Data Cancer Due to Waivers

[Zoe]

When you report to chairman of board that owns more than 50%, you are independent from people that rank higher than you. You all have same boss. Some of my friend officers that were loan officers had a hard time explaining some things. It could get difficult at times. But they knew better than to put pressure on me because they knew who my boss was. Their boss.

I should have stayed there. He was world war 2 vet. His son took over bank and is lawyer and mayor.

 

[glenn walker]

There is no data cancer it's something Crawford fabricated to try and sell subscriptions to a poorly done podcast.

 

[Zoe]

There is no data cancer it's something Crawford fabricated to try and sell subscriptions to a poorly done podcast.

There is no mortgage fraud or unfair lending practices. It is just made up.

 

[Zoe]

cough...........cough......I think I may have a cold or something.

 

[Zoe]

Great show about data cancer and home workers returning to the workplace.

You are good Ms. Potts and pretty too btw. I love beautiful women.

 

[Zoe]

Phil is not pretty to me. He don't float my boat. LOL

However his podcast is pretty to me.

 

[George Hatch]

WRT the "waivers = data cancer" debate, I'll submit this for consideration

If it's possible for one appraisal-backed transaction or a small group of appraisal-backed transactions to affect the pricing of a neighborhood (and we know that has occasionally been the case in the past), then the same can occur with AVM-backed transactions. That implies that the answer to the "waivers = data cancer" question cannot be "never" just as it cannot be "always".

What nobody wants to acknowledge that there is no difference to the user between an AVM overvaluation and an appraisal overvaluation. Overvalued is overvalued. The reason why that happens is immaterial to the user, only the effect matters to them. When it's because the appraiser is lying or the AVM has been deliberately tweaked that amounts to an unethical act. When it's because the AVM or the appraiser made technical or procedural errors then that amounts to an incompetent act. When it's because of unknown/unknowable conditions those problems lie outside the scope of work for both the appraiser and the AVM operator.

PCs original talking point - which he has been on about for at least the last couple years - is at least valid in concept if not in practice, even if he sucks at articulating the underlying fundamentals. Appraisals and the competing valuation products are used as a form of due diligence, and when it comes to due diligence, less is always less. PC and everyone else on that side of the discussion were never wrong about that. A drive-by 2055 uses less inspection than a conventional 1004. A desktop SOW uses less personal observation by the appraiser (all they can see is the PDR) than the conventional 1004. An AVM uses even less than an appraisal. Nobody would say otherwise. Less is always less even when that less is deemed by the user to be nominally sufficient for that particular transaction.

 

[George Hatch]

When DW is saying the appraisers are commenting more on what they're seeing in a 3rd party PDR than when they personally inspect the property themselves, thats a serious problem even when its not of effect on the numerical expression of the value conclusion itself.

One more distinction that few people comment on is that the lack of comment in the (conventional 1004) SR2 report doesn't prove that the appraiser "didn't see" it during their SR1 inspection or consider it in their SR1 analysis. The SR2 omission only proves there was an SR2 omission.

An SR2 omission doesn't even prove that the reason for the omission was to deceive or cheat the user. The most common reason for the SR2 omission may simply be a matter of expediency. The appraiser doesn't want to get hassled for obstructing the deal and/or is simply being lazy so they are avoiding the hassle rather than working the hassle. It's the same reason appraisers are resistant to applying market conditions adjustments in their SC grids - they know from personal experience that they're going to get hassled for it by some of the originating lenders regardless of what the GSEs instruct.

Another way to interpret what DW saying about these valuations is that they are not trying to bird-dog or control the pricing trends in the market. They're not trying to tame a runaway pricing trend that is motivated by speculative greed or FOMO or capitalism-is-evil. What they're trying to do is evaluate this property and this transaction in terms of their exposure to risks as a lender.

 

[J Grant]

When DW is saying the appraisers are commenting more on what they're seeing in a 3rd party PDR than when they personally inspect the property themselves, thats a serious problem even when its not of effect on the numerical expression of the value conclusion itself. What they're saying is that they are not trying to bird-dog or control the pricing trends in the market; they are evaluating their exposure to risks as a lender.

One more distinction that few people comment on is that the lack of comment in the (conventional 1004) SR2 report doesn't prove that the appraiser "didn't see" it during their SR1 inspection or consider it in their SR1 analysis. The SR2 omission only proves there was an SR2 omission.

An SR2 omission doesn't even prove that the reason for the omission was to deceive or cheat the user. The most common reason for the SR2 omission may simply be a matter of expediency. The appraiser doesn't want to get hassled for obstructing the deal and/or is simply being lazy so they are avoiding the hassle rather than working the hassle. It's the same reason appraisers are resistant to applying market conditions adjustments in their SC grids - they know from personal experience that they're going to get hassled for it by some of the originating lenders regardless of what the GSEs instruct.

How much more and what are they saying differently with a PDR report vs when the appraiser inspects, and what percent of time does this happen?

The fake Appraisers can be biased; the so-called "problem" was based on lawsuits where it sounded like the banks settled just to avoid a trial, and the second privately ordered appraisal was too high, not that the original appraisal was "biased." And all Fannie or freddie could produce from their massive data was a tiny margin more of appraisals that did not meet the CS price in some zeip codes. That was the extent of of what was found - basically nothing. So I would like details of what they are finding now and examples - FF can redact names and addresses and post the hybrid comments and the traditional appraisals so we can see them. How else do we know if we can trust their findings?

Perhaps with someone else inspecting, the appraiser is reacting more to photos taken, trying to figure out WTF since he or she was not there and has not personally absorbed the info. I have no idea

What percent of Hybrids meet or exceed SC price vs traditional appraisals? Or a value trend higher in a refinance?

 

[alebrewer]

When DW is saying the appraisers are commenting more on what they're seeing in a 3rd party PDR than when they personally inspect the property themselves, thats a serious problem even when its not of effect on the numerical expression of the value conclusion itself.

I think its possible you're conflating 'trust' with laziness. IOW, if the appraiser makes personal inspection, I think there is a level of trust WRT the users of the report(s) that the appraiser is well trained to identify areas of concern, so that - if none are identified - there is no concern. WRT a PDR, the appraiser is opining on condition NOT having made personal inspection. Seems to me the reason for the greater detail MIGHT be attributable to the appraiser not being able to utilize that measure of trust that comes with personal inspection.