Phil Crawford Podcast

[George Hatch]

Regardless of the label, the sole purpose of

I need you to shut up​

is to suppress user-access to these opposing opinions and perspectives. It goes beyond the issue of what I am allowed to say and also steps upon which ideas I am allowed to consume and consider. That the critics always want to fixate and marginalize the sayers (who are relatively few) and gaslight the effects of those thoughtcrimes upon the the consumers (who include the masses) just underscores their weakness of their argument.

Even now the talk of the day is how to narrow the Overton Window by suppressing what the masses can and cannot consume and consider.

 

[timd354]

I think PAVE had very little to do with it. GSE's were developing WAIVERS back in 2016, long before PAVE came along. They just used it as an excuse later, but nothing changed because of it.

A WAIVER is not an AVM, ...theoretically or otherwise. An AVM is done on the property by Fannie or Freddie, and if the lender value estimate or the SC price falls within the AVM range, it is accepted and is the value of the property for the loan..

Which I assume is what you meant when you called it, " the value submitted"

We should use clear language - "the value submitted" can imply that an authority or professional submitted a value. The value is a target $ amount estimated by a loan officer or other party at a lender that would make the loan work, or it is a Sale contract price in a purchase.

You may think that PAVE has very little to do with the latest expansion of appraisal waivers, but apparently you have no idea what is driving the GSE's "appraisal modernization" initiative, which inlcudes the latest expansion of the use of appraisal waivers. Over the past year, including before the latest expansion of waivers was made public, I sat in on several meetings and calls in which I personally heard numerous people at Fannie, Freddie and FHFA use alleged appraiser bias as a justification of for the expansion of appraisal waivers, which should come as no surprise as the GSE's have publicly stated this as a justification many times.

Regarding using clear language, the language I used in my previous post is crystal clear to anyone who is familiar with the process of obtaining an aprpaisal waiver. An appraisal waiver is obtained by the lender running the loan through the GSEs' automated underwriting systems (AUS), know as Desktop Underwriter (Fannie Mae) or Loan Product Advisor (LPA). When a loan is submitted through the AUS, an estimate of the property value is submitted by the loan officer or loan processor (whomever is entering the data into the system) and that value is evaluated by the AUS which decisions the loan and determined whether an appraisal waiver is offered. Only someone who is ignorant of how the process works would think that somehow implies that the proeprty value estimate entered into the AUS was submitted by "an authority or professional".

Also, I know with 100% certainty that neither GSE AUS system will issue an offer for an appraisal waiver if the value submitted is not supported by the GSE's internal AVM model within a certain tolerance (although I am not privy to what that tolerance and whether or how often thay adjust that tolerance). Thus, will a waiver is not is technically not an AVM, an AVM valuation is one of the main drivers of the process.

 

[timd354]

It would be interesting to see the internal AVM used by Fannie and curious if it is shared with Freddy. Does it use MLS data? County records? Or, (my bet) it uses all those appraisals that real appraisers submitted over the last 3 decades and that begs a question (or 2). Since those are history do they apply a time adjustment? Since they claim the appraisers are racist and over-value everything except properties owned by minorities, then they are, by their admission, using flawed sales to create an AVM, which by definition, must also be inflated and racist

Fannie does not share their internal automated valaution models with Freddie nor anyone else outside of Fannie. Conversely, Freddie actually sells their AVM model to the public (it is called Freddie Mac Home Value Explorer) and it can be purchased thorugh multiple distributors such as CoreLogic and other mortgage industry players.

Regarding the data that feed their models, both Fannie and Freddie utilize data from the tens of millions of appraisals that have been submitted to them since UAD was adopted in 2012 and they also utilize public records and MLS data, which can be purchased from data by aggregators like CoreLogic, Black Knight.

 

[Non Sequitur]

You may think that PAVE has very little to do with the latest expansion of appraisal waivers, but apparently you have no idea what is driving the GSE's "appraisal modernization" initiative, which inlcudes the latest expansion of the use of appraisal waivers. Over the past year, including before the latest expansion of waivers was made public, I sat in on several meetings and calls in which I personally heard numerous people at Fannie, Freddie and FHFA use alleged appraiser bias as a justification of for the expansion of appraisal waivers, which should come as no surprise as the GSE's have publicly stated this as a justification many times.

Regarding using clear language, the language I used in my previous post is crystal clear to anyone who is familiar with the process of obtaining an aprpaisal waiver. An appraisal waiver is obtained by the lender running the loan through the GSEs' automated underwriting systems (AUS), know as Desktop Underwriter (Fannie Mae) or Loan Product Advisor (LPA). When a loan is submitted through the AUS, an estimate of the property value is submitted by the loan officer or loan processor (whomever is entering the data into the system) and that value is evaluated by the AUS which decisions the loan and determined whether an appraisal waiver is offered. Only someone who is ignorant of how the process works would think that somehow implies that the proeprty value estimate entered into the AUS was submitted by "an authority or professional".

Also, I know with 100% certainty that neither GSE AUS system will issue an offer for an appraisal waiver if the value submitted is not supported by the GSE's internal AVM model within a certain tolerance (although I am not privy to what that tolerance and whether or how often thay adjust that tolerance). Thus, will a waiver is not is technically not an AVM, an AVM valuation is one of the main drivers of the process.

Every boots on the ground appraiser needs to read this several times.

 

[J Grant]

Regardless of the label, the sole purpose of

I need you to shut up​

is to suppress user-access to these opposing opinions and perspectives. It goes beyond the issue of what I am allowed to say and also steps upon which ideas I am allowed to consume and consider. That the critics always want to fixate and marginalize the sayers (who are relatively few) and gaslight the effects of those thoughtcrimes upon the the consumers (who include the masses) just underscores their weakness of their argument.

Even now the talk of the day is how to narrow the Overton Window by suppressing what the masses can and cannot consume and consider.

That's part of life. Get over it....where does free speech become? We now censor somebody's writing to edit or turn off what they are hearing.
There are so many websites and alternative chat rooms and social media platforms and bulletin boards we can find a place to write and say whatever we want.

A major problem IMO is not free speech, at least not in America,

The problem is that never before in history has there been mass access to speech, and that creates its own set of dangers. People design a persona and start posting, and suddenly, they have 2 million followers - what if that person is posting inciting messages or falsehoods to create chaos or undermine a person ?
What if that poster is not who they say they are, or a foreign enemy state bot?
There are now deepfake videos, where AI puts a voice into a person's image and it seems the person actually said it ( when they did not)
And it will only get worse-

Free speech des not relieve speech of having consequences.-

 

[J Grant]

You may think that PAVE has very little to do with the latest expansion of appraisal waivers, but apparently you have no idea what is driving the GSE's "appraisal modernization" initiative, which inlcudes the latest expansion of the use of appraisal waivers. Over the past year, including before the latest expansion of waivers was made public, I sat in on several meetings and calls in which I personally heard numerous people at Fannie, Freddie and FHFA use alleged appraiser bias as a justification of for the expansion of appraisal waivers, which should come as no surprise as the GSE's have publicly stated this as a justification many times.

Regarding using clear language, the language I used in my previous post is crystal clear to anyone who is familiar with the process of obtaining an aprpaisal waiver. An appraisal waiver is obtained by the lender running the loan through the GSEs' automated underwriting systems (AUS), know as Desktop Underwriter (Fannie Mae) or Loan Product Advisor (LPA). When a loan is submitted through the AUS, an estimate of the property value is submitted by the loan officer or loan processor (whomever is entering the data into the system) and that value is evaluated by the AUS which decisions the loan and determined whether an appraisal waiver is offered. Only someone who is ignorant of how the process works would think that somehow implies that the proeprty value estimate entered into the AUS was submitted by "an authority or professional".

Also, I know with 100% certainty that neither GSE AUS system will issue an offer for an appraisal waiver if the value submitted is not supported by the GSE's internal AVM model within a certain tolerance (although I am not privy to what that tolerance and whether or how often thay adjust that tolerance). Thus, will a waiver is not is technically not an AVM, an AVM valuation is one of the main drivers of the process.

I appreciate your comments and insight

However, IMO they would have expanded it anyway. The profit centers demand it. They used PAVE as an excuse. But we an never prove it either way

 

[George Hatch]

That's part of life. Get over it....where does free speech become? We now censor somebody's writing to edit or turn off what they are hearing.
There are so many websites and alternative chat rooms and social media platforms and bulletin boards we can find a place to write and say whatever we want.

A major problem IMO is not free speech, at least not in America,

The problem is that never before in history has there been mass access to speech, and that creates its own set of dangers. People design a persona and start posting, and suddenly, they have 2 million followers - what if that person is posting inciting messages or falsehoods to create chaos or undermine a person ?
What if that poster is not who they say they are, or a foreign enemy state bot?
There are now deepfake videos, where AI puts a voice into a person's image and it seems the person actually said it ( when they did not)
And it will only get worse-

Free speech des not relieve speech of having consequences.-

The reason you would want to control what information people consume is because you don't trust their decision making.

 

[J Grant]

The reason you would want to control what information people consume is because you don't trust their decision making.

BS, I don't want to control anything.
I just recognize the obvious and growing dangers of the abuses taking place under the guise of "free speech."
See post 265. Read up on the subject. It might shock you -

The few dinky cases of some idiot Websites editing past or a mistake on a social media platform do not compare to the immense threats out there, and it has nothing to do with me, or you for that matter, though not acting on it might affect all of us at some point.
In Russia or China, free speech might be an issue, it this is not the case here.,

 

[timd354]

Does it use MLS? Not to my knowledge - just the data mined from several thousand appraisals.
Do they apply a time adjustment? Yes

To your point about their data being inherently racist and inflated - to my knowledge they haven't built in any smoothing techniques that would favor underserved neighborhoods. As such, I'd hazard a guess that their models are, indeed, 'inflated and racist' if, and only if, they consider said appraisals to be 'inflated and racist'.

I appreciate your comments and insight

However, IMO they would have expanded it anyway. The profit centers demand it. They used PAVE as an excuse. But we an never prove it either way

The reason that the GSE's expanded the eligibility of appraisal waivers is because FHFA told them to expand eligibility, which is a direct result of PAVE, so I don't think the latest expansion would have happened, or would have been as broad if it had not been mandated by FHFA. Regarding your allegation that "profit centers demand it", I am unaware of any of the so-called profit centers that demanded an expansion of appraisals waivers. I am unaware of a single mortgage lender or AMC who pushed for this and the realtors certainly did not push for it as they actually actively opposed the exapnsion after it was announced....see here: https://www.nar.realtor/washington-...lanned-expansion-of-appraisal-waiver-programs


I know that you are a Turmp hater, but much of the nonsense pushed by FHFA (especially PAVE) over the past 4 years is due to Biden's appointee Sandra Thompson running the FHFA. Now that Trump got elected, she will be gone and will be replaced by someone more responsible....it would be nice if they brought back Mark Calabria, who was the prior FHFA boss under Trump and did a great job, however I have heard that Calabria is not interested in returning to that job.

 

[George Hatch]

BS, I don't want to control anything.
I just recognize the obvious and growing dangers of the abuses taking place under the guise of "free speech."
See post 265. Read up on the subject. It might shock you -

The few dinky cases of some idiot Websites editing past or a mistake on a social media platform do not compare to the immense threats out there, and it has nothing to do with me, or you for that matter, though not acting on it might affect all of us at some point.
In Russia or China, free speech might be an issue, it this is not the case here.,

We have had yellow journalism all along and that includes some of those "trusted voices" to whom you sometimes defer. So what?

It's not like this issue just suddenly appeared out of thin air in the last 5 years.