Phil Crawford Podcast

[CGinMN]

Whatever doxxing happened, it was done by Phil. It's the equivalent of redacting the property address on page 1, forgetting to redact the subject's address on the map page, then blaming the user for your failure.

 

[TerryRohrer]

Joyce was out pimping to make ends meet due to appraiser fee decline. Other's, like Joyce, who also pimp, are also advocating that pimping is a viable way to supplement income. Joyce, and others doing the same thing, are pimps.

This probably belongs in the "The Decline of the Appraisal Industry: An Unsustainable Future" thread!

 

[Bobby Bucks]

View attachment 95144
Not sure I could say this is calling someone a pimp.

IMO it would depend on the part of speech, the noun may qualify as a slight, but the verb is a term often used in many areas of real estate and doesn't automatically qualify as an insult.

 

[Joyce Potts]

No client. No assignment. And given his advocacy for the data cancer talking point there isn't anyone who would expect him to act objectively in such an analysis. Confidentiality requirements don't apply when acting outside the role.

And since we're playing fast and loose with the words we're using, here's a clip from the source as to what "confidential information" actually means as that applies to appraisal practice.

View attachment 95143

No client. No assignment. And given his advocacy for the data cancer talking point there isn't anyone who would expect him to act objectively in such an analysis. Confidentiality requirements don't apply when acting outside the role.

And since we're playing fast and loose with the words we're using, here's a clip from the source as to what "confidential information" actually means as that applies to appraisal practice.

View attachment 95143

Information doesn't become confidential simply because an appraiser is handling it. That instruction has been around for years, too.

George, we're both older. And I don't know much. But I do know that that putting the smaller wheel on the back end, and putting a gigantic wheel on the front end is antiquated. Lots of things have been around for years too. Much like all the 'terms' on the DO NOT USE list put out by the GSE's.

Phil was trying to make a point as to waivers and 'data cancer'. You disagree. Where's your data, other than doxing Phil?

 

[Joyce Potts]

At least 100% BS (aside from the parts that are flatly false), but specific enough clarify that there is no there there! One last question, though. Can you provide the specifics of the cases where appraisers have reprimanded by their boards for such actions? Even one would suffice.

There are thousands of murders committed every year. Most go unsolved. That doesn't make the unsolved murders ok.

 

[Dublin ohio]

Whatever doxxing happened, it was done by Phil. It's the equivalent of redacting the property address on page 1, forgetting to redact the subject's address on the map page, then blaming the user for your failure.

Not sure how identifying the subject property in question results in "doxing" since PC doesn't live in the same subdivision.

 

[George Hatch]

George, we're both older. And I don't know much. But I do know that that putting the smaller wheel on the back end, and putting a gigantic wheel on the front end is antiquated. Lots of things have been around for years too. Much like all the 'terms' on the DO NOT USE list put out by the GSE's.

Phil was trying to make a point as to waivers and 'data cancer'. You disagree. Where's your data, other than doxing Phil?

To the best of my knowledge I didn't dox him. If you know otherwise then do tell. If you don't know otherwise then maybe you should make an effort to figure it out before repeating the allegation. Or don't.

-------------------------
PC might still have a point in his theme about waivers and data cancer "juicing the market". I just don't think this particular example demonstrates it, leastwise not to the extent he has claimed. I must have already said this a dozen times in these threads.

IRL a borrower with 30% down could still have followed through with their purchase even if a conventional 1004 didn't support the contract price. Remember, this sale went down after 3 days exposure @$20k over the list price and in excess of all other prior sales in the neighborhood. Anyone who is assuming the buyer didn't know they were paying the extra $20k over list just isn't thinking straight.

I've seen similar before and so has every other appraiser. We have also seen the existence of appraiser-created "data cancer" in our datasets going back all the way, too. So even if the waivers are contributing to the problem or contributing to price-creep in an increasing market that problem didn't start with the waiver program.

Give us something to believe and we'll believe it. Give us something we can't believe and we're going to have problems believing it.

 

[CGinMN]

Not sure how identifying the subject property in question results in "doxing" since PC doesn't live in the same subdivision.

Yeah, it's not. My point is that whatever information came to light it was because Phil didn't scrub it well enough.

 

[George Hatch]

Yeah, it's not. My point is that whatever information came to light it was because Phil didn't scrub it well enough.

Can't do a price trend analysis without a month/year. In the greater Cincinnati area there are 12 listings for 04/2024 @ $430k. I would have found this one anyway, it just would have taken a little longer. It all depends on whether I started at the beginning of the month or at the end of the month as displayed when sorted by "newest first".

 

[Joyce Potts]

IMO it would depend on the part of speech, the noun may qualify as a slight, but the verb is a term often used in many areas of real estate and doesn't automatically qualify as an insult.

Whatever doxxing happened, it was done by Phil. It's the equivalent of redacting the property address on page 1, forgetting to redact the subject's address on the map page, then blaming the user for your failure.

Hold on, but the MAP that I think you're referring to with the subject's address, was one put out by George Hatch, NOT Phil Crawford. If I'm wrong, I will stand corrected.