluctantly taking on a few that had spent a year or more at another firm, that some SAs never moved beyond the "here's your list" phase. I once took on a trainee whose SA had died, and the trainee only needed a few more months of experience. Despite being so close to having a CR, that person had no clue how to derive any indicated adjustments from market data.

So, yes, I do know it from living it. I also know it from see post like the one I referenced earlier in this thread. A current CR come here asking us how he got his $40 GLA adjustment. Let's be honest and admit that we know where he got it. It is the number he was given on his adjustment list when he was a trainee.
Although I have heard of the mythical list of adjustments, I have never run into it in person. Maybe they train them better in Oregon.
 

Freddie (and Fannie) and the Coming Nightmare on Main Street​


Government-sponsored mortgage companies are growing larger and riskier in service of social policy.

NR Daily is delivered right to you every afternoon. No charge.
SUBSCRIBE
During the financial crisis, the federal government bailed out several financial institutions. But two in particular, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage giants, stood out. Taxpayers shelled out $191 billion to support them — combined, this was the largest bailout in American history — and for the past decade and a half the two institutions have been under government control.

Americans who thought the government would rein in Fannie and Freddie after their failures were sorely mistaken. The companies have only gotten larger. The Biden administration in particular has tried to make Fannie and Freddie bigger, and the result will be to make them riskier. At some point taxpayers will suffer the consequences again.

Only in government would a spectacular failure lead to a massive expansion in responsibility. In 2006, Fannie and Freddie, along with their smaller cousin Ginnie Mae, supported about 40 percent of all outstanding single-family mortgage debt. They now support over 65 percent. Fannie and Freddie today have $7.5 trillion in assets: an all-time high.

The massive size of these government-sponsored enterprises is not enough for some in the Biden administration. In early 2024, Fannie and Freddie’s regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, raised the maximum dollar amount of single-family mortgage loans the two companies could purchase. Now borrowers can effectively get government-backed loans up to $1.15 million in some areas, which hardly seems necessary for Fannie and Freddie’s goal of increasing home ownership. The FHFA also seems likely to approve a Freddie request to purchase second mortgages. The “primary goal” of the proposal, the government says, is to create a cheaper version of “cash-out refinance” — in other words, to allow consumers to pump more borrowed money into the economy at a time of persistent inflation. Some estimate the proposal could add another trillion dollars to consumer spending.

One reason Fannie and Freddie are expanding their footprint is that the government hopes to use the short-term profit from these activities to support other political goals. In 2022, the FHFA pushed Fannie and Freddie to eliminate up-front fees for home buyers who had low incomes. As FHFA head Sandra Thompson told Congress, “we were able to do this because the returns the Enterprises earned on second homes and vacation homes, investor homes, are more than enough to offset the first-time homebuyer up-front fee.” What she should have said was that the government was using taxpayer money on some mortgages in order to earn short-term cash to subsidize other groups and social programs.

The FHFA has said that it wants to “limit egregious rent increases” at rental properties where Fannie and Freddie guarantee the underlying mortgages, even though that would increase the likelihood of defaults on those properties. It is “adding new requirements related to fair lending, fair housing” and “Equitable Housing Finance Plans” to Fannie’s and Freddie’s mandates. Through a recent equitable-financing plan, Fannie provides special benefits to loans in majority-black and -Latino census tracts. The FHFA is also participating in the Biden administration’s plan to “address racial bias in home valuations,” which aims to increase home appraisals in minority areas. It has ordered the companies to increase fees for low-risk borrowers and decrease fees for high-risk borrowers, with the goal of having the careful subsidize the rest. It also plans to reduce the number of credit reports required for new loans.


Fannie and Freddie have been able to engage in such expansive plans in part because, besides being under government control, many of their loans are now purchased by the government. The Federal Reserve began buying mortgage-backed securities from Fannie, Freddie, and Ginnie after the financial crisis. Today the Federal Reserve holds over $2.3 trillion in government-sponsored mortgage debt. One semigovernmental enterprise is propping up another.

All of these programs are part and parcel of this government’s policy of subsidizing housing demand while doing little or nothing to increase its supply. The Biden administration has proposed to add to this problem by giving tens of thousands of dollars in subsidies to home buyers and sellers, the only result of which would be to further drive up prices.

In the last financial crisis, Fannie’s and Freddie’s scandalous practices became widely known. Investigators found out that Fannie put friends and family of people in Congress in cushy jobs and opened “partnership offices” in important congressional districts to hand out patronage and secure political support. Fannie’s officials got millions of dollars in reduced-rate VIP loans from institutions such as Countrywide Financial from which they purchased mortgages.

Just 15 years after the Fannie and Freddie scandals and bailouts, it is astounding that these government behemoths are growing larger and riskier. Without a significant change, Americans can look forward to reading about more scandals and bailouts in the future.


bailout babies...:rof: :rof: :rof:
 

Freddie (and Fannie) and the Coming Nightmare on Main Street​


Government-sponsored mortgage companies are growing larger and riskier in service of social policy.

NR Daily is delivered right to you every afternoon. No charge.
SUBSCRIBE
During the financial crisis, the federal government bailed out several financial institutions. But two in particular, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage giants, stood out. Taxpayers shelled out $191 billion to support them — combined, this was the largest bailout in American history — and for the past decade and a half the two institutions have been under government control.

Americans who thought the government would rein in Fannie and Freddie after their failures were sorely mistaken. The companies have only gotten larger. The Biden administration in particular has tried to make Fannie and Freddie bigger, and the result will be to make them riskier. At some point taxpayers will suffer the consequences again.

Only in government would a spectacular failure lead to a massive expansion in responsibility. In 2006, Fannie and Freddie, along with their smaller cousin Ginnie Mae, supported about 40 percent of all outstanding single-family mortgage debt. They now support over 65 percent. Fannie and Freddie today have $7.5 trillion in assets: an all-time high.

The massive size of these government-sponsored enterprises is not enough for some in the Biden administration. In early 2024, Fannie and Freddie’s regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, raised the maximum dollar amount of single-family mortgage loans the two companies could purchase. Now borrowers can effectively get government-backed loans up to $1.15 million in some areas, which hardly seems necessary for Fannie and Freddie’s goal of increasing home ownership. The FHFA also seems likely to approve a Freddie request to purchase second mortgages. The “primary goal” of the proposal, the government says, is to create a cheaper version of “cash-out refinance” — in other words, to allow consumers to pump more borrowed money into the economy at a time of persistent inflation. Some estimate the proposal could add another trillion dollars to consumer spending.

One reason Fannie and Freddie are expanding their footprint is that the government hopes to use the short-term profit from these activities to support other political goals. In 2022, the FHFA pushed Fannie and Freddie to eliminate up-front fees for home buyers who had low incomes. As FHFA head Sandra Thompson told Congress, “we were able to do this because the returns the Enterprises earned on second homes and vacation homes, investor homes, are more than enough to offset the first-time homebuyer up-front fee.” What she should have said was that the government was using taxpayer money on some mortgages in order to earn short-term cash to subsidize other groups and social programs.

The FHFA has said that it wants to “limit egregious rent increases” at rental properties where Fannie and Freddie guarantee the underlying mortgages, even though that would increase the likelihood of defaults on those properties. It is “adding new requirements related to fair lending, fair housing” and “Equitable Housing Finance Plans” to Fannie’s and Freddie’s mandates. Through a recent equitable-financing plan, Fannie provides special benefits to loans in majority-black and -Latino census tracts. The FHFA is also participating in the Biden administration’s plan to “address racial bias in home valuations,” which aims to increase home appraisals in minority areas. It has ordered the companies to increase fees for low-risk borrowers and decrease fees for high-risk borrowers, with the goal of having the careful subsidize the rest. It also plans to reduce the number of credit reports required for new loans.


Fannie and Freddie have been able to engage in such expansive plans in part because, besides being under government control, many of their loans are now purchased by the government. The Federal Reserve began buying mortgage-backed securities from Fannie, Freddie, and Ginnie after the financial crisis. Today the Federal Reserve holds over $2.3 trillion in government-sponsored mortgage debt. One semigovernmental enterprise is propping up another.

All of these programs are part and parcel of this government’s policy of subsidizing housing demand while doing little or nothing to increase its supply. The Biden administration has proposed to add to this problem by giving tens of thousands of dollars in subsidies to home buyers and sellers, the only result of which would be to further drive up prices.

In the last financial crisis, Fannie’s and Freddie’s scandalous practices became widely known. Investigators found out that Fannie put friends and family of people in Congress in cushy jobs and opened “partnership offices” in important congressional districts to hand out patronage and secure political support. Fannie’s officials got millions of dollars in reduced-rate VIP loans from institutions such as Countrywide Financial from which they purchased mortgages.

Just 15 years after the Fannie and Freddie scandals and bailouts, it is astounding that these government behemoths are growing larger and riskier. Without a significant change, Americans can look forward to reading about more scandals and bailouts in the future.


bailout babies...:rof: :rof: :rof:
Adjusted for inflation their assets are $1.75.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at
AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top