If you've read this article and agree with it, please go to Barry Ritholtz blog at www.ritholtz.com\blog for an opposing view.

Thanks, Scott

If I'm reading this article right, the take-home message is that appraisers lie now and lied then, content and skew determined by prevailing wind.

When I bought a house in 1990, I was required to pay for the appraisal. If the appraiser received any recompense from a lender or the seller, it was invisibly done.

So I must ask: what has changed? Homebuyers still have to fork over for the appraisal, no? So why are you writing about the appraisers as if they are selected and paid for by the seller?

So let's see if I understand your point.

You are in the business of selling real estate.

When appraisals don't support the loan amount applied for, they are bad appraisals. And when they do support the loan amount applied for they are good appraisals.

And this recent event has to do principally with incompetence by the appraisers.

Have I got that right?

But during the boom, when real estate agents, brokers, bankers and loan officers were hiring only those appraisers who would hit progressively higher and higher numbers, I suppose this was very good.

And I suppose the recent historic drop in housing prices, the huge supply of inventory and an even larger wave of foreclosures coming round the bend has nothing to do with it.

It's sad to hear that all those good appraisers will be seeking greener pastures. I assume they appraised the home they bought in those green pastures and are now under water, right?

There were a lot of innocent victims of the housing bubble. One of them was honest, good appraisers. The appriasal system worked great when banks actually held onto the note. They wanted appraisers to do a good, though job as it was their money on the line. Bias for the lender was very good in that scenario, actually.

It all changed when securitization became the primary means of mortgage funding. Now an appraiser's job was to get the deal done. Who needs honest and through? (Actually, most of them exited the field in the last 10 years, unwilling to appraise a $150K house at $300K)

If you are looking to blame someone, try the regulators and the masses who willingly looked the other way when Wall Street sold dreams of easy money to investors and home buyers. (There's plenty to go around...) The loan officers and appraisers were just pawns in the game.

(For disclosure: I don't work in real estate and hate this flippin bubble as much as anyone else. )

Apparently not. As usual for your self-righteous holier-than-thou rantings, your stupidity is exceeded only by your venom.

The point of the article is appraiser overshoots in both directions, idiot.

Amy,

I'm not looking to blame any ONE person or profession. It takes a village to blow a bubble and there are plenty of victims and bad guys to go around.

My comments were directed towards the article and author, who seemed to think that the primary reason for poor real estate sales is incompetent appraisers. The author is hardly a disinterested person giving an informed opinion.

In other words, if someone wishes a loan to purchase a home, the appraisal should match the loan desired because the buyer wishes to buy. If the appraisal doesn't match, it must be because of incompetent appraisers and not any other factors. Circular logic from where I stand.

I worked in a bank (as an investment advisor) from 1998 to 2008, with my office next door to the banks' loan officer. We had some interesting conversations during those 10 years. I don't think you really understand how corrupt the entire process and all the participants became by the end.

Big money has a way of doing that, corrupting the best of us. It so easy to let your ethics slide when everyone else is doing it, no one will (supposedly) get hurt and you just happen to be very well compensated for your transgressions.

you could not be more correct. i keep hearing about how we need to work through "housing supply" to get housing to bottom.

i also believe we need to get through "mortgage broker and realtor supply" as as well. the very same people that instigated this whole mess are STILL AT WORK trying to re-inflate a bubble. it all still goes back to politicians who want to cater to uneducated voters and corporate vampires trying to game the system. capitalism has built in checks and balances to prevent this type of thing. normally those vultures would eventually get caught with their pants down and we be ruined financially. that's obviously where the politicians came in and did the exact opposite of what they are elected to do. it makes me furious every time i think about it.

my favorite saying on this site is Todd saying "we have to go through it to get through it". until our elected "leaders" realize this and start letting things take their course we're all just waiting on the next artificial bubble to burst. at least i can use this next time period to learn how to trade puts...

And so of course you must one up my rant with your own while expanding your own venomous vocabulary. I wonder if you are the author in sheep's clothing. Why does my reply anger you so much?

So if the author feels that appraisals are now over correcting to the down side, why didn't he call the appraisers incompetent when they were overshooting to the up side? Why is it only incompetence when they under appraise and not when they over appraise.

He seems to be saying that there were plenty of good appraisers when they pushed appraisals up but all those good appraisers have now disappeared. And the proof is that appraisals are not matching the loan requested and thus it's from incompetence.

While I certainly agree that all bubbles over reach in both directions, there are multiple reasons for this. The author is biased in his appraisal of where the fault(s) lies.

Sorry but he can't have it both ways.

BTW, it's called sarcasm. I believe the fact that the author tarred an entire profession as incompetent would be considered venom under the guise of opinion.

Appraisals were not the root of the mortgage meltdown. We have seen enough articles and analysis on the Ville that bears this out, he biggest problem was the over expansion of credit provide by the FED. The lenders who provided loan products to people with poor credit AND poor income ( the get me dones) that is where BANKING 101 failed and then the bankers got stuck with this **** on their sheets. Was anyone watching the store? Shareholders,regulators,corporate officers were all missing in action. Now we have the NY geek set deals with Fannie & Freddie as if that is adding value to the process is really a continuation of the same process.. Look good in that blue suit, act like you are adding value and accomplish NOTHING.

People are lazy, corrupt and just generally evil. Got it. Stopped being surprised a while ago by that. :)

The ones for whom corruption is dominant streak tend to hang around the cash registers, which is why I'm not particularly shocked by your experience. There are still a few of us with a bent towards honesty, really.

In defense of this author, in my mind most of his articles are very much in recognition of what's gone wrong in the real estate in the last decade. His and Kevin Depew's are pretty much a must read for me. It's a real bummer that you seem to think he's written this article out of two sides of his mouth because I didn't take that way at all. My interpretation is that we went from "bad" to "still bad" in the appraiser department.

You may not remember, but the appraiser was chosen by the lender. Still is. Yes, you paid for it then, and would today, but who does the appraising is up to the bank. Appraisers are not responsible to the buyer, who usually never see them.

Kind of weird, no? Sort of like if your HOA chose your gardener based on his rep with them, but you have to pay for his work whether, when you get home, you liked the job done or not.

Rather than the convoluted new regs proposed, wouldn't the disconnect in either direction be better addressed by

1. having the appraiser operate "blind" (i.e. in ignorance of the ask or bid prices and the goals of either buyer or lender) and

2. make the bank pay for the appraisal it requires, and require the buyer to choose his own appraiser for a second (still blind) opinion?

LOL! Very good, especially the juicy bit about "working through mortgage broker and realtor supply"! A spoonful of wit to help the medicine go down.

But you write "it all still goes back to politicians who want to cater to uneducated voters and corporate vampires trying to game the system." There I think you oversimplify. Remember that the construction of an ever-increasing number of single-family homes (and all the required infrastructure - roads, utilities etc.) has been U.S. policy since Truman. It seemed to them (Truman and his Industrial Council of 1946) that it was the best way to keep the Depression from retaking center stage after the War. And so far, it "seems" to have worked. But is it desirable, much less sustainable?

So my experience with "appraisers" is the following: I purchased my house in Nov 2007. The appraiser came out, took a few pictures, and then appraised the house at EXACTLY what our current offer was. We negotiated down a few grand and purchased the house.

Fast forward 14 months, and we refi'd to lock in a lower rate. A different appraiser came out, walked through the house, saw the improvements that we'd done, took some pictures, and appraised the house at EXACTLY what our purchase price had been 14 months earlier.

I'd make some snarky comment about random chance, but in the first instance the appraiser has to admit to knowing what the offer was (there's a box to check for this), and the second appraiser knew what we'd paid for the house as well. It was pretty obvious that both knew exactly what number they had to hit, and that was their "professional appraisal".

Yes, I'm happy since it worked out for me (being able to secure financing for both the purchase and the refi), but it just seemed really really shady. And I'm annoyed that it cost me $400 each time for someone to come out and spend 15-30min pretending to look at my house.

Yes, Amy, it seems clear that the author's point is that appraisals were off the mark (too high) during the boom and are off the mark (too low) in the bust. I don't think he could have made it clearer than in his opening:

"During the housing boom, mortgage brokers, real-estate agents, and even borrowers sought out appraisals supporting the highest possible home price. Appraisers -- fearful of losing business, inflating their valuation findings, and exacerbating the run-up in home prices -- acquiesced.

Now, after nearly 4 years of home-price declines, appraisers are getting it wrong again -- but in the other direction."

How the "master" (sarcasm, BTW) of ad hominem attacks continues to assert that the author is biased and is instead saying that high appraisals are good, low ones bad, is testament to nothing more than his own bias and need for attention.

Yep, I had the same experience when I bought, and suspected similar bogosity. Never refied, since I sold and decided to rent instead, but that a SECOND appraiser came and did the same bogus thing is pretty telling.

Seems to me appraisers ought to be operating from first principles (i.e. their REAL opinion of a property's worth) without knowledge of what the seller, lender or buyer might want.

But if they aren't told how much the selling price is, how will they know what value to aim for?

Oops. *grin*

I like the idea, but I suspect mortgage originators wouldn't be thrilled.

Tyler,

You are right -- the buyer still pays for the appraisal. But they key word there is pays. During the boom, appraisers were selected by mortgage brokers, real estate agents and lenders and communication was free and open. This allowed appraisals to be directed towards certain values to support a particular value. It was in everyone's best interest (except the buyer, who was actually paying) to get the deal done, so the value was placed high enough for the loan to clear the lending guidelines.

The new rules try to limit the bank's (and brokers') contact with the appraiser to get independent results. The buyer still pays, but the AMCs do a lousy job of choosing appraisers, who now compete on the basis of turn times and cost, rather than quality (or willingness to provide a predetermined value).

Not all appraisals are bad, mind you, but right now, that is certainly the norm.

Hope that helps,

Andrew

Michael,

It's actually quite simple and has nothing to do with selling real estate. A good appraisal is one that is right, a bad appraisal is one that is wrong. There really is nothing else to it.

For the loan I mention in the article, the appraisal actually came in right at the contract price. The trouble was that the Appraiser was from a town about 40 miles from the subject home and spent 5 minutes inside. After that very thorough inspection, she determined that a home that was completely livable but needed to be updated would require $100k in improvements to become "habitable." This was a non-starter with the bank, even though everyone involved agreed it was an absurd conclusion for a house that was just 900 sqft.

In addition, the appraiser used comparables from the town next door, where home values are about 60% lower, schools don't even compare and crime is worse.

That is a BAD appraisal. It has nothing to do with the value, which, by your logic would mean the appraisal was GOOD, as far as I am concerned.

Yes, my firm sells real estate, but we are build on the foundation of a property valuation platform that is unique in the industry for its unbiasedness and accuracy.

I will certainly admit we are in the minority in this industry though, so your point would apply to the vast majority of real estate brokerages out there. Most of what I write is very critical of real estate brokers, their misaligned incentives and very low quality work. Sadly, appraisers are no better.

Andrew

Amy you are dead right -- there are definitely good appraisers out there (just like there are good lawyers, mortgage brokers, Wall Street traders, etc), who get lumped in with the bad apples.

When a system is established in a way (like the securitization machine you mention) that incentivizes players to act badly, guess what, badly they act.

We are all human after all, and not everyone can stand up against the crowd (just ask Pepe about herding!)

Appreciate the comments, as always.

- Andrew

Matt -- agree with a later post about the supply of mortgage and real estate brokers ... as one of the latters trying to change the system from the inside, I tend to agree ;)

Thomas,

The new regs "try" to accomplish the first, while achieving the second, ie, additional costs borne by everyone.

Your second method would be good though, so the buyer can shop his appraisal around and if a bank wants to lend using that as the value, more power to them.

Andrew

This still has not been fixed -- appraisers are still allowed to see sales contracts. That is a HUGE loophole that was not closed.

So now you compound your stupidity and venom by repeating it even when corrected? Get a clue, Mr. Negative, rebutting a position by the powerful (sarcasm, BTW) method of repeating yourself impresses only yourself.

So you need it point by point, O Whining Backbencher?

1. "And so of course you must one up my rant with your own while expanding your own venomous vocabulary."

You call my post to you a "rant"??? No wonder the women are surprised when you show them what you think six inches is (that's sarcasm, BTW). Until you admit that you lied about what the author said, and apologize to him and the rest of MV for your lying ways, you remain a weasel in lions' clothes - used and tattered ones, at that. As for venomous vocabulary, when you STOP employing innuendo, smear and lie, I'll be happy to match rational discourse with you anytime. As habits are hard to break, I won't hold my breath.

2. "I wonder if you are the author in sheep's clothing."

Tailon, you are a bigoted and ignorant slit (the correct word is not allowed on MV, even though - shockingly! - your posts are). I would wonder if you were a filthy pinko working to destroy liberty, but that would be an insult to pinkos. I am a trader and a teacher (and permanent student, as are all open minds) of rhetoric and philosophy. That you can't tell from my writing that he and I are not the same is further evidence of your willful stupidity. Unlike the author, who is an established and respected professional in the real estate industry, my "professional experience" in real estate is confined to buying my house and helping my mother refinance hers. I don't have a dog in this fight except insofar as does any citizen of a republic with a sense of duty and a desire for a better world.

How typical of you to substitute ad hominem innuendo, slur and outright lies for constructive (or at least non-StrawMan) argument. I cannot remember a day on MV when you don't resort, in at least one post, to your unending, nauseating, and irrational ad hominem attacks. Your bias is showing. Zip it up.

2. "Why does my reply anger you so much?"

a. In the first place, yours was not a reply in any real sense, it was a putrid and lying ad hominem attack on the author, juiced with innuendo, and in outright contradiction of what the article states. You attempt to put words in the author's mouth, and your kind have destroyed journalism and mauled true discourse in the modern era.
b. You need a spanking. You are a tantrum-throwing brat on MV who never offers any solutions, only scratches and screams from a fake position of righteousness. Far from the "conscience" you pretend to be, you are a plague on rational discourse and I've had a bellyful of your constant and willfully stupid carping. Offer something positive sometime, or at minimum base your negativity on what is actually there, not on your own guilt. No?

3. "You are in the business of selling real estate. When appraisals don't support the loan amount applied for, they are bad appraisals. And when they do support the loan amount applied for they are good appraisals. And this recent event has to do principally with incompetence by the appraisers.
Have I got that right?"

a. NO, you have it exactly and intentionally WRONG. Read the opening paragraphs of the article, idiot. The author clearly states that the appraisals were bad during the boom (too high) and bad during this bust (too low). Maybe I should have said "read and UNDERSTAND the opening" but that seems too difficult for your "six-inch" brain.
b. That the author is in real estate professionally should as soon reassure the reader that he know what he's talking about (as opposed to clueless worms like you) as make the reader question whether he is "talking his book." The balance of the article clearly shows that former holds here, not the latter. Oh, let me simplify for your struggling gray matter - it means he exhibits no bias.

4. "So if the author feels that appraisals are now over correcting to the down side, why didn't he call the appraisers incompetent when they were overshooting to the up side? Why is it only incompetence when they under appraise and not when they over appraise."

a. Prove that he DIDN'T point out faulty evaluations during the boom, Mr. Know It All. On what rational basis do you pontifically assume that he did not? Unlike you, who plainly carry around your own pile of guilt over your nefarious dealings in the bank, those of us who live normally see normality in others as a working assumption until facts suggest otherwise. There is NO evidence to impeach the Professor, but you d@mn yourself with your own mouth. Between his article and your posts, I found multiple places to check the article and facts support what was written, but your posts are demonstrably FALSE, LYING, and BIASED.
b. The incompetence the author bemoans arises not from whether the appraisal is "too high" or "too low", but from the hurried and cut-rate nature evolving in the business. Low-bid work, we all know from experience, has a track record of shoddiness. Once again it is you making false and lying assumptions about others and then putting your own sewer tendencies onto them.

5. "While I certainly agree that all bubbles over reach in both directions, there are multiple reasons for this. The author is biased in his appraisal of where the fault(s) lies.
Sorry but he can't have it both ways."

OK Brainiac, where in this article does the author address (much less offer opinion on) the "reasons" for over reach, or for the bubble? Where does he appraise "where the fault(s) lies"? The only place he mentions anything remotely related is in the first full paragraph, where he describes inflated appraisals as a contributing factor "which exacerbated the run-up in home prices." He points out in the next sentence that, AFTER 4 years of declines (not as a CAUSE to declines), appraisals are more and more lowballing properties. One really has to want to see bias to label that as a "biased appraisal of where the fault lies." But then, since you are so negative and biased negatively, your desire to see evil is always fulfilled.

6. "It's sad to hear that all those good appraisers will be seeking greener pastures. I assume they appraised the home they bought in those green pastures and are now under water, right?" but then you write "I believe the fact that the author tarred an entire profession as incompetent would be considered venom under the guise of opinion."

a. The author clearly wrote that "there are good appraisers out there with integrity that offer up great analysis." You are a liar. He did not tar an entire profession, but warned of an increase in cut-rate appraising and accompanying shoddy work. You, by contrast, blithely smear him, insert strawman words and ideas attributed by you to him but never uttered by him.
b. It is you who do the tarring while you cry out "Look, that fellow over there is tarring!" You are a typical liberal, typically intellectually dishonest LIAR doing the very thing you decry while attempting to rile up others against someone else for the ooze and slime you spread. Oz got nothing on you.

Professor Jeffrey,

Thanks, I'm clear now on the process. Don't like it, but I get it.

I do remember now (after being reminded by another Minyan) feeling surprised but relieved that I didn't have to go appraiser shopping. I hate shopping. I just wanted to get the deal done, thinking that I was buying at a local minimum in Connecticut (in 1990, we were well off a mini-boom that popped in '88).

Now a little older and more suspicious, I reckon I would be irked if the bank hired some dude to serve them and then required me to pay for it.

i'm not sure, but i think you just agreed with me. Truman was a politician, right?

i said it was the politicians ultimately spinning the wheel. if a situation existed where they weren't the instigators, they are still supposed to be looking out for our best interests. (ain't that a kick in the pants!)

i don't think i oversimplified. it really is that simple. politicians tend to get more votes when they "give" people stuff!.

Yes, probably we do fundamentally agree. Politicians have been at the root of what is currently called the "housing bubble bust" from day one, we certainly agree there. I just meant by "oversimplify" that I didn't think it was so much about immediate vote-getting by immediate bread and circuses, more of a longterm plan to manipulate the structure of society. In other words, to shape the sheeple while *appearing* [just blatantly enough to seem like harmless, regular politicians] to "cater to uneducated voters." Sweet profits for their partners in crime that redound to them is gravy.

"So, Senator Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, you really expect us to believe that you were unaware of the 'sweetheart' nature of your below-market mortgage from Countrywide even after we have shown that you had two extended telephone conversations with its CEO Mozilo, whose industry you regulate, prior to closing?"

"I don't remember ever speaking to him. I didn't know, and still don't believe, that I got any special treatment."

"Oh, okay. Thanks for clearing that up."

Now that is a premium rant by Tyler Kent. Bravo!

Again, why is your anger so powerful that you rage at me, calling me names? If you disagree with my interpretation, so be it. If you don't like my attitude or sarcasm, you are certainly free to express yourself. You can also hit the button labeled report abuse and complain to Minyanville. But to resort to outrageous name calling as you have done is childish and petty.

If you don't like my comments, ignore them. Or respond to them in a civil manner. But your personal attack against me is uncalled for. My comments were directed towards the author. If you read his response to me, he didn't seem very angry. Don't you think he should be an equal judge of whether I was offensive? If he says I was, I will most certainly apologize. So why are you so very angry? Clearly you have issues elsewhere and it appears I have brought them to the surface.

I felt the author was too one sided in his vilification of appraisers. If someone is going to be critical, I feel they should be willing to be critical on both sides, including when it's not to the benefit of the critic.

For example, I said… So if the author feels that appraisers are now over correcting to the down side, why didn't he call the appraisers incompetent when they were overshooting to the up side? Why is it only incompetence when they under appraise and not when they over appraise.

Notice that I was talking about the authors' use of the term incompetence. While he did say that there were problem with appraisers on both sides of the boom, why did he feel that incompetence was only exhibited on the downside. So pumping up the appraisal isn't incompetent? It was a reasonable question and still is. I don't feel this author was being honest with himself or to others.

And I do have solutions to offer and I have offered them repeatedly. But those solutions start with the removal our own denial of where the problems lay. We as American citizens exhibit a cognitive dissonance regarding our economy and our country. When things are going well and we're all making money, many of us ignore these problems.

We say things like, it's someone else's problem. I don't have time. What's the big deal? It's not for me to say. All I want is my piece. And so on. It's only when the bubble burst that many people start pointing fingers and complaining. But they never complain about themselves or their inaction, outright enabling or complacency.

I was complaining to everyone and anyone about the corruption, whether it was the financial markets, real estate, elections and so on. This included hundreds if not thousands of letters to Congress people, regulators, 2 different administrations, local governments, even protests and civil disobedience.

And for the most part I was ignored and it fell on deaf ears. No one listens to an activist when times are good. But more importantly, no one listens to an activist when times are bad because what the activist is saying cuts too close to home. Truth is usually seen as anything other than truth, particularly when times are bad.

People don't wish to face their involvement in the problems we are facing. Nor do they wish to accept the cost and responsibility for fixing the problems. What they really want is for it to just go away. To be fixed. For things to go back to the way they were.

It's not going to happen this time. The party is over. And until the average American shakes off their denial, we will continue to be abused by those we allow to stay in power. Regardless of if you wish to hear this or not won't change the reality. We allow our leaders to treat us this way. We accept what we are told pretty much at face value. God forbid if we ask real questions. Then we might just have to deal with the answers.

You should go back and read you rant sometime Tyler. There are far more ad hominen attacks in your rant towards me than I could ever be accused of producing. I admit that I can be a jerk, a smart aleck and not very likeable at times.

Can you?

"Again, why is your anger so powerful that you rage at me, calling me names?"

Asked and answered.

"If you disagree with my interpretation, so be it. If you don't like my attitude or sarcasm, you are certainly free to express yourself. You can also hit the button labeled report abuse and complain to Minyanville. But to resort to outrageous name calling as you have done is childish and petty."

OF COURSE it was childish and petty. That was the whole point! You LIED about what the author said, and are still lying about it, THAT is why I wrote to you in such an obviously and intentionally childish, petty, rude manner. To highlight those very characterisitics in your own post. Don't like it when it's aimed at you instead of coming from you, eh? You still refuse to hear clear words. It's not "an attitude" for which I attacked you, and it was certainly not for using sarcasm, a venerable tool of rhetoric.

"If you don't like my comments, ignore them."
Not a chance. Spout that kind of garbage and reap the stink.

"Or respond to them in a civil manner."
I am doing so now. THIS post from you contains none of the lying, putting-words-in-others-mouths and ad hominem smears in the prior ones. As I said, I will gladly debate any point with you anytime, in a decent, rational and civilized manner. Good debate, using FACTS and defending educated opinion, is the only course possible if any republic is to stand. On the flip side, using innuendo and smear and attacking the messenger for not being worthy as you did in your post is sewage and leads society there.

"But your personal attack against me is uncalled for."
Hardly. It was highly necessary. "For evil to triumph, good men must merely do nothing."

"My comments were directed towards the author. If you read his response to me, he didn't seem very angry. Don't you think he should be an equal judge of whether I was offensive?"

Certainly every man must play his cards as he sees them. Professor Jeffrey chose to be gracious, and find some positive way to respond. You will note that he does refute both of your lies. First, he clearly defines (again, as it is easily inferred from the article) his view that a GOOD appraisal is one that matches the real value of the property, contrary to your initial insinuation (later stated plainly) that he only considered "high" appraisals good. This is the same point I made to you, and that Amy said in less direct fashion, but you STILL don't admit that you lied about his view and, further, slanderously imputed base motives to him. Second, he reminds you that he has written for along time about the problems in his industry and the growing one with shoddy appraisals. A real life example. And you still think your slap at him as "tarring a whole profession is venom disguised as opinion" is warranted?

His decision to respond mildly rather than forcefully does not detract from the filthy nature of your post insinuating that his article was self-serving, that he himself was corrupt, and that he only wanted "high" appraisals that allowed closings to proceed. That he didn't complain or directly challenge your defamation is irrelevant to whether you did it. I know people that send money to every charity mailing, who who not only don't complain but even defend the good intentions of these keepers of 95% of donations. They are nevertheless being preyed upon. Wives (and some husbands) are known to be gracious to their spouse even after repeated beatings. Doesn't re-characterize the beatings as love taps.

"If he says I was, I will most certainly apologize."
Well there's an empty promise, since he already chose to sidestep your slander. As is usual when such behavior is not forcefully challenged by the recipient of abuse, the perpetrator (that would be you) thinks he has done nothing wrong.

"So why are you so very angry? Clearly you have issues elsewhere and it appears I have brought them to the surface."
Yep. When things go "too far" I call out the bad guy. Maybe I was a cop or h*llfire and d@mnation preacher in a past life. When I see a batch of young punks kicking garbage cans down and strewing the garbage onto the street, I walk over and give 'em what for. And they pick up the garbage. That happened on the after-hours streets of San Diego, me alone against 4 fit 22 year-olds, and it is happening right now. To you. Pick up the garbage.

"I felt the author was too one sided in his vilification of appraisers." There are so many things wrong with that statement that a thorough explication will take a while.

1. You are free to feel what you like. It is no defense for bad behavior, but it is exquisitely human. In fact, most people can't help what they feel, it is emotion after all. But when you ACT BADLY based on feelings, you get told to stop it and clean up your mess. And if you keep up the bad behavior, you get spanked.

2. It is sophistry and repetitive to say "too one-sided in his vilification." Duh. How can vilification be anything BUT one-sided? Do you actually pretend that one can be a moderate and balanced slanderer?

3. Here, you're treading on thin ice with phrases like "his vilification of appraisers" - no, you broke the ice. YOU ARE LYING AGAIN. Stop it.

4. He did not vilify anyone, he told the TRUTH about what's going on, which is exactly the opposite of vilification. Go read a dictionary: vilify v.t. "to utter slanderous and abusive statements against" [defame]. It is YOU doing the vilifying, once again demonstrating your habit of doing the very thing for which you accuse others. That is not civil, it is not discourse, it is POISON. And still you whimper "Why are you so angry with me?"

"If someone is going to be critical, I feel they should be willing to be critical on both sides, including when it's not to the benefit of the critic."
Agreed. And he was. As his article clearly showed, as his many past writings have shown, as was pointed out to you repeatedly by fellow Minyans. Man up, and admit that you done him wrong!

"For example, I said… So if the author feels that appraisers are now over correcting to the down side, why didn't he call the appraisers incompetent when they were overshooting to the up side? Why is it only incompetence when they under appraise and not when they over appraise."
Asked and answered, previous post to you. What is it with you and repeating your own words, over and again? I answered this junk the first time, you are wasting time.

"Notice that I was talking about the authors' use of the term incompetence. While he did say that there were problem with appraisers on both sides of the boom, why did he feel that incompetence was only exhibited on the downside."
Comments like this are exactly why you elicit being called willfully stupid.
1. The author didn't "feel" incompetence was exhibited, HE OBSERVED IT. He wrote a nice example for you in his response, in small words even you should be able to understand - except you are to busy defending your indefensible spew to notice that he corrected you.
2. To ask why the author felt that incompetence was ONLY exhibited on the downside demonstrates willful twisting of the authors words. He never said there was no incompetence during the boom, nor did he imply that the incompetence had anything to do with "high" or "low" times. He did point out the reason incompetence is currently on the rise: mass production of cut-rate, lowest bidder, fast-food level companies that are increasingly the source for appraisers, and these are of like mind and performance.

"So pumping up the appraisal isn't incompetent?"
What the f*ck does competence have to do with it? It is dirty, and dishonest, whether pumped up or lowballed. But one can cheat competently.

"It was a reasonable question and still is. I don't feel this author was being honest with himself or to others."
Well, I don't "feel" you are a liar, I know it and have shown it to be so. Your question was not only not reasonable, it was and is insolent as well as childish and petty.

"And I do have solutions to offer and I have offered them repeatedly."
Oh? For claiming to be an "investment advisor" you sure haven't shared much insight that I've ever seen. Want to point me to the post(s) where you offer some market analysis? maybe a trade, maybe a warnoff to a given sector or stock? Or, if your "solutions" were of a more general or societal nature, where are the posts?

"But those solutions start with the removal our own denial of where the problems lay."
Well, yes, duh. And I say to you and your lying, smearing slanderous habit: Physician, heal thyself.

"We as American citizens exhibit a cognitive dissonance regarding our economy and our country."
Not in my acquaintance. Of course, I'm not one of your fellow travelers.

"When things are going well and we're all making money, many of us ignore these problems.
We say things like, it's someone else's problem. I don't have time. What's the big deal? It's not for me to say. All I want is my piece. And so on. It's only when the bubble burst that many people start pointing fingers and complaining. But they never complain about themselves or their inaction, outright enabling or complacency."
Oh, good, more self-righteous drivel from Mr. Holier-than-Thou. Well, these behaviors you describe may obtain in your circles, I wouldn't be surprised. And I really couldn't care less if you "complain" about your inaction or enabling - just fix it.

"I was complaining to everyone and anyone about the corruption, whether it was the financial markets, real estate, elections and so on. This included hundreds if not thousands of letters to Congress people, regulators, 2 different administrations, local governments, even protests and civil disobedience."
Considering your constant whining and complaining demonstrated on MV, I have no trouble believing this. Still waiting for something constructive...

"And for the most part I was ignored and it fell on deaf ears. No one listens to an activist when times are good. But more importantly, no one listens to an activist when times are bad because what the activist is saying cuts too close to home. Truth is usually seen as anything other than truth, particularly when times are bad."
I didn't think the self-important drivel could get any more pompous. I stand corrected. Still looking around for one of those "solutions" you have "repeatedly" offered... and beginning to eye the exit, I have limited patience for diarrhea...

"People don't wish to face their involvement in the problems we are facing."
You mean, like YOU accepting responsibility for making things worse by helping put The Anointed One up to where He thinks He's there to decide to "allow" me to keep my own health insurance? To start nationalizing auto companies and tossing hundreds of years of bankruptcy law on its ear? To nominate not one, not two, but ELEVEN taxcheats to high office, one of which is running the IRS? To break any hope of paying off our national debt in less than a century? To kneecap our energy situation with Cap-and-trade? To make race relations worse than ever? To divide us along lines of class and race?

"Nor do they wish to accept the cost and responsibility for fixing the problems. What they really want is for it to just go away. To be fixed. For things to go back to the way they were.
It's not going to happen this time. The party is over. And until the average American shakes off their denial, we will continue to be abused by those we allow to stay in power. Regardless of if you wish to hear this or not won't change the reality. We allow our leaders to treat us this way. We accept what we are told pretty much at face value. God forbid if we ask real questions. Then we might just have to deal with the answers."

Blather, drivel, pap and whine. Real Americans love a fight, and fight for what they think is right. There's just not many of us. That's probably why you're so surprised to find someone actually calling you on your BS.

"You should go back and read you rant sometime Tyler. There are far more ad hominen attacks in your rant towards me than I could ever be accused of producing. I admit that I can be a jerk, a smart aleck and not very likeable at times."

I read my rant over and edited it carefully before posting. I missed one typo, but other than that I said what I meant and I meant what I said, hyperbole aside. I am extremely likable, and very open and friendly, when appropriate. When and if you man up, it is possible that we could be friends. But I don't buddy up to crybabies and I don't excuse bratty behavior, much less behavior that damages my liberty or my country. Your slanderous spewings regarding this Professor have still not stopped, much less been redressed, and the atmosphere of underhanded doublespeak and intellectual dishonesty you thereby inculcate earns nothing but contempt.

Pick up the garbage.

Clearly you are a very angry man. Have a good day Tyler.

I'm trying to make sense of this whole thing with the appraisal issue. And yes, it is close to "home", as we are in the process of buying at this time.

I'm still not sure I understand the idea of just comparing a house next to "normal" house sales, without taking into account the local short sales and foreclosures. Sure, they drive the local market value "down", but isn't that is what is supposed to happen during the deflationary phase of this housing bubble - to readjust to "real" values?

I can fully appreciate the comments about non-local appraisers not being able to accurately judge the current local market, but once again, is it becasue the local market may be completely out of synch? I'm in the Seattle area, and pricing here, although is has declined somewhat (14-20%), prices here are still what "normal" folks from the rest of the "real world" would consider too high. I have to say I had sticker shock when I got here. You couldn't buy a non-livable trailer for under $200k.

I don't see how many houses appraise for what they are sold for in today's market, but then again, that's my personal opinion and bias. That is where a good appraiser needs to be different. They need to leave the personal bias out, and compare to the true market value. And from what I'm reading, perhaps this is not the case currently?

Bill -- you hit the nail on the head. The key to a good appraisal (other any home valuation) is being unbiased. This requires a trait broadly missing in most parts of the real estate industry: Integrity.

There is no doubt short sales and foreclosures need to be taken into an appraisal, it's a question of doing it properly and making it a reasonable part of the analysis. Good luck in the home search process!

Thanks, I did. I will have an even better vacation, and wish you the same.

Clearly, you are a very cowardly liar. I wish you the best of luck. You will need it, lacking any integrity.

A friendly thought - admit victory.

I'm not saying you're off-base or wrong, I've already had first-hand experience with his substitution of ad hominem attacks for substantive reasoning and avoidance of answering fact, I just humbly suggest that it ain't worth the effort. Can't teach an old dog (or even weasel in lion's clothes) new tricks.

Kudos for coolness. I doubt I could have navigated that minefield without blowing up.