Phil Crawford Podcast

[Zoe]

Now, I like the podcast. I like Crawford. I like Hatch.

I don't care about anything but public trust on real property rights when it comes to real property valuation.

I can see Crawford stepping on many toes. That is fine with me.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Do you know Jesus?

I know him well enough that I know he would never call Jews "rich" by virtue of their religion nor assume every Jew was likeable. Nor would he brag on their beauty or personality. Have you ever even seen a Jew, especially an Orthodox one, in Memphis? Have you been to their school there? The synagogue? I used to work for several Jewish family-owned companies. One swindled me. One was the best oil company I ever worked with. Do I then assume 50% are crooks and 50% are great? Hardly.

 

[CGinMN]

I am a free speech maximalist, but Zoe needs a lifetime ban. Absolutely zero contributory value. Overall negative value to the forum.

 

[Surf Cat]

View attachment 95178

The problem is..... if he didn't accept the waiver....the backup offer couple would've come behind him with a signed appraisal gap clause and they would've lost the house.....she would still have been mad at him!

 

[George Hatch]

Unless someone is going to pay me, and it would be expensive, I am not going to devote unpaid hours every week for months up to a year to comb through data and trying to find out which sales used a WAIVER by contacting very party and MLS and hound them and then hope they give me the info. It would be extremely time-consuming. It is so daunting and time-consuming a task, that it is not being done, by anybody that I am aware of.

It is a good strategy then for or hose advocating for WAIVERS to not disclose them and make them instantly findable as other forms of fiannc are - if nobody is willing to or able to tackle the ardous, time-consuming unpaid task and apply it long enough on a wide enough scale to see results, then they can keep claiming there is no evidence WAIVERS are affecting prices.

Yeah, I already knew that in advance.

 

[George Hatch]

Here's a quick-n-dirty comparo between high LTV vs 0-low LTV sales in a bland subdivision. Buena Park, CA; about 1 mile south of Hwy-91 @ Knott Ave. Full disclosure, I'm personally familiar with this particular neighborhood since I actually grew up there. My parents sold and left 20 years ago, though; so I'm not afraid for my wife and kids.








What this is: I used my MLS and manually searched all the listings for their reported financing to sift between the sales with all-cash or low LTVs, among which there may or may not be some waiver usage; vs the 81-100% LTVs which would presumably include zero GSE waivers during 2024.

The subdivision in question was built in the 1950s and originally consisted of homes generally ranging from 1100-1500sf, however many of the units have since been enlarged. Remodels and pools and other add-ons will be common.

The composition of the over/under 80% LTV datasets don't entirely match as the high LTV set consists of larger homes and a larger median size. So I thinned the dataset by size (1300-1800 sf) so that they both at least shared the same size range. Nevertheless, the high LTV dataset still has a larger median size (1522sf vs 1360sf).
I didn't adjust by date of sale or any other relevant factor except for the sizes.

For the all-sizes dataset the median price for all of them was $915k, $912k for the low LTVs and $920k for the High LTVs, but again the median sizes are different.

For the size-restricted dataset the median prices were the same @915k for all of them, the low-LTVs and the high LTVs. The median for the size-restricted is the same as for the all-sizes datasets.

What any of this means (TO ME) is inconclusive without getting deeper into the individual condition factors like remodels and additional features. It might be possible, but I wouldn't arbitrarily assume that the physical features attributes of both of the financing tranches are super similar. Maybe so, maybe not.

Personally, I would have expected bigger differences in the median prices when the median sizes are different, and perhaps that does indicate to some data cancer among the low-LTV sales.

 

[Surf Cat]

I am a free speech maximalist, but Zoe needs a lifetime ban. Absolutely zero contributory value. Overall negative value to the forum.

Due to Zoe not heeding any of the warnings or suggestions to stop and / or apologize. I believe the only way to get it through his thick head and get out of left field...is for a timeout.

Lifetime ban would be a bit harsh imo. I believe everyone deserves a second chance. I mean.... within reason.

 

[Non Sequitur]

The problem is..... if he didn't accept the waiver....the backup offer couple would've come behind him with a signed appraisal gap clause and they would've lost the house.....she would still have been mad at him!

Fair point.

 

[J Grant]

Here's a quick-n-dirty comparo between high LTV vs 0-low LTV sales in a bland subdivision. Full disclosure, I'm personally familiar with this particular neighborhood since I actually grew up there. My parents sold and left 20 years ago, though; so I'm not afraid for my wife and kids.

View attachment 95181

View attachment 95182




What this is: I used my MLS and manually searched all the listings for their reported financing to sift between the sales with all-cash or low LTVs, among which there may or may not be some waiver usage; vs the 81-100% LTVs which would presumably include zero GSE waivers during 2024.

The subdivision in question was built in the 1950s and originally consisted of homes generally ranging from 1100-1500sf, however many of the units have since been enlarged. Remodels and pools and other add-ons will be common.

The composition of the over/under 80% LTV datasets don't entirely match as the high LTV set consists of larger homes and a larger median size. So I thinned the dataset by size (1300-1800 sf) so that they both at least shared the same size range. Nevertheless, the high LTV dataset still has a larger median size (1522sf vs 1360sf).
I didn't adjust by date of sale or any other relevant factor except for the sizes.

For the all-sizes dataset the median price for all of them was $915k, $912k for the low LTVs and $920k for the High LTVs, but again the median sizes are different.

For the size-restricted dataset the median prices were the same @915k for all of them, the low-LTVs and the high LTVs. The median for the size-restricted is the same as for the all-sizes datasets.

What any of this means (TO ME) is inconclusive without getting deeper into the individual condition factors like remodels and additional features. It might be possible, but I wouldn't arbitrarily assume that the physical features attributes of both of the financing tranches are super similar. Maybe so, maybe not.

Personally, I would have expected bigger differences in the median prices when the median sizes are different, and perhaps that does indicate to some data cancer among the low-LTV sales.

For me (personally) it is not about a median price of any LTV, (which assumes more waivers in a lower LTV, and we don't know how true that in a study but I digress)

For me, it is about which individual sale prices exist within a category and whether there are enough of them in a trend to indicate they are affecting values - for example, in many cases, in the past, at least an REO sale was often found to have a lower than prevailing price. Of course, condiotn and other factors enter into the REO category beyond the sale type.

Sometimes FHA shows a higher price point due to concessions more common or low money down they might have to offer a higher price to get their offer accepted.

Cash sales can be all over the place , Etct

 

[George Hatch]

What were looking for first is whether the non-appraised properties are inflating the entire dataset. If they are, then is that attributable to the smaller subset (the waivers) among the non-appraised properties? And if the waivers are generally going off at a higher sale price, is it affecting the entire market segment?

No matter how else you would analyze you would still have to look at the entire dataset of "non-appraised" financed to form the basis of comparison with the smaller subset of waiver financed to see if there's any difference, and if so by how much.

Sales concessions and contributions are a separate issue due to the cash equivalency factor.