Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Bugs
ParticipantIf we want to address health care we also need to address the civil tort system that turns a serious problem into a catasrophic problem. Doing one without the other is not only ineffective it’s hypocritical.
The primary reason health care is so expensive that we can’t just give it away to everyone is because there are waaaay too many attornies and professional victims who equate a doctor’s visit to a lottery ticket.
Universal health care isn’t about providing the best coverage to everyone – it’s about providing a servicable level of care, even though mistakes and deficiencies will sometimes occur as a result. Holding everyone to the gold standard is the reason these doctors have to order all those expensive tests even though 95% of the time they aren’t necessary. The doctors spend too much time, effort and money for CYA.
For those people who have both the desire and the means for the gold standard they can always pay the extra. Everyone else gets the Walter Reed version; not perfect but about equal to what you’d get in any other country with universal health care.
That, and we need to put some teeth into the disciplinary boards and agencies that are charged with regulating the professional practice of these care providers. We wouldn’t view litigation lotto as being the primary mode of control over substandard health care providers if the government would enforce the existing laws and regulations that already apply.
But I don’t wanna hear any noise about addressing only half the problem to the exclusion and benefit of the other half.
ParticipantIf we want to address health care we also need to address the civil tort system that turns a serious problem into a catasrophic problem. Doing one without the other is not only ineffective it’s hypocritical.
The primary reason health care is so expensive that we can’t just give it away to everyone is because there are waaaay too many attornies and professional victims who equate a doctor’s visit to a lottery ticket.
Universal health care isn’t about providing the best coverage to everyone – it’s about providing a servicable level of care, even though mistakes and deficiencies will sometimes occur as a result. Holding everyone to the gold standard is the reason these doctors have to order all those expensive tests even though 95% of the time they aren’t necessary. The doctors spend too much time, effort and money for CYA.
For those people who have both the desire and the means for the gold standard they can always pay the extra. Everyone else gets the Walter Reed version; not perfect but about equal to what you’d get in any other country with universal health care.
That, and we need to put some teeth into the disciplinary boards and agencies that are charged with regulating the professional practice of these care providers. We wouldn’t view litigation lotto as being the primary mode of control over substandard health care providers if the government would enforce the existing laws and regulations that already apply.
But I don’t wanna hear any noise about addressing only half the problem to the exclusion and benefit of the other half.
ParticipantIt’s their money so I guess you could say they can decide to do whatever they want to do.
Think about it – if you were a lender and you were operating in a known declining market, wouldn’t you take steps to reduce your exposure to those declines? I know I would.
No bank can decide on their own what the appraised value is, regardless is the market is increasing or decreasing. An appraiser’s opinion of value is their own to determine. Now a lender can decide they don’t agree with an appraiser and express their own opinion, but that’s nowhere near the same thing as that lender reducing the appraised value – they’re just reducing how much they’ll loan on that value.
The only exception to this is if the lender employs or contracts with an appraiser to conduct reviews of appraisals. It’s very possible and indeed common for a review appraiser to agree with some appraisals and disagree with others. In the case where they disagree and come up with a lower value conclusion they have to support that.
But on the appraisal or appraisal review side none of what happens is supposed to be a matter of whim or client dicate. Reviewers are just as liable for what they say as appraisers are; and a reviewer can lose their appraisal license if they allow their client or their company to pressure them into “lowballing” appraisals just as readily as if they’re stretching values.
FTR, I hadn’t heard any news of WF arbitrarily reducing appraisals. What’s far more likely is their reviewers have gotten more serious about the trash they were previously accepting and have started rejecting those appraisals. In other words, they’re being allowed to do their jobs instead of just rubber stamping marginal work like they were before.
ParticipantIt’s their money so I guess you could say they can decide to do whatever they want to do.
Think about it – if you were a lender and you were operating in a known declining market, wouldn’t you take steps to reduce your exposure to those declines? I know I would.
No bank can decide on their own what the appraised value is, regardless is the market is increasing or decreasing. An appraiser’s opinion of value is their own to determine. Now a lender can decide they don’t agree with an appraiser and express their own opinion, but that’s nowhere near the same thing as that lender reducing the appraised value – they’re just reducing how much they’ll loan on that value.
The only exception to this is if the lender employs or contracts with an appraiser to conduct reviews of appraisals. It’s very possible and indeed common for a review appraiser to agree with some appraisals and disagree with others. In the case where they disagree and come up with a lower value conclusion they have to support that.
But on the appraisal or appraisal review side none of what happens is supposed to be a matter of whim or client dicate. Reviewers are just as liable for what they say as appraisers are; and a reviewer can lose their appraisal license if they allow their client or their company to pressure them into “lowballing” appraisals just as readily as if they’re stretching values.
FTR, I hadn’t heard any news of WF arbitrarily reducing appraisals. What’s far more likely is their reviewers have gotten more serious about the trash they were previously accepting and have started rejecting those appraisals. In other words, they’re being allowed to do their jobs instead of just rubber stamping marginal work like they were before.
June 28, 2007 at 10:36 AM in reply to: Finally some evidence the banks are slashing repo prices #62729ParticipantIn answer to your question about what happens when performing appraisals in a market that’s heavy with foreclosure and short sales, the answer is that it depends.
If there are only a couple of those types of sales and they don’t have much impact on what the typical buyers and sellers are doing then we ignore them. Once the numbers of these sales increase to the point where a typical buyer can pretty much count on finding one upon demand they comprise their own market and start influencing the liquidity of the higher non-stressed market. Once there are enough of them that the non-stressed sales are directly competing, the REOs drive the market.
It’s all about trends. Appraisers aren’t supposed to be picking the 3 highest or 3 lowest sales, but the sales that best represent the dominant trend. In the market’s your describing, these stressed sales are becoming common enough that they are the trend so that makes them the most representative sales to use in an appraisal.
Put another way, if a lender were to have problems with a loan, what could they expect to get back from the sale of their collateral?
June 28, 2007 at 10:36 AM in reply to: Finally some evidence the banks are slashing repo prices #62778ParticipantIn answer to your question about what happens when performing appraisals in a market that’s heavy with foreclosure and short sales, the answer is that it depends.
If there are only a couple of those types of sales and they don’t have much impact on what the typical buyers and sellers are doing then we ignore them. Once the numbers of these sales increase to the point where a typical buyer can pretty much count on finding one upon demand they comprise their own market and start influencing the liquidity of the higher non-stressed market. Once there are enough of them that the non-stressed sales are directly competing, the REOs drive the market.
It’s all about trends. Appraisers aren’t supposed to be picking the 3 highest or 3 lowest sales, but the sales that best represent the dominant trend. In the market’s your describing, these stressed sales are becoming common enough that they are the trend so that makes them the most representative sales to use in an appraisal.
Put another way, if a lender were to have problems with a loan, what could they expect to get back from the sale of their collateral?
ParticipantSpring selling season is over. They have to move inventory. Just wait until Fall; then you’ll see some real movement.
ParticipantSpring selling season is over. They have to move inventory. Just wait until Fall; then you’ll see some real movement.
June 27, 2007 at 8:57 AM in reply to: Finally some evidence the banks are slashing repo prices #62420ParticipantIt was never a question of “IF”, but of “WHEN”.
June 27, 2007 at 8:57 AM in reply to: Finally some evidence the banks are slashing repo prices #62467ParticipantIt was never a question of “IF”, but of “WHEN”.
ParticipantI was raised in the OC and moved here in 1990.
ParticipantI was raised in the OC and moved here in 1990.
ParticipantSorry, but it doesn’t appear as though most boomers have vision that extends beyond the end of their noses. They don’t call us the “Me Generation” for nothing.
ParticipantSorry, but it doesn’t appear as though most boomers have vision that extends beyond the end of their noses. They don’t call us the “Me Generation” for nothing.
-
AuthorPosts