Software to Crunch numbers for 1004MC

[Mike Congemi]

How is everyone crunching the numbers for the new 1004MC. I purchased a nifty softwae that works in conjunction with Excel. It is called MLS Analyzer, it crunches the numbers, fills out the form, and created great visual charts that can be imported into the report. Pete Miller from WPM & Associates turned me onto this software. Pete's number is 314-838-4957. I have attached some of the sample files

Mike Congemi

[Dan Wilson, RAA]

Ok it looks good, but a question or two.
What numbers do you export from the MLS and How?
What if there is only a few sales?
How do I get this to look at?
Can you show an Excel with the number?
Does it export to the 1004MC form?

Good information please keep it coming.

[Mike Congemi]

Dan,

I 'm glad you like the charts. I have attached the excel output hopefully it will come through ok. If it does not come through correctly I can post pdf files. Currently this sofware works with MARIS in the St. Louis area, 4 MLS in Wisconsin, Several MLS serivces in Georgia, and a couple MLS services in Florida and the Carolinas. You would need to download to a csv or txt file from MLS service you need actie listings, solds for the past 2 years, DOM and seller concessions, foreclosures if available. Then you access the downloaded file in MLS Analyzer it analyzes the data and opens it up into an excel file like I have attached. You can download a 30 day trial from www.georgiaappraiser.com click on MLS Analyzer on Main page. From your profile I see that you are in the KC area so I do not know if it will work with that MLS service. If you contact me off line at 770-331-8066 I can discuss with you and download a sample to figure it out.

Your question about what if there are few sales? Your question deals more with statistical analysis than the software. In statisitcs if you have a small sample then it is difficult to identify a trend, and in fact the instructions at the top of the 1004MC, state tht if enough data is not avaialable then you need to explain. An example of this is most data services cannot give you the number of active listings that existed in the past, so unknown is placed in the boxes and make a comment in the form.

Hope this helps, call or email with questions
Mike Congemi
Licensed Appraiser MO & GA
770-331-8066
Here's to measuring sticks and bricks

[Dan Wilson, RAA]

Thanks for the information. I have an 1004MC class on Monday that is put on by Alamode. I might be getting back with you after that.

By the way thanks for joining the group and hope that you pass the word to others to join. The more the better. Also look at the headers because there are some good information on the added sites.

The NAR blog has things that pop up that can be interesting.

Again thanks for joining.

[David Doering]

If I may add my two-cents worth on this:

I have reviewed a number of the spreadsheets that are available and have talked with a number of appraisers regarding the new 1004MC. One thing that appraisers need to be cognizant of is that the information that is being requested on the 1004MC may differ from what is being reported in the Neighborhood section (Page 1 URAR).

The reason is that the Neighborhood section of the URAR addresses the trend information for One-Unit Housing in the neighborhood as a whole, while the 1004MC specifically deals with the statistics and trend information for "Comparable Sales" and Comparable Listings" to the subject in the subject neighborhood. Since "Comparable Sales" and "Comparable Listings" are effectively a subset of the "One-Unit" housing statistics for the neighborhood, it is possible that the result of the "Neighborhood" analysis and the "Comparable" property analysis may be different. However, that being said, the 1004MC should support the information reported with respect to the number of "comparable sales" and "comparable listings" and range of prices reported at the top of page 2 of the URAR.

Fannie Mae's insertion of the word "comparable" into the 1004MC form (whether intentional or inadvertent) necessitates the appraiser to analyze two sets of data and support both a macro neighborhood conclusion and a subject specific comparable property analysis.

This is the reason that a clear understanding of the available data and the use of an intermediary analytical tool (spreadsheet) is helpful, if not imperative. Further, I have found that most MLS systems (including MARIS) do not currently have the capacity to produce a report that will properly allow the appraiser to delineate the output necessary to complete the 1004MC. However, MARIS does allow for the exporting of a CMA that can give the raw data that is importable into an Excel type spreadsheet.

The bottom line is that the 1004MC has been presented as "something that appraisers should already be doing" but in fact requires not only the analysis of additional data, but changes the scope of work for the appraisal assignment by requiring that the documentation be included as an additional exhibit in the appraisal.

The 1004 URAR was originally developed to be used as a "Summary Appraisal Report". The inclusion of the 1004MC with respect to the market condition analysis is making more attuned to being more "Self-Contained". Consequently, the scope of work with respect to USPAP Standard Rule 1 and Standard Rule have been altered.

Dave Doering

[Dean VanSchoiack]

Dave,

I agree that the inclusion of the information required on the 1004MC, if done completely and correctly, either makes the report "self-contained" or comes very close to doing so. It has been my contention all along that with the requirement of the added information reported on the 1004MC, we are doing self-contained appraisal reports and should be calling them self-contained. This, then, brings up the issue of the statement at the top of page 1 of the 1004 that this is a "summary report". Are we allowed to use the 1004 in a self-contained report?

[David Doering]

Dean,

I think that I would be reluctant to reclassify the URAR as being a "Self-Contained Appraisal Report" solely on the basis of the inclusion of the 1004MC. SR 2-2 (a)(i) - (xi) which outlines the requirements for a Self-Contained Appraisal Report requires that the appraiser to "describe" numerous areas of the appraisal process in the reporting function in contrast to SR 2-2(b) (i)-(xi) which requires that the information in the reporting function be "summarized".

What I believe that we are approaching is a high-bred report of sorts, but it would be my opinion that unless the report complies fully with the requirements for a Self-Contained Appraisal Report by virtue of describing in detail all of the items in the report, it should continued be classified as a Summary Appraisal Report.

Dave