1004mc

[ucbruin]

Well the data populated in the form can be misleading. Misleading or suggest a trend that is not what is actually going on in the market. Which is why I believe that we must do additional analysis. Can't just look at the data in the MC form and start checking boxes.

When it comes to the number of sales and listings my MC matches page 1 and top of page 2.

When it comes to trend it doesn't always match. And even though it must match I won't say it does when I don't believe it does. So when I have this situation, I just explain with my boilerplate comment.

 

[ucbruin]

Well the data populated in the form can be misleading. Misleading or suggest a trend that is not what is actually going on in the market. Which is why I believe that we must do additional analysis. Can't just look at the data in the MC form and start checking boxes.

When it comes to the number of sales and listings my MC matches page 1 and top of page 2.

When it comes to trend it doesn't always match. And even though it must match I won't say it does when I don't believe it does. So when I have this situation, I just explain with my boilerplate comment.

 

[J Grant]

Fannie Mae should define a neighborhood with specificity. Since they won't do that I will continue to do as I have always done, the best I can. I am inspecting a property today that has had 3 sales in past year. None of the 3 sales support the sales price of the subject. The "Neighborhood" next door has had many sales in the past year. I will use the 3 from subject neighborhood an a like amount from the neighborhood next door, and explain why, and the data on the 1004MC will present a misleading picture of the subjects market, but fully explained so the reader knows exactly what I have done. That way, I will have produced a "Credible" appraisal report.

You pick comps if they support a sale price? If the 3 sales are comps and not just sales, then maybe subject sale price is over valued.
A physical boundary neighborhood, as defined by Fannie and ourselves, may or may not be the place where our best comps are. We can start a search in the subject neighborhood and then do an additional wider area search, or start with a wider area search and then do a more narrow, focused on neighborhood search. But at some point, a search for sales/listing would include the neighborhood...whether comps are found there or not.

 

[J Grant]

When it comes to the number of sales and listings my MC matches page 1 and top of page 2.

When it comes to trend it doesn't always match. And even though it must match I won't say it does when I don't believe it does. So when I have this situation, I just explain with my boilerplate comment.

Then you are doing it wrong and if your report gets in problem later with a buy back or other issues, providing an explanation of a boiler plate comment won' cut it. You are deliberately choosing not to match the trend on page one with result of MC form analysis, even though know the Fannie directive is that the trend section on page one must match results of MC form analysis.

 

[J Grant]

When it comes to the number of sales and listings my MC matches page 1 and top of page 2.
When it comes to trend it doesn't always match. And even though it must match I won't say it does when I don't believe it does. So when I have this situation, I just explain with my boilerplate comment.

It doesn't always match is because YOU choose not to make it match. YOU control whether trends on page one matches MC form/comp search ANALYSIS (the analysis, when grid MC data alone is too scant ). You are choosing to do it wrong even though this exhaustive thread leaves no doubt how it should be done.

 

[J Grant]

Here's how you win the argument for the page 1 and 1004 must match folks. Note: could not care less which way do it.
Every assignment they take on, they ask/confirm if it is being sold to FNMA or requires FNMA FAQ to be followed.
If they do not inquire/confirm, then their report is extremely misleading.....if no why, what , how included.
I'm a credit union, I may or may not hold my own paper. I may sell my paper to Japan, I may not. I order a 1004.
You assume, FNMA FAQ. I assume you followed pre-printed instructions of the form I have in my hands.
So the FNMA followers produce 2 diff reports. 1 for FNMA clients. 1 for non-FNMA and they ask ahead of time.
They are Liers if they say they mass produce 2 different analyses....correctly.

The appraiser has no idea if a client will sell a loan to FNMA at any point ( even if you call and ask and the contact person says they will keep it in house. That person may not know either, or believe it to stay in house only to find it gets sold later). If a client has zero intention of selling to FNMA, they would not be ordering an appraisal on a URAR form with an MC form. So why do it wrong, based on possibility the loan will never go to FNMA? Why would you want to gamble like that with your livelihood, why not do it right?

 

[Elliott]

ibee said, Do you prepare the 1004MC and if is has limited to no information so be it and you state that that there is insufficient information from which to draw conclusions?

I try to expand my parameters so I'm working with about 50 sales, listings, and pendings for a standard property. If I'm doing a property with a limited market, I usually try to set parameters so I get at least a dozen. UAD checkers can't stand zeros and division by zero, so its best to set parameters to at least get rid of them. And that's all I know about the MC form. No AMC or UW has ever said boo about the MC to me.

 

[residentialguy]

When it comes to trend it doesn't always match. And even though it must match I won't say it does when I don't believe it does. So when I have this situation, I just explain with my boilerplate comment.

What doesn't always match? The data on the left of it or the trend box on page 1?

 

[residentialguy]

I try to expand my parameters so I'm working with about 50 sales, listings, and pendings for a standard property. If I'm doing a property with a limited market, I usually try to set parameters so I get at least a dozen. UAD checkers can't stand zeros and division by zero, so its best to set parameters to at least get rid of them. And that's all I know about the MC form. No AMC or UW has ever said boo about the MC to me.

Do you mean for the subject comp data on the left side of the form or for the trend boxes to the right of it?

 

[DWiley]

ibee said, Do you prepare the 1004MC and if is has limited to no information so be it and you state that that there is insufficient information from which to draw conclusions?

I try to expand my parameters so I'm working with about 50 sales, listings, and pendings for a standard property. If I'm doing a property with a limited market, I usually try to set parameters so I get at least a dozen. UAD checkers can't stand zeros and division by zero, so its best to set parameters to at least get rid of them. And that's all I know about the MC form. No AMC or UW has ever said boo about the MC to me.

The Fannie FAQ specifically says not to expand he parameters just to have more data in the grid. I have completed many 1004MC data grids showing all zeros. Not a problem.

The correct way to handle this is NOT to expand the search parameters. Rather one needs to supplement the 1004MC data grid with additional information.

By the way, having all zeroes in the 1004MC data grid can provide support for why the appraiser had to use sales form outside the neighborhood or sales of properties that are not truly comparable.

Conversely, expanding parameters just to have data in the 1004MC grid can make a report seem contradictory. I have seen that in many reports. The grid has less than ideal data, and the comments address the lack of data, but the 1004MC indicats plenty of comparable sales in the subject's neighborhood. Tell the same story in every section of the report. If the grid indicates data is sparse, so should the 1004MC data grid.