<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Freddie Mac Takes a Bite of the Apple	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://appraisersblogs.com/appraisal/freddie-mac-takes-a-bite-of-the-apple/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://appraisersblogs.com/appraisal/freddie-mac-takes-a-bite-of-the-apple/</link>
	<description>Appraisal News and Tips for Real Estate Appraisers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2026 05:04:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Mike Ford, CA AG, SCREA, AGA, GAA, RAA		</title>
		<link>https://appraisersblogs.com/appraisal/freddie-mac-takes-a-bite-of-the-apple/#comment-11869</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Ford, CA AG, SCREA, AGA, GAA, RAA]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2015 01:12:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://appraisersblogs.com/?p=7903#comment-11869</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I wasn&#039;t too concerned at first. Then they said they are working toward something similar to FNMAs CU which is an abysmal failure.

Also, specific items are going to cause tremendous unnecessary work. FRE 1001; and 1014. Most of us don&#039;t go into great detail for nominal size discrepancies. Additionally, what about new construction? PR shows a 1,235 sf 3 br-2.1 bath. The subject is brand new construction of 4,000 sf!

Read on through the rest. Many if not most can be avoided by us providing more thorough explanations (raise your fees folks!), but some of these are micro managing; or a level of computer conformity being required that is simply not practical for appraisals.

What FNMA and Freddie are really saying to appraisers is &quot;appraise to the computerized review, rather than to generally accepted sound appraisal practices.&quot;

ANYONE doing FNMA conforming loan limit appraisals for less than $650 is really devaluing their own time. Anyone doing the higher, presumably more complex Freddie Mac appraisals for less than $1,000 is a damn fool.

THAT is the real impact of CU or any of its counterparts.

Does anyone remember Robert McNamara&#039;s whiz kids in the Kennedy Administration during the Vietnam War procurement fiasco for the M-16? The slide rules and computer whizzes decided that no cleaning kit was needed even thought they changed standard policy about having a chrome or nickel plated chamber AND they switched military rounds powder. The &quot;science&quot; proved how much better and cheaper it was.

The dead bodies from jammed early M-16s proved how wrong science was.

FNMA and Freddie have told us so specifically how we must appraise for there systems, that the results are no longer reliable; or appraisals feasible to produce without great increases in the amounts we charge the consumer for them.

I review complaints for AGA ( www.appraisersguild.org ) about CU on a weekly basis now. Complaints where appraisers have been unfairly steam rolled by improper application of CU; and or AQM. Now we can add Freddy to the mess.

ALL GSES really needed to do is to revert to FIRREA as it was originally written back in 1989. Before all the exceptions were carved out of it. FIELD REVIEW 10% of all appraisals and almost ALL problems will cease. When the odds are 1 in 10 of being caught, appraisers REALLY CLEAN UP their acts and don&#039;t allow the kind of exceptions both FNMA and Freddy seem to be so concerned with.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wasn&#8217;t too concerned at first. Then they said they are working toward something similar to FNMAs CU which is an abysmal failure.</p>
<p>Also, specific items are going to cause tremendous unnecessary work. FRE 1001; and 1014. Most of us don&#8217;t go into great detail for nominal size discrepancies. Additionally, what about new construction? PR shows a 1,235 sf 3 br-2.1 bath. The subject is brand new construction of 4,000 sf!</p>
<p>Read on through the rest. Many if not most can be avoided by us providing more thorough explanations (raise your fees folks!), but some of these are micro managing; or a level of computer conformity being required that is simply not practical for appraisals.</p>
<p>What FNMA and Freddie are really saying to appraisers is &#8220;appraise to the computerized review, rather than to generally accepted sound appraisal practices.&#8221;</p>
<p>ANYONE doing FNMA conforming loan limit appraisals for less than $650 is really devaluing their own time. Anyone doing the higher, presumably more complex Freddie Mac appraisals for less than $1,000 is a damn fool.</p>
<p>THAT is the real impact of CU or any of its counterparts.</p>
<p>Does anyone remember Robert McNamara&#8217;s whiz kids in the Kennedy Administration during the Vietnam War procurement fiasco for the M-16? The slide rules and computer whizzes decided that no cleaning kit was needed even thought they changed standard policy about having a chrome or nickel plated chamber AND they switched military rounds powder. The &#8220;science&#8221; proved how much better and cheaper it was.</p>
<p>The dead bodies from jammed early M-16s proved how wrong science was.</p>
<p>FNMA and Freddie have told us so specifically how we must appraise for there systems, that the results are no longer reliable; or appraisals feasible to produce without great increases in the amounts we charge the consumer for them.</p>
<p>I review complaints for AGA ( <a target="_blank" href="http://www.appraisersguild.org" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.appraisersguild.org</a> ) about CU on a weekly basis now. Complaints where appraisers have been unfairly steam rolled by improper application of CU; and or AQM. Now we can add Freddy to the mess.</p>
<p>ALL GSES really needed to do is to revert to FIRREA as it was originally written back in 1989. Before all the exceptions were carved out of it. FIELD REVIEW 10% of all appraisals and almost ALL problems will cease. When the odds are 1 in 10 of being caught, appraisers REALLY CLEAN UP their acts and don&#8217;t allow the kind of exceptions both FNMA and Freddy seem to be so concerned with.</p>
<div class="cld-like-dislike-wrap cld-template-4">
    <div class="cld-like-wrap  cld-common-wrap">
    <a href="javascript:void(0)" class="cld-like-trigger cld-like-dislike-trigger  " title="" data-comment-id="11869" data-trigger-type="like" data-restriction="cookie" data-already-liked="0">
                        <i class="far fa-smile"></i>
                    </a>
    <span class="cld-like-count-wrap cld-count-wrap">    </span>
</div></div>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Koma		</title>
		<link>https://appraisersblogs.com/appraisal/freddie-mac-takes-a-bite-of-the-apple/#comment-11868</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Koma]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2015 15:12:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://appraisersblogs.com/?p=7903#comment-11868</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Danny,

Thanks for the info. Funny as heck though,  data that Freddie Mac already possesses (like public records). 

Koma]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Danny,</p>
<p>Thanks for the info. Funny as heck though,  data that Freddie Mac already possesses (like public records). </p>
<p>Koma</p>
<div class="cld-like-dislike-wrap cld-template-4">
    <div class="cld-like-wrap  cld-common-wrap">
    <a href="javascript:void(0)" class="cld-like-trigger cld-like-dislike-trigger  " title="" data-comment-id="11868" data-trigger-type="like" data-restriction="cookie" data-already-liked="0">
                        <i class="far fa-smile"></i>
                    </a>
    <span class="cld-like-count-wrap cld-count-wrap">    </span>
</div></div>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
