UAD 3.6 discussion

[Surf Cat]

Special Edition - Working RE

 

[TerryRohrer]

More UAD 3.6 fun; Disaster Mitigation section:

UAD 3.6 Focus: Disaster Mitigation

Did you drive the comps? The new URAR has a spot in the Data Sources for that. Watch this quick video to see what that looks like. Have a suggestion for a Tech Tip orcomment on this feature?Give us some feedback and let us know.

blogs.alamode.com

I was hoping that was for Total users, rather than about the subject.

 

[Digger88]

Got this in my inboc today from Bradford just as I thought they are using an algo/AI and an easy button as SurfCat linked to. Pretty slick video I haven't seen anything like this from Total yet. I think the amount of time to do these have been grossly overstated once you get use to it

 

[alebrewer]

BTW - for any appraisers within driving distance of Frisco, TX, Lyle is putting on a talk tomorrow over lunch at Maggiano's. Cost is $50:

Real Deal Networking - Lunch & Learn: Navigating Appraisal UAD 3.6 with Lyle Radke – July 11 in Plano

 

[J Grant]

Quantifying adjustments for "window surface area" freaks me out…
View attachment 97127

Comparing window density of the comps? Insanity -

 

[Tom D]

That attachment is really shortening the amount of time with that amount of minutia detail. I don't understand some of the categories. Minutia adjustment has now become normal adjustment.

 

[TerryRohrer]

Condition scores of 2.3 and quality scores of 2.7 imply that there is a table of weights for every possible scenario in the background. Every one is entirely subjective because everything about C and Q ratings is subjective...they cannot be measured. This is how the GSEs claim their process is "accurate" and can spot an errant appraisal from afar. The liars are in the basement madly codifying subjectivity while appraisers are hounded for using a subjective term, whether or not it matters.

 

[Surf Cat]

Condition scores of 2.3 and quality scores of 2.7 imply that there is a table of weights for every possible scenario in the background. Everyone is entirely subjective because everything about C and Q ratings is subjective...they cannot be measured. This is how the GSEs claim their process is "accurate" and can spot an errant appraisal from afar. The liars are in the basement madly codifying subjectivity while appraisers are hounded for using a subjective term, whether or not it matters.

The powers that be met their prime objective though. Which was to stop appraisers from making up their own acronyms. Avg +, Avg -, Gd./Fair, Sl.Supr., etc.

However, just like the old system of Excellent, Good, Average, Fair.... the new system of the C ratings has "Grey areas" in between. It's impossible to measure accurately and thus, is subjective no matter what system is used.

 

[TerryRohrer]

The powers that be met their prime objective though. Which was to stop appraisers from making up their own acronyms. Avg +, Avg -, Gd./Fair, Sl.Supr., etc.

However, just like the old system of Excellent, Good, Average, Fair.... the new system of the C ratings has "Grey areas" in between. It's impossible to measure accurately and thus, is subjective no matter what system is used.

And that subjectivity is the problem, and what they are trying to mask. If you create a model and have false data like condition of 2.3 and quality of 2.7 for every sale, you will get an answer. Sitting in a basement in DC or Austin, you will never realize that sometimes, in some markets, there is a rare circumstance where market reaction that might mimic those created results, but most of the time they will be wildly off. Meanwhile, appraisers see every day that there is variation in the impact that differences in quality and condition have on prices and value.

Where I think appraisers as a group missed the boat is that almost none stepped up to work the fertile ground between no data analysis and nothing but data analysis. Long-term, I still think there is value added by appraisers who fight these battles every day while looking intimately at the actual data and relying on readily available data analysis tools as compared to a computer programmer who has never had a single thought about those issues we have been arguing here for 30 years, and beyond for 100+ years.

But the notion that you will have a couple of hundred thousand individuals feeding data into a system that will be consistent and reliable across all markets and market areas and market segments will remain abjectly stupid and held only by those who have a license to steal and intend to use it for that purpose.

 

[glenn walker]

Son C-4 =Average C-3 =Good C-2= Very Good and avoid C-5 as you will be put on Bulls Eye & Speedys AMC do not use list.

Now remember this is secrete inside info and if questioned by anyone you didn't hear it from us. We don't even know you.