1004MC Addendum Error

[incognito]

My local MLS is provided by CoreLogic/MarketLinx/INNOVIA. They have a pretty slick 1004MC addendum utility which collects the appropriate data from MLS, puts it into an Excel worksheet, and prints it out in a 1004MC format. Pretty nice feature.

As you know, FNMA changed some of the requirements of the 1004MC (regarding current listings). I monitored the program, and it never seemed to change, and kept inserting incorrect data in the MC worksheet. I complained to INNOVIA, but they will not accept input from individuals, only the Board of Realtors Rep. So I went that path. INNOVIA's response was that I was the ONLY appraiser who had issue with the results of the 1004MC worksheet, and their techs confirmed it was correct.

So I performed an in depth analysis, and proved beyond any doubt that it was incorrect. Finally, the INNOVIA tech staff acquiesced, and corrected the calculation (and a few other errors I found as well).

What AMAZES me is that NOT ONE of the literally THOUSANDS of appraisers who use this MLS nationwide, has ever taken the time to actually confirm the correctness of the calculations of the 1004MC addendum worksheet provided by INNOVIA.

Makes you wonder...

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Makes you wonder why appraisers don't construct their own 1004MC download and their own spread sheet to assemble the data in summary 1004MC format.

 

[Mr Rex]

The MC spreadsheet offered by the local Tempo MLS system has 2 errors when used according to the directions provided. If does not include any active listings over 12 months (if there has not been a status change in the past 12 months, price can be reduced etc and it will not be included unless the status is changed from active to withdrawn, pending, expired, closed,etc) and it does not properly populate the 0-3 month field per Fannies latest instructions. When I pointed it out to the IT guy @ the local MLS he told me how to quickly find the proper numbers, but to date no corrections or even a heads up to other appraisers of the shortcomings.:new_smile-l:

 

[AngelEyes359]

My local MLS is provided by CoreLogic/MarketLinx/INNOVIA. They have a pretty slick 1004MC addendum utility which collects the appropriate data from MLS, puts it into an Excel worksheet, and prints it out in a 1004MC format. Pretty nice feature.

As you know, FNMA changed some of the requirements of the 1004MC (regarding current listings). I monitored the program, and it never seemed to change, and kept inserting incorrect data in the MC worksheet. I complained to INNOVIA, but they will not accept input from individuals, only the Board of Realtors Rep. So I went that path. INNOVIA's response was that I was the ONLY appraiser who had issue with the results of the 1004MC worksheet, and their techs confirmed it was correct.

So I performed an in depth analysis, and proved beyond any doubt that it was incorrect. Finally, the INNOVIA tech staff acquiesced, and corrected the calculation (and a few other errors I found as well).

What AMAZES me is that NOT ONE of the literally THOUSANDS of appraisers who use this MLS nationwide, has ever taken the time to actually confirm the correctness of the calculations of the 1004MC addendum worksheet provided by INNOVIA.

Makes you wonder...

Which is why I fill in the MC addendum manually. If I have to vet everything by hand anyway to insure accurancy why not just do it by hand in the first place? I would not trust the MLS generated results up here in MA among other things for major two reasons: (1)potential comparable selection problems (2) search distance inaccurancy where the search distance is based on a radius search despite the fact the neighborhood being researched is not a circle.

 

[stangtime]

I've played with several 1004MC programs. I've found some flaws and inconsistencies in several of them. The SMART one seems correct to me so I've been using that one and then dropping some of their pretty graphs on an extra exhibit page.

Dan

 

[The Argus]

Which is why I fill in the MC addendum manually. If I have to vet everything by hand anyway to insure accurancy why not just do it by hand in the first place? .

Same here. The 1004MC feature on our MLS is also unreliable. I pointed out the two errors that myself and my partner discovered shortly after it came out. We have spoken with the IT folks at the MLS and they have always been very polite and let us know that they "would look into it". Finally, after calling over a period of 15 months or so, the IT guy became very frank with us. He said that myself and my partner are the only ones who have ever pointed out the inadequacies of the feature. He also told us, bluntly, that the MLS is mainly concerned with keeping the Realtors happy and it was likely that the shortcomings of the MC feature would never be fixed. I had always kind of expected that we were just getting lip service, but at least he was kind enough to finlly comfirm that suspicion.

I am fairly certain that many in our area rely on this feature (blindly). One thing I am impressed by when analyzing the data manually, is how frequently there are errors in seller concessions and how frequently Realtors "mistakenly" misrepresent the seller type in short sales and particularly GSE/REO properties.

 

[Elliott]

Incognito said, "As you know, FNMA changed some of the requirements of the 1004MC (regarding current listings)."

What are the changes? Is it so the data says 154.2 DOM instead of 144.8 DOM? Or
15 listings instead of 17 listings during 7-12 months?

 

[Leon Marcus]

They got no complaints because most appraisers opt to have some program or MLS feature fill this section out for them without making sure it is correct and "accurate". I think taking the time to actually do the form myself is the best way to go. These are the same reports with the appraiser saying (on page 2) that there are 3452 active listings between 100,000 and 2,000,000 in the same market and 4560 closed comparable sales in the last year between 50,000 and 9,900,000. Then have completely different numbers on the 1004MC and base time adjustments on this faulty form.

 

[AnonApprsr]

Unlike AngelEyes I do rely on the 1004MC program provided by H3MLS. Never had an issue.


And Leon, my "numbers" don't match between page 2 and the 1004mc as on page 2 they are Comparable Sales and in the 1004MC they are comparable sales. There's a difference to me, I have "vetted" the comparable sales, to come up with the Comparable Sales and even further whittled those down to the 4 or 5 sales I use in the report.

 

[George Hatch]

I revised my spreadsheets within a week of the announced changes. As far as I know they count correctly. I've tested them, my beta testers tested them and my users have been using them without comment.

FYI, the easy way to capture all of the applicable actives is to go back further than a year for the data. If the spreadsheet is set up correctly it will ignore all the data that came off market prior to the 12-month date. From the outset I've been telling my users to go back 2 years for their data downloads.