MC Form & Incorrect Reporting of DATA

MC Form and Incorrect Reporting of DATAAppraisers,

Wednesday last week (11/18/15) WorkingRE published, via their e-Newsletter, an article I submitted to them as an ‘exclusive.’  I was in a jet to Las Vegas to attend the Appraisal Summit & Expo that day.  In case you did not see the article, I’m letting you know about it here.

You can access the WorkingRE version of the article here.

I want to thank those appraisers who left comments on the WorkingRE site, included below the article, and to those appraisers who wrote me directly. Getting feedback is critical, and appreciated. And kudos to Isaac Peck, Editor and David Brauner, Publisher, of WorkingRE for allowing me space in their publication and editing the original submitted article for better clarity.

Most comments and messages about the article were positive. But some lambasted me, thinking I am enamored with the MC Form. Actually, that form is a hunk of warmed over afterbirth! I’m not alone in my negative bias about it. The concept for better market data is valid; but form execution is abysmal. However, based on presenter comments at the Summit/Expo, we are stuck with the GSE preprinted forms in their present configuration and overlaid UAD for an unknown time. So there is nothing we can do about them, except to work with them.

Some people criticized me when I advocated ‘reporting reality’ in terms of comparable properties in the MC Form grid. I’ve been doing just that since 2009, when the junk MC Form was mandated.

In another day or so, I will send out samples of MC Form grids I have submitted in reports with absolutely no repercussions from anyone. I will also provide commentary I use to back those up, and additional info about doing better comparable market analysis.

Dave Towne
Photo credit flickr - Waywuwei
Dave Towne

Dave Towne

AGA, MNAA, Accredited Green Appraiser - Licensed in WA State since 2003. Dave Towne on

You may also like...

3 Responses

  1. Dave, sounds like ‘we’ struck a nerve collectively. I’m sure that wasn’t the intent of most. While we disagree with our technical descriptions of the 1004MC; (I prefer to think of it as being akin to a huge steaming pile of pony loaf-but your description is also reasonable). I think we are all essentially on the same page about it and it’s uselessness.

    Maybe it IS time for all of us to start treating it as literally as it is printed. Then when FNMA starts getting 90% of the reports in with MCs that are found to be meaningless, maybe it will give them incentive to correct the bad form! I disagree with accepting something just because we APPEAR to be stuck with it. Remember when the pre URAR forms were changed and the 1025 was initially eliminated in favor of the 1-4 URAR? The 1025 got replaced VERY fast after all the complaints.

    I’d probably start with an AI Dictionary of RE Appraisal definition of competitive market area and “neighborhood” and just report on the 1004MC that data is not compiled as defined; and then use my preferred alternative methods. Others may prefer to search by the SAME RANGE as their comparables. If size is +- 10%-use that in 1004MC; if it is 25% then use THAT in 1004 MC. Id use same distance parameters too.

    I’m one of those that are willing to resist the trend to eliminate the ‘art’ portion of our profession and to refute the pretense that everything we do can or should be quantifiable and repeatable statistically.

    Lets remember that almost any trained and truly experienced real estate agent can go into their “farm” area and probably ‘eyeball’ or guesstimate from the curbside about values, and be within 90% to 100% accurate most of the time. PURE art and experience based. There’s a lot to be said about the art side of our profession. It too relies on a computer. One that no one can even come close to replicating so far. Its does a lot of those ‘scientific comparisons ‘ in the background-subconsciously. It does not make the results less valid.

    • Avatar Koma says:

      Got to go local. I have some local clients (in house loans) that state 1004MC not required. They are fully aware that it’s worthless!

    • Avatar Eric says:

      “I’m one of those that are willing to resist the trend to eliminate the ‘art’ portion of our profession and to refute the pretense that everything we do can or should be quantifiable and repeatable statistically.”

      You mean you can’t prove site, GLA, bedroom, location and other adjustments using regression analysis? Who knew? I know who didn’t know. The morons at Fannie Mae.


Leave a Reply

We welcome critical posts & opposing points of view. We value robust & civil discourse. You may openly disagree, but state your case in an atmosphere of mutual respect, in which everyone has a right to a particular view about the topic of conversation. Please keep remarks about the topic at hand, & PLEASE avoid personal attacks. If the poster gets you upset, it is the Internet, you can walk away from it.

Personal attacks harm the collegial atmosphere we encourage on AppraisersBlogs.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

xml sitemap

MC Form & Incorrect Reporting of DATA

by Dave Towne time to read: 1 min