Has Anyone Completed A 3.6 Yet

[Alsie35]

To be clear, when I say such reports have been submitted, I am not referring to test files. I am referring to actual reports, on actual homes, for actual loans.
You are free to believe whatever you wish.

Unlike with the first one, there are now lots of lenders, appraisers and AMCs involved in uploading 3.6 reports. There is no way for them to know what others have done; so how would they know they had the first co-op, the first MF, etc.?

Uh-huh. Quantify "Lots" please Enquiring minds want to know.

Check in with us when the ENTIRE ECOSYSTEM is actually ready for full "UAD 3.6 Abomination Implementation", BROTHER!

I look forward to reading all about it while looking at my phone on a Mediterranean beach as we enjoy our retirement. (Some time in 2028, most likely. We'll be retired then 2 years. You? )

 

[DWiley]

Again: You believe AMC's and I believe boots on the ground.

You keep repeating that mantra, as if I ever said such a thing or did such a thing. As with the fee data, I trust the actual data - not what anyone is telling me.

If you choose to believe what some "boots on the ground" appraiser says about the number of UAD 3.6 reports submitted, that's fine. Believe any whisper you want.

 

[Mike Ault]

For legal reasons, they call it "data collection" rather than an inspection. A corporate spin word of the highest order for plausible deniability. Like the term friendly fire in the military, or collateral damage.

Similar to changing the nomenclature for "credit default swaps" to "credit risk transfers". No misdirection there.

 

[alebrewer]

As with the fee data, I trust the actual data - not what anyone is telling me.

'tis a very wise position (that of trusting the actual data). Problem is, you're the only one in this conversation privy to 'the actual data'. From the outside - it's simply someone telling folks to believe you. And while I think that you personally are worthy of belief, the entities (or entity) you represent don't (doesn't) have as stellar a track record.

 

[DWiley]

'tis a very wise position (that of trusting the actual data). Problem is, you're the only one in this conversation privy to 'the actual data'. From the outside - it's simply someone telling folks to believe you. And while I think that you personally are worthy of belief, the entities (or entity) you represent don't (doesn't) have as stellar a track record.

I never asked anyone to believe me. I have noted several times that people are free to believe whatever they want, because without data it is just a belief.

 

[alebrewer]

I never asked anyone to believe me. I have noted several times that people are free to believe whatever they want, because without data it is just a belief.

Correct. Without the data, there is no basis for belief. Hence (as I'm sure you'll agree) the proliferation of what you call 'myths'. However, you're the only one who can refute the claims, and you provide no data to support said refutations. Therefore, couching the misunderstandings as 'myths' is a bit incongruous, don't you think?

 

[DWiley]

Therefore, couching the misunderstandings as 'myths' is a bit incongruous, don't you think?

Not really. I actually do have the data, and that is a key difference. I don't just sit around and make stuff up, and I certainly don't repeat unsubstantiated "whispers"

Anyone claiming that no UAD 3.6 reports have been submitted for MF is just making things up. It is not a misunderstanding; it is a fabrication.

 

[Non Sequitur]

Not really. I actually do have the data, and that is a key difference. I don't just sit around and make stuff up, and I certainly don't repeat unsubstantiated "whispers"

Yeah, that super secret data. Must be on the same hard drive as the insta-tute's financial records.

 

[TerryRohrer]

I never asked anyone to believe me. I have noted several times that people are free to believe whatever they want, because without data it is just a belief.

Not really. I actually do have the data, and that is a key difference. I don't just sit around and make stuff up, and I certainly don't repeat unsubstantiated "whispers"

This thread has been closed, so I can't ask the following there. How is the additional research going into determining the cause of the appraisal gap (forgetting, for the moment, that Freddie announced the "cause" as biased appraisers at the outset)? Can we expect any updates in the near future? Any reports of solutions that have been implemented to correct the identified cause(s)? Does Freddie report what portion of their R&D budget is being devoted to that cause? Is there any credible evidence that the GSEs have ever reported research results that fail to deflect the blame for whatever onto appraisers or lenders when they were at least equally culpable?

Thread 'Freddie Mac Research - Appraisals'

Sep 20, 2021

FYI

20210920_home_appraisals - Freddie Mac


Freddie Mac Research Explores Causes for the Appraisal Valuation Gap for Homeowners in Minority Neighborhoods | Freddie Mac (gcs-web.com)

• DWiley
• Replies: 153
• Forum: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, USPAP

• 

FYI: "
Experts typically separate deception into two categories: [1, 2]

• Lying by commission: Stating a direct falsehood.
• Lying by omission: Intentionally failing to disclose information to mislead someone."

 

[alebrewer]

Not really. I actually do have the data, and that is a key difference.

According to you. I caught the Sasquatch according to me.