No bias here - keep moving

[alebrewer]

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.

Thank you for the straw man. I'll consider it my Christmas gift from you.

 

[alebrewer]

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

Incorrect. And I say that rarely in response to a post you make. In ANY allegation - the burden of proof is on the accuser. Period.

 

[George Hatch]

Incorrect. And I say that rarely in response to a post you make. In ANY allegation - the burden of proof is on the accuser. Period.

Legally, yes. Of course. Social discourse, not so much. Same with what happens with the me-too allegations. Politics is as much/more about public perceptions as it is about the facts. Fair ain't got nothing to do with that.

 

[alebrewer]

Legally, yes. Social discourse, not so much. Same with what happens with the me-too allegations. Politics is as much/more about public perceptions as it is about the facts.

You're proving my point... when the GSE's engage in libel against appraisers for the purpose of pimping their alternative valuation products, they are using said social discourse to allay their obligation to defend their libel. If, in fact, you're right that - from a social discourse perspective - the onus is on the accused, then the GSE's have used that tool to shift said onus. It's despicable.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

Don’t you find it at all curious that the GSEs always seem come in at or above value when it is to their benefit?

They want everything to go through as long as they don't have the liability, which they kind of don't even without passing it off with being quasi government

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

Whether they're right or wrong about their comparisons between conventional 1004 data vs PDR data, they're telling appraisers that they have been making these comparisons, and these are the results of those comparisons. They're also telling appraisers that their analyses included data from prior appraisals in their comparisons of the current conventional 1004s and PDRs, so their comparison isn't limited to just this one appraisal vs this one PDR. (As in, no presumption that either the appraisal or the PDR comprises the benchmark for the accuracy of the other)
View attachment 94815

I'd wager hybrids get less risky loans which is fine, but is not correlated with appraisal quality. CU scores seem like a joke to me. Had one with FNMA 4.1 and Freddie 4.3. all similar GLA, all investor renovations, all very close in proximity. Asked to consider c4 properties outside of neighborhood boundaries I assume spit out by CU.

 

[George Hatch]

...
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.
...

Lemme run this one by you and see what you think.

The appraisal policy/valuation side of the GSEs are probably dwarfed in size by the other operating depts, and the appraisers don't have positive control over any of these other operations. It may be that they hold down a seat on the committee which is designing the horse but ends up with a camel instead.

If the data scientists there are running their big data analyses on outcomes and come to the conclusion that there's a wealth gap the appraisal dept might not have any control over that conclusion. Or maybe they did have some influence and its effect has been to either sharpen or dull the resulting conclusions being communicated. If the partisan politicians are pressuring the top executives at the GSEs to toe the official party line the company itself may have little/no way to categorically deny those demands.

One thing seems certain to me, the GSEs are not free to do whatever they want WRT the racism issue.

Speaking of, I don't know but my guess is that the recent change to the waiver program to increase the max LTVs to 97% might be entirely politically motivated, not greed motivated. I don't think it's a coincidence this just happened in late 2024, do you?

 

[George Hatch]

I'd wager hybrids get less risky loans which is fine, but is not correlated with appraisal quality

I dunno. Less might be enough sometimes, but less is still always less.

 

[alebrewer]

Lemme run this one by you and see what you think.

The appraisal policy/valuation side of the GSEs are probably dwarfed in size by the other operating depts, and the appraisers don't have positive control over any of these other operations. It may be that they hold down a seat on the committee which is designing the horse but ends up with a camel instead.

If the data scientists there are running their big data analyses on outcomes and come to the conclusion that there's a wealth gap the appraisal dept might not have any control over that conclusion. Or maybe they did have some influence and its effect has been to either sharpen or dull the resulting conclusions being communicated. If the partisan politicians are pressuring the top executives at the GSEs to toe the official party line the company itself may have little/no way to categorically deny those demands.

One thing seems certain to me, the GSEs are not free to do whatever they want WRT the racism issue.

Speaking of, I don't know but my guess is that the recent change to the waiver program to increase the max LTVs to 97% might be entirely politically motivated, not greed motivated. I don't think it's a coincidence this just happened in late 2024, do you?

I know for a fact you're better than this post, George. For the most part it's just a rambling defense of DW and the other appraiser folks at the GSE's. I know most of those folks personally - and well enough to know they're big enough to defend themselves if they choose to do so.

WRT this part, though: "my guess is that the recent change to the waiver program to increase the max LTVs to 97% might be entirely politically motivated, not greed motivated." - I agree with you. I don't think it's greed related at all. I personally believe it's related to potential disparate impact.

 

[TerryRohrer]

Lemme run this one by you and see what you think.

The appraisal policy/valuation side of the GSEs are probably dwarfed in size by the other operating depts, and the appraisers don't have positive control over any of these other operations. It may be that they hold down a seat on the committee which is designing the horse but ends up with a camel instead.

If the data scientists there are running their big data analyses on outcomes and come to the conclusion that there's a wealth gap the appraisal dept might not have any control over that conclusion. Or maybe they did have some influence and its effect has been to either sharpen or dull the resulting conclusions being communicated. If the partisan politicians are pressuring the top executives at the GSEs to toe the official party line the company itself may have little/no way to categorically deny those demands.

One thing seems certain to me, the GSEs are not free to do whatever they want WRT the racism issue.

I don't have any quibble with any of the above. But until they publicly state that the opinions expressed by the GSEs are by their political hacks and not their analysts, then I will criticize the GSEs in the manner I choose. When they publicly state that their analysts concluded "x" but their company policy is "y" then I will criticize the camp I am being critical of.

Speaking of, I don't know but my guess is that the recent change to the waiver program to increase the max LTVs to 97% might be entirely politically motivated, not greed motivated. I don't think it's a coincidence this just happened in late 2024, do you?

I think exactly the same, and stated so on the thread where this was first announced. We have a long and storied history of government programs, once in place, existing for decades to hundreds of years (so far). I think their consideration wasn't much deeper than that. And they had 20 days to spare!