Majority of Reviewers Had Very Limited Field Experience

Baggins says:

Refried refi’s. They’re trying to recreate the event. Don’t get your hopes up for low rates anytime soon though. First we’ll need a credit squeeze to lift a substantial portion of citizens out of those low rate loans, or at least tag them with higher interest credit to accommodate a better debt recapture balance.

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

As far as the article, there are many paradoxical considerations. CU could have been better utilized to identify redundancies across a broad spectrum, like identifying appraisers whom flipped unreasonable volume, who’s reports contained all this static repeated content, ie the appraisers whom used typing services and comps sharing, whom flipped unreasonable amc volume and even hosted seminars and classes online how to select comps in thirty seconds. When half of the content in those appraisal reports was basically just identical. That’s what CU system should have been flagging for probationary status.

The CU system could have been a tool for good to bring better balance to an industry rife for exploitation by third party companies and tech firms. Instead the system applied an in the blind expectation where appraisers were held to a peer standard based on the majority group data. Sure, read well on paper but in the real world that data base which was a supposed reflection of the peer standard was constantly eroding in data quality due to the excess imbalance where a small group of aggressive appraisers whom used these tools to produce excess reporting volume, created systemic data deficiencies.

When the volume based appraisers deposited ten CU bound reports for a certain area, if there was a data quality issue, the system inferred that the next appraiser whom provided varied data had to be wrong, being only a single instance of data differential. When three out of four appraisers nationally refuse to provide such volume, and one in two appraisers nationally refuse to even enter data into the CU system.

The best appraisers whom actually performed quality data validation and manually assembled higher quality reporting metrics, were constantly hounded by the mistakes of the appraiser amc flipper volume crowd. CU had potential, but that potential was immediately lost by the GSE’s inability to promote manually orientated higher quality appraisal development efforts, and instead they promoted the amc cost efficient high volume model which rendered the data comparisons to be basically worthless.

They could have parsed data better and the group model could have had weighted differential where any appraiser whom flipped volume would have not had as much influence in the peer model effects. But then they’d have to reconcile those volume appraisers getting constant alert notices, and would have had to actually do something about the amc industry to correct the gross imbalance of appraisal time efforts, compensation, and incredible appraisal request volume disparity.

Big data. Big joke. Qualifying and validating data for real property and the unique situation represented in every loan origination and selling term is far more important than they realized. Attempts to automate the process to create higher quality outcomes will continue to fail. But then again, they don’t mind. Because the goal was never to actually have a higher quality data disposition, but rather to gain control of the mechanisms by which approval can happen, in order to assure a consistently higher quantity of origination. Make real estate morel ike the stock market? Mission accomplished. Checks and balances alongside fair dealings and an honest pay for an honest days work are yesterdays news, a more ‘modern’ approach is being installed.