Mortgage note analysis that checks the facts behind the deal.
NoteGage is web-based mortgage note due diligence software for pre-purchase analysis. Paste the deal information, review the seller's claims, compare them with available sourced evidence, and see the math, risks, unknowns and source trail in one report.
Built for pre-purchase triage and verification. Not investment, legal or valuation advice.
- Seller claims preserved
- Sourced evidence where available
- Deterministic deal math
- Source-aware report
Preview of a real NoteGage position: the seller-stated $189,000 value claim sits 22% above the $154,440 underwriting basis, the conservative end of the $154,440–$163,534 range that the county assessor, an independent AVM and a comparable-sales estimate support, so it is not independently corroborated (not contradicted: the vendor's estimates sit within tolerance of it). Position: Verify first (Partially checked, Conflict open); 0 contradicted seller claims, 1 not independently corroborated, 2 material questions open.
Start with a listing you're already looking at.
Four ways into the same report: a marketplace URL, pasted listing text, a saved .txt file, or manual entry. The form on the right is the production intake itself.
Don't just calculate from the seller's numbers. Check them first.
A yield calculation can be mathematically correct and still be misleading when the inputs are wrong, stale or incomplete. NoteGage separates what the seller stated from what outside evidence supports, flags conflicts and unknowns, and then shows the analysis built from the qualified inputs. The same real deal, replayed below.
The seller's claim
Everything starts as the seller's numbers, including the value that sets every ratio. On the claim, this deal looks comfortable.
Stated value $189,000
On the claim: LTV 77.3% · equity above the loan $42,829
The independent evidence
On request, the county assessor and an independent AVM are read beside the claim. Here they agree with each other, and not with the seller.
Seller said $189,000not independently corroborated
Assessor $154,440 · AVM $158,837 · comps est. $163,534
Underwriting basis ~$154,440 (range $154,440–$163,534)
The math that changes, and the math that doesn't
Everything priced off the value recomputes on the supported basis. The yield rides on the note's own terms, so it doesn't move, which is why a yield alone can't clear a deal.
LTV 77.3% → 94.7%
Equity above the loan $42,829 → $8,269
Buffer above the $130,000 ask $59,000 → $24,440
Yield 10.4% unchanged
The decision, with its open questions
The report lands on a position, not a magic number: the value conflict is settled against the claim, and the two questions that still block a stance are named with the evidence that would resolve each.
- Title report / recorded instrument: may revise lien & ownership · posture
- Current servicing ledger: may revise payment · hold posture
New evidence refines the position. It may strengthen it, weaken it or leave it unchanged.
The full report behind this story (every panel, every source): see the sample report →
A preliminary position, from the listing alone
Every figure wears its provenance: the value is the seller's statement, the balance and terms are extracted from the listing, and the LTV and equity are calculated in code. On the seller's numbers this deal looks comfortable, worth reviewing further. It is also honestly Listing-only: nothing independent has been examined, so no final stance is taken.
Then ask for the second opinion
On request, NoteGage pulls independent public records as a second opinion and cross-checks the seller's stated value and claims against them and against any attached documents. When sources agree the value is corroborated; when they disagree the deal is flagged unconfirmed until it is resolved. Here, the county assessor, an independent AVM and a comparable-sales estimate agree with each other within tolerance (a $154,440–$163,534 supported range), and none of them supports the seller's $189,000.
The claim is not corroborated, and stays visible
The seller's number sits $34,560 (22%) above the underwriting basis (the conservative end of the supported range) and above the whole range. No two independent anchors support it, so the claim reads NOT INDEPENDENTLY CORROBORATED. It is not called contradicted: the vendor's estimates sit within 20% of it, and a claim one independent source could still support is not contradicted; that word is reserved for a claim the independent anchors agree with each other against. The $154,440 basis takes over every value-dependent figure, sensitivity is shown across the range, and the seller's number stays on the page as a finding, so you can see exactly what was claimed.
The math revises itself, visibly
Watch the distinction: the ratios are RECALCULATED in place (LTV 77.3% → 94.6%), the borrower's equity above the loan drops from $42,829 to $8,269, and the buffer above the $130,000 ask (your own margin, before costs and senior claims) drops from $59,000 to $24,440. Across the supported range the ITV runs 84.2% down to 79.5%; the recommended position does not change, so that spread is sensitivity, not a blocker. The yield is UNCHANGED because it rides on the note's terms, not the property's value. Recalculation is not an accusation; it is arithmetic on the evidence.
And the position moves with the evidence
Two material questions now block an honest stance: the attached ledger stops 22 months short of the claimed payments, and the recorded mortgage could be this note or a loan senior to it. The position moves to Hold: Partially checked, Conflict open, with the exact evidence that would resolve each question named.
New evidence refines it, in either direction
Shown here as a labeled simulation: a current clean servicer ledger and a title report confirming first position would move this deal to Pursue: Clear, and still Partially checked while one attachment remains unread. The uncorroborated value claim stays on the record permanently. Real resolution evidence could just as honestly weaken it; the report only ever follows the evidence.
The stated value is checked against four independent sources: the county assessor value, an independent AVM, the most recent recorded sale, and recorded deeds and liens. Where they disagree, the disagreement is flagged rather than resolved in the seller's favor.
What NoteGage checks before you bid.
Four checks, each shown in the production panel it actually lives in: the same deal, the same figures, the same components the report renders.
Value and collateral
The stated value sets the LTV, the ITV, and both equity measures, so it is checked against the county assessor, an independent AVM, a comparable-sales estimate, and the recorded sale before it is believed. Agreeing independent sources form a supported range; the conservative end is the underwriting basis. A claim outside that range is marked not independently corroborated (or contradicted only when the independent anchors agree with each other against it) and stays on the page either way.
Seller said $189,000not independently corroborated
Assessor $154,440 · AVM $158,837 · comps est. $163,534
Underwriting basis ~$154,440 (range $154,440–$163,534)
Lien position and ownership
A first-lien claim is still a claim. County records can corroborate it; they can never prove priority. The recorded $148,400 mortgage here sits within 8% of the note's balance: it may BE the note, or a senior loan it wraps.
County records one mortgage: $148,400 ≈ the note's $146,171
Could be this note, or a senior loan it wraps
ambiguous · open resolve with title / O&E
Payment history and performance
A ledger substantiates only the months it covers. This one ends 2024-09-30, 22 months before the claimed last payment, so the “performing” status reads unsubstantiated: not confirmed, not contradicted.
Attached ledger ends 2024-09-30, 22 months before the claimed last payment
unsubstantiated · open resolve with a current servicer ledger
Deal economics and position
Every question lands in one place: the Deal Position. On the conservative underwriting basis this deal reads Verify first: two material questions still block an honest stance, and each names the evidence that would resolve it.
LTV 77.3% → 94.7% · yield 10.4% unchanged
Verify firstPartially checked · Conflict open2 material questions open · 0 seller claims contradicted · 1 not independently corroboratedEvery check above, in the full production panels: see the sample report →
From messy listing to reviewable evidence
See how it works →1. Capture the deal.
Paste a listing URL or seller text and keep the original claims intact. The raw input is stored verbatim.
2. Structure the inputs.
NoteGage extracts the note terms it can identify and leaves missing fields missing instead of inventing them.
3. Enrich and verify.
Where available, county records, an independent valuation, and the listing's own attached documents are read and set next to the claims they test.
4. Reconcile.
Conflicts, gaps and unknowns are surfaced before they disappear into a conclusion.
5. Analyze.
Yield, LTV, ITV, equity and cashflow are computed by deterministic code: same inputs, same numbers.
6. Review the report.
See what is known, what is claimed, what conflicts and what still needs human diligence.
The math is only as good as the inputs.
NoteGage calculates the deal, but its core job starts one step earlier: establishing which inputs deserve to be trusted. That means a seller-stated property value stays a claim until supporting evidence is found, and missing evidence stays unknown instead of silently becoming a negative.
A transparent report, not a magic answer
Every important conclusion stays traceable to the inputs and evidence behind it, and each of the report's five questions links to the evidence that answers it. AI helps read documents and write the explanation; the deal math is deterministic code, and missing financial facts are never invented to fill a gap.
- Deal math
- Yield to maturity, LTV, ITV, equity and monthly cashflow, computed in code from stated terms, recomputed when the value basis changes.
- Evidence & provenance
- Every figure is labeled: stated by the seller, read from a document, drawn from county records, or calculated by NoteGage.
- Claim reconciliation
- Listing claims, independent records and our math sit in one table. Contradictions are flagged with both numbers shown.
- Missing-data handling
- A missing record is treated as missing evidence, never as confirmation, and never silently becomes a negative.
Built for the question before “What's the yield?”
Are these numbers actually true?
Use NoteGage as a first-pass underwriting and verification layer before deeper title, collateral, servicing, legal and local diligence.
Verify what's behind the deal before you trust the math.
5–10 pilot spots · free during the pilot
I'm looking for a few more active residential note investors to pressure-test NoteGage with real deals before paid plans launch. Bring a listing you're already weighing. Requesting access is the current path to analyzing a note.
Prefer to look first? View a sample report · hello@notegage.com
Request early access
Invites go out in small batchesBuilt by a software developer for a repetitive diligence problem
I'm a software developer, not a note investor. My brother buys notes and kept doing the same verification by hand, so I built NoteGage to automate the repetitive parts while keeping the evidence visible.
Checking by hand means pulling county records, comparing an assessor value against an AVM, and tracing recorded assignments. That's hours per listing, which is why most buyers do it only after they've already committed time to a deal, or don't do it at all on the ones they pass on.
NoteGage runs that reconciliation on every listing in one pass, so it happens first instead of last. Every figure in the report traces to a named source, and anything the seller stated that public records don't support gets flagged with both numbers shown.
Questions or a listing you want tested: hello@notegage.com
Questions note buyers ask.
Mortgage note analysis software helps buyers organize note terms, calculate deal metrics and evaluate risk before purchasing a mortgage note. NoteGage's verification-first methodology separates seller-stated claims from available sourced evidence and keeps unresolved gaps visible rather than treating missing information as settled.
More answered across how it works, the due-diligence guide and the glossary.
Note-investing terms, defined.
- Unpaid principal balanceUPB
- The principal amount still owed on the loan, excluding future interest, fees and escrow balances. It is one of the basic inputs used to understand the size of the remaining obligation.
- Loan-to-valueLTV
- A collateral ratio that compares the relevant loan balance with a supported property value. It describes the leverage of the loan against the collateral and should use a value basis whose source and date are understood.
- Investment-to-valueITV
- A buyer-basis collateral ratio that relates the acquisition basis, and senior claims when relevant, to a supported property value. The exact inputs depend on lien position and the interest being acquired.
- Lien position
- The priority order of claims secured by the property. Public records can help identify recorded instruments, but title work or legal review may still be needed to establish current priority, releases, subordination and the effect of unrecorded facts.