Freddie Mac: Quality & Condition Ratings

[J Grant]

Maybe the 3rd party ratings will be more inconsistent than the appraisers' ratings. WRT the appraiser's own SOW, less is still going to be less. So we shall do, so shall it be.

As for the wisdom of using these desktops it is the users who are driving that trend. Same as it always was. It's not a case of the appraisers trying to sell them a SOW they don't want to buy.

Of all the things that didn't happen, "I can't find appraisers who are willing to do 1004s at the full fee" is something that didn't happen the most.

Are you certain that the third parties will be rating the properties?

I thought that third parties would not be giving ratings because the rating is an opinion.


Wrt it being less wise to use desktops, the users are driving that trend; we are aware of that. Why repeat the obvious? The users get bailed out, shove it on the taxpayer, and are clearly aligned with the profiteering end, so yes, they are driving the trend to reduce "friction " in the value process. They don't care if it rips up markets, skews prices, turns res RE into an investment vehicle instead for corporations and the wealthy and destroys a profession.
(I am seeing weird price trends and IMO Waivers contribute, and more and more LLC, cash, and odd sales, RE agentss and LLC 's buying and selling to teach other at inlfated prices - desktips? Who is UW this stuff?)

 

[George Hatch]

WRT the Q/C ratings in PDRs I've heard it both ways so I don't know for sure how it will work out. Better if they don't, but even if they do the appraiser's opinion after reading one of those reports is still the appraiser's opinion

As for the implications for the general economy I believe the bankers are always going to operate like bankers. Which that is not to say that they're necessarily going to be more moral with appraisals than the outside loan originators. But rather that its easier to hold them accountable for the decisions they make if they are the only ones making those decisions. If they are denied the opportunity to claim plausible deniability that they were cheated or that the outcome was someone else's fault.

More about the potential for accountability - even if only after the fact and on the forensic basis - than about the idea that that they operate on the more moral basis.

By definition, "what should be" usually...isn't.

 

[J Grant]

How should a lender address minor conditions and or deferred maintenance noted in the PDC?If the lender determines from the property data collection there is the existence of minor conditions or deferred maintenance that does not affect safety, soundness or structural integrity, and the property condition and quality are not determined by the lender to be C6 condition or Q6 quality, there is no significant incomplete construction/renovation, and it is an eligible property type, the loan can be processed and submitted without any further action

George, you have stated that the data collects assigned ratings; please verify that with D Wiley or someoby who can verify it I did find the above from Fannie were it references a lender looking s at the photos and the lender decides about a C 5 or C 6 - I do not believe the third party collectors assign ratings but it is something that should be clearly stated - or are they deliberately not doing so - -

 

[alebrewer]

In case anyone is interested in waiver stats:

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/GSE-Appraisal-Waiver-Infographic-September-2024-Final.pdf?x85095

 

[George Hatch]

How should a lender address minor conditions and or deferred maintenance noted in the PDC?If the lender determines from the property data collection there is the existence of minor conditions or deferred maintenance that does not affect safety, soundness or structural integrity, and the property condition and quality are not determined by the lender to be C6 condition or Q6 quality, there is no significant incomplete construction/renovation, and it is an eligible property type, the loan can be processed and submitted without any further action

George, you have stated that the data collects assigned ratings; please verify that with D Wiley or someoby who can verify it I did find the above from Fannie were it references a lender looking s at the photos and the lender decides about a C 5 or C 6 - I do not believe the third party collectors assign ratings but it is something that should be clearly stated - or are they deliberately not doing so - -

I'm just going off of what other appraisers have been saying about them. I don't mind calling DW (I think I still have his contact info in my phone) but every time I say something that parallels what they're doing I get accused of being an anti-appraiser collaborator and paid shill who is trying to take the entire fee appraisal business down. For reasons.

 

[J Grant]

WRT the Q/C ratings in PDRs I've heard it both ways so I don't know for sure how it will work out. Better if they don't, but even if they do the appraiser's opinion after reading one of those reports is still the appraiser's opinion

As for the implications for the general economy I believe the bankers are always going to operate like bankers. Which that is not to say that they're necessarily going to be more moral with appraisals than the outside loan originators. But rather that its easier to hold them accountable for the decisions they make if they are the only ones making those decisions. If they are denied the opportunity to claim plausible deniability that they were cheated or that the outcome was someone else's fault.

More about the potential for accountability - even if only after the fact and on the forensic basis - than about the idea that that they operate on the more moral basis.

By definition, "what should be" usually...isn't.

Bankers are free to operate like bankers with their own money

But it is the taxpayer's money bailing them out, backing them up so the loan that allows them to stay in business. So they also have an obligation to act in the interest of the tax payers ( and investors of teh loans who were lied to, toxic loan packages, anyone? )

 

[George Hatch]

You know me. I want everyone to act right. But that doesn't stop me from recognizing that IRL whatever isn't prohibited is generally considered permissible.

 

[J Grant]

I'm just going off of what other appraisers have been saying about them. I don't mind calling DW (I think I still have his contact info in my phone) but every time I say something that parallels what they're doing I get accused of being an anti-appraiser collaborator and paid shill who is trying to take the entire fee appraisal business down. For reasons.

Tht is not why you are occasionally called that and I apologize for my instances of it - email him?

I don't blame him for keeping a low profile here, considering the pushback and frustration about Fannie and Freddie, which I also express as well.

 

[J Grant]

You know me. I want everyone to act right. But that doesn't stop me from recognizing that IRL whatever isn't prohibited is generally considered permissible.

I know, but you write about it in a neutral sense, and neutrality is enabling.

It is like saying underage pron exists because there is a market for it. That is a neutral statement.

A nonneutral statement is producing, buying, and viewing pron of underage people. is exploitation and needs to be fought against.

 

[George Hatch]

I'm a professional appraiser. I'm not going to apologize for at least trying to refer to the facts themselves without lying by commission or omission. Nor do I want to presume to tell people what opinions to hold. That's WHY I often try to depict both sides of the argument, or alternately depict the minority view when the majority view is already being well presented.

I always did it this way when I was teaching because I wanted course participants to hear both sides and then make their own judgements. I always prompted for and *solicited* the minority perspectives as part of my instructional strategy.

The minority view might sometimes come to what I consider to be the wrong conclusions but that doesn't mean they're wrong about everything they're saying or that there aren't any legitimate points in there somewhere.

I agree with people if/when I think they're right. That includes people (like you) with whom I agree about some things but not about others. As you sometimes do with me and others with whom you sometimes disagree.