• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online  community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

The Appraiser Shortage Myth Part 43

Status
Not open for further replies.
He read Danny's tweet, he didn't accuse Danny of having a secret agreement with Fannie.
Right. And the promo quip for that show does not say, "is there a secret deal between Fannie and some AMCs???"

LOL
 
What is wrong with the following statement?

"The market value of the subject property is $200,000, in consideration of an exposure time of 3 months."

This is one of the most goofy things I have seen in a while, not only the question posed, but the statement that is supposedly in an appraisal?
 
You task me. You task me. Well, to quote Joachim's dying words, "Yours is the superior intellect."

If you have a point relevant to the topic of the thread, make it. Or, call Phil C and ask him what I would say, since he apparently knows more about my life that even I do. Either way, I will not be engaging in your little game. The BS meter has already pegged for the day. :)

I do hope there are some trekkies who get that quote.

Not a game to me DW. You have accused others in this thread of at the very least, ignorance. I have asked you to answer a simple question to test yours. As far as making a relevant point to this thread and topic, I have been doing that all along, and so far your responses have been horsesh*t. I am not asking Phil, I am asking you. You cant lump me with Phil because I am asking you directly - you don't get it both ways. If you need to take a break and think about it because you had a bad day or something, fine. But if you refuse to answer, then I say you have no right to ever say anything derogatory about another appraiser on this forum ever again, or anything related to appraisal for that matter. YOUR credibility will be zero. I'll give you a hint, the question is relevant to this thread.

Its not a trick question, though maybe it is too simple (and that's another hint). What is wrong with the following statement? "The market value of the subject property is $200,000, in consideration of an exposure time of 3 months." The context is as stated before.
 
Right. And the promo quip for that show does not say, "is there a secret deal between Fannie and some AMCs???"

LOL

You have just gotta hand it to Phil....he does a great job stirring the pot and telling a certain group of appraisers exactly what they want to hear, including pushing the obligatory GSE and AMC conspiracy theories:

Voice of Appraisal E168 Land of the Lost?!?!


Voice of Appraisal
Published on Aug 20, 2017

Phil and Kevin break down the news of the day!! Is there a secret deal between Fannie and some AMCs??? Also...SB 1649..what's that all about??? Enjoy!!!

 
Hey Non, I actually just listened to Phil's podcast and it seems pretty clear exactly what kind of sh*t Phil was trying to stir up about Danny and StreetLinks...take a look at my post 13 in the following referenced thread which explains exactly what Phil pulled:
https://appraisersforum.com/forums/...hil-crawfords-show.217779/page-2#post-2787636
I didn't take it that way.

Apparently there's a stir in twitterverse concerning alt valuations. Danny tweeted confirming their use and Fannie's test roll out in select markets. Phil acknowledged their usefulness in low risk situations but questioned their use in relation to Fannie's high LTV loans given Fannie's recent stress test results. He did run on about the overall lack of transparency regarding the development of Fannie's alt valuation, but I didn't take it as a browbeating.
 
I didn't take it that way.

Apparently there's a stir in twitterverse concerning alt valuations. Danny tweeted confirming their use and Fannie's test roll out in select markets. Phil acknowledged their usefulness in low risk situations but questioned their use in relation to Fannie's high LTV loans given Fannie's recent stress test results. He did run on about the overall lack of transparency regarding the development of Fannie's alt valuation, but I didn't take it as a browbeating.
You know I respect you, but I just think that you missed the sh*t that Phil pulled on this one. While Phil did not browbeat Danny (Phil is much too smart to due that) I think that it is very obvious that he tried to impugn Danny and he more than strongly implied with his comments and questions that it is Danny that is a part of a secret GSE-AMC deal conspiracy that he is advancing.

We will just have to agree to disagree about this one. In any case, I think that you would agree with me that Phil's podcast basically spends the majority of its time telling a certain segment of appraisers exactly what it is that they want to hear
 
Last edited:
In any case, I think that you would agree with me that Phil's podcast basically spends the majority of its time telling a certain segment of appraisers exactly what it is that they want to hear
Very true. I strongly disagree with his take on the FTC issue and his take on a couple of other issues isn't what I would consider reasonable. But other than Phil and Dustin there isn't much appraiser stuff to follow while driving.
 
You have just gotta hand it to Phil....he does a great job stirring the pot and telling a certain group of appraisers exactly what they want to hear, including pushing the obligatory GSE and AMC conspiracy theories:

Voice of Appraisal E168 Land of the Lost?!?!


Voice of Appraisal
Published on Aug 20, 2017

Phil and Kevin break down the news of the day!! Is there a secret deal between Fannie and some AMCs??? Also...SB 1649..what's that all about??? Enjoy!!!


Your a joke. When did LA concede? Lol
 
Some folks should be more careful on antitrust law. Just sayin.....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at
AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top