No bias here - keep moving

[George Hatch]

Congress did that via legislation, which was then executed via the ASC. Except the USPAP instructors TAF has no leverage to punish anyone for anything.

 

[alebrewer]

"As for the veracity of Fannie's analyses and conclusions and commentary above, I don't know one way or another beyond what they're saying. Same as everyone else. All I know is that in lieu of information to the contrary they are saying this is what they think you should believe this because we're telling you it's the truth."​

I don't know about you, but I am basically telling my own clients the same thing every time I sign an appraisal report. I'm also telling them this is what I think, so I guess that's two things I am telling them.

And if said clients ask to see behind the curtains? You tell them, "NO! This is proprietary data. Just take my word that it's accurate." No - you show them the data and the analyses that led you to your opinion.

 

[TerryRohrer]

And there you have it. Those who think the GSEs are liars and thieves aren't going to take seriously anything they say. The presumption here is that they are lying about their analyses.

Not that it matters. True or not, the GSEs are showing the rationale they are using for their decision making. They want what they want and they don't want what they don't want.

Obviously, you are sensitive about any criticism of the GSEs, for whatever reason. Had you read for content rather than for fodder to be triggered by, you would have found exactly which "analysis" I was intimating was a lie. As someone who analyzes data, I think it is lying (and when lying to gain someone else's money, stealing) to compare two disparate issues and suggest there is a valid conclusion being presented by the comparison.

As to whether the GSEs lie about their own analysis, well, we have the Research Note. While the research note did not spell it out, the Freddie Mac pronouncement crowing about its results suggested the following (which has never been established). Saying something that has been established has, in fact, not been established is lying. Doing so to manipulate those whose money you are taking by lying is, well, thieving. Sorry you are sensitive to my characterization of the truth.

Conclusions:
"This is a persistent problem that disproportionately impacts hundreds of thousands of Black and Latino applicants"
"Our goal is to develop solutions to this persistent problem"

Solutions:
"uniform standards for automated valuation models"
"improved value processes"
" develop supporting tools to create new approaches across the valuation spectrum"
"The company is also testing whether alternatives to traditional appraisals offer a more objective analysis of property value."

 

[Tim Hicks (Texas)]

Fannie and Freddie like to treat the appraisal business like it is all cookie cutter evaluations and that just not the case in many instances. Appraisers continually get scored based on the irregularity of the property because the appraiser can't make their square peg fit into their round holes. Maybe all the cookie cutter jobs are getting waivers and AVMs, but we are continually punished for making best out of a mess of property where paired sales don't really exist and you have to make do with bracketing physical characteristics and greatly exceeding guidelines. People with good credit buy oddball properties too. I wonder what the data sets for these properties do to their grand analytics?

 

[George Hatch]

And if said clients ask to see behind the curtains? You tell them, "NO! This is proprietary data. Just take my word that it's accurate." No - you show them the data and the analyses that led you to your opinion.

That's both entirely true and also entirely irrelevant. When I sign an appraisal I am trying to sell my credibility to my client and users. That isn't the relationship the GSEs have with appraisers. WE sell to THEM, not the other way around.

vendors-to-users /= users-to-vendors. We are not their partners or peers.

They're explaining their expectations. The choice appraisers have is to either meet those expectations or not meet those expectations.

 

[George Hatch]

Obviously, you are sensitive about any criticism of the GSEs, for whatever reason. Had you read for content rather than for fodder to be triggered by, you would have found exactly which "analysis" I was intimating was a lie. As someone who analyzes data, I think it is lying (and when lying to gain someone else's money, stealing) to compare two disparate issues and suggest there is a valid conclusion being presented by the comparison.

As to whether the GSEs lie about their own analysis, well, we have the Research Note. While the research note did not spell it out, the Freddie Mac pronouncement crowing about its results suggested the following (which has never been established). Saying something that has been established has, in fact, not been established is lying. Doing so to manipulate those whose money you are taking by lying is, well, thieving. Sorry you are sensitive to my characterization of the truth.

Conclusions:
"This is a persistent problem that disproportionately impacts hundreds of thousands of Black and Latino applicants"
"Our goal is to develop solutions to this persistent problem"

Solutions:
"uniform standards for automated valuation models"
"improved value processes"
" develop supporting tools to create new approaches across the valuation spectrum"
"The company is also testing whether alternatives to traditional appraisals offer a more objective analysis of property value."

Did I mention the fact that I deleted my TAF-related comment shortly after posting it precisely because it was a different issue? Or did you just gloss over that?

As for what the GSEs did or didn't find in their analysis on the racism issue, you're right - they haven't disclosed their data on that and probably most appraisers disbelieve their conclusions. As for my personal opinion on that matter I've stated a number of times that I don't assume the answer to that question is "never" just the same as I don't think the answer is "often". But I also think that any incidence of appraiser racism which is in excess of zero% is wholly unacceptable; so what's left after that is there remains some room for improvement on our part. And all parties involved would be remiss if we didn't at least attempt to improve the performance of the herd.

Unless perhaps you have data that proves otherwise. After all, I much prefer to be wrong about "there probably is some misconduct which is in excess of zero" than to be right about it.

 

[alebrewer]

That's both entirely true and also entirely irrelevant. When I sign an appraisal I am trying to sell my credibility to my client and users. That isn't the relationship the GSEs have with appraisers. WE sell to THEM, not the other way around.

vendors-to-users /= users-to-vendors. We are not their partners or peers.

They're explaining their expectations. The choice appraisers have is to either meet those expectations or not meet those expectations.

On the contrary - it is extremely relevant. If the GSE's are going to assert that appraisers are responsible for the wealth gap - then there is an obligation to prove that assertion - most especially to the folks they've accused. And if the GSE's are going to assert that their AVM(s) are as credible as appraisals - there is an obligation to prove that assertion. Has nothing to do with who is the vendor and who is the purchaser. Unfortunately, the GSE's aren't held to the same standard(s) as the rest of society.

BTW - I could care less that you have some fraternal obligation to defend DW and crew - in fact, it's nice to have a devil's advocate in the mix - it helps illustrate the demeaning position the GSE's have taken WRT appraisers.

 

[George Hatch]

On the contrary - it is extremely relevant. If the GSE's are going to assert that appraisers are responsible for the wealth gap - then there is an obligation to prove that assertion - most especially to the folks they've accused. And if the GSE's are going to assert that their AVM(s) are as credible as appraisals - there is an obligation to prove that assertion. Has nothing to do with who is the vendor and who is the purchaser. Unfortunately, the GSE's aren't held to the same standard(s) as the rest of society.

BTW - I could care less that you have some fraternal obligation to defend DW and crew - in fact, it's nice to have a devil's advocate in the mix - it helps illustrate the demeaning position the GSE's have taken WRT appraisers.

Obligation to whom? Because AFAICT they have no obligation to the appraisers. They're on the user side of the relationship, not the appraiser or peer side of the relationship. Same as BofA, Wells, or Midnight Bail Bonds. Those users aren't sharing their internal data with appraisers, either. They only communicate the expectations of their respective appraisal policies.

The GSEs do have obligations to the govt, so if the govt is letting them get away with misconduct then there's the lever to pull to slow or stop any lies or deception or risky conduct.

 

[George Hatch]

I'll say one more thing on the racism issue. In the public discourse in our society that's one type of allegation which puts the burden of proof on the accused, not the accuser. Hence its utility to the people making those accusations.

To date we STILL haven't identified the true extent of that problem, whether common or rare. Nobody has the data it takes to actually support or deny the accusation that the problem is common and pervasive. All any of the politically affected entities can say is that there's room for improvement and we'll try to do better. Nobody has the means to issue the blanket denial and to call the accusers liars. Not to the extent it would take to actually disprove the negative.

 

[TerryRohrer]

Did I mention the fact that I deleted my TAF-related comment shortly after posting it precisely because it was a different issue? Or did you just gloss over that?

I did not gloss over it. I saw it when you deleted it and I have seen you state at least twice that you did and why. And I don't care either way. Nor did I assume that because you wrote that, you no longer have any valid opinions, nor any right to express those you have, and that you have a terminally closed mind. And had you read for content, you would see nothing in the comment you were responding to had any relevance to that issue.

As for what the GSEs did or didn't find in their analysis on the racism issue, you're right - they haven't disclosed their data on that and probably most appraisers disbelieve their conclusions. As for my personal opinion on that matter I've stated a number of times that I don't assume the answer to that question is "never" just the same as I don't think the answer is "often". But I also think that any incidence of appraiser racism which is in excess of zero% is wholly unacceptable; so what's left after that is there remains some room for improvement on our part. And all parties involved would be remiss if we didn't at least attempt to improve the performance of the herd.

Unless perhaps you have data that proves otherwise. After all, I much prefer to be wrong about "there probably is some misconduct which is in excess of zero" than to be right about it.

I wasn't criticizing their nondisclosure of data. Nor was I arguing that there could not be any possibility that at least one appraisal exists that may have included bias against some party that could be attributable to racism. I was criticizing their public pronouncement that they have found the cause and are correcting it because it is intentionally damaging some parties.

While I respect your opinion, I reserve the right to have my own, and to express it in the words I choose to express it in. I have never had any training in taking dictation, and have never used it in any form, and fear it is too late for me to add that skill.