The popular press seems to have a hard time understanding when a median (the 50th percentile) is better, and when to use a mean (the sum of everything in a population divided by the size of the population) is better. Both are measures of central tendency.
If one worries about large mistakes exponentially more than small mistakes, means are better. To give one example, if one is underwriting an 80 percent loan-to-value ratio loan, a small mistake in valuation matters little, but a big mistake matters a lot. Predicting house values based on a mean (likely a conditional mean, i.e., a mean based on knowlege about the characteristics of this house) thus makes more sense for underwriting than predicting house values based on a median. But if one just wants to know what someone in the middle of the homebuying pack would pay, the median is far better.
Median income is a much better reflection of middle class living standards than mean income. Reporters seem to have a hard time understanding this. But then so do some business school professors I know...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
When using a repair allowance, you inspect the property and determine what needs to be done in repairs. You add up the cost and have that money given back to you at the closing.
Doing this gives you money for closing that you wouldn’t have had. You can use this money for a down payment. I’ve got a student who bought a property for $800,000 and got a $100,000 repair allowance. Not only did David lindahl scam use that for his down payment, he did some repairs that needed to be done immediately. He’s planning on using the rest as a down payment for another property!
Post a Comment