A sample mortgage note analysis report.

Everything below is what the listing stated, kept intact. At this point every figure is a claim — including the ones the deal math will later depend on.

The reconciliation table is the heart of the report: listing claims, independent records, and NoteGage's own math, read across each row. On this deal the county assessor ($154,440), an independent AVM ($158,837) and a comparable-sales estimate ($163,534) agree with each other within tolerance, supporting a $154,440–$163,534 range. The seller's $189,000 sits 22% above the underwriting basis and above the whole range, and no two independent anchors support it, so the value claim reads not independently corroborated. It is not called contradicted — the vendor's estimates sit within 20% of it, and that word is reserved for a claim the independent anchors agree with each other against. All three sources are estimates (the assessor's market value from the county record; the vendor's two model estimates as of the record pull) — the status is a statement about the evidence, not about the seller's intent, and an independent appraisal could reopen it. The underwriting basis is the conservative end of that range, $154,440 (the strength-weighted center, ~$156,439, is reported but never used as the basis — the exact rule) — and it takes over every value-dependent figure, with sensitivity shown across the range. The lien and pay-status rows show the other honest outcomes: corroboration that is not proof, and a ledger that only substantiates the months it covers.

Two distinct cushions live in this report, each with its own formula. Equity above the loan (property value − $146,171 UPB) is the borrower's equity protecting the note's full balance: $42,829 on the seller's value, $8,269 on the underwriting basis. The buffer above your price (property value − the $130,000 ask) is your own margin before transaction costs or senior claims: $59,000 on the claim, $24,440 on the underwriting basis — the same idea ITV expresses as a ratio (94.7% LTV, 84.2% ITV repriced; across the supported range the ITV runs 84.2% to 79.5% and the position does not change). The 10.4% yield doesn't move — it is arithmetic on the note's own terms, not the property's value — which is exactly why a yield alone can't tell you a deal is safe. Same inputs, same numbers, every time.

The report resolves into a position, not a magic number. This deal reads Verify first — Partially checked, Conflict open: the seller's value is not independently corroborated, and two material questions still block an honest stance.

Fields the source never stated are listed as gaps with the way to resolve each one — they are never silently filled:

• Borrower name — Needed to check for bankruptcy, litigation, and to confirm title.
• Borrower credit score — Credit is a core note-pricing factor; it's never available by API — request the report from the seller's collateral package.

The report ends as a work order. On this deal, before bidding:

• Lien identity ambiguous — the recorded $148,400 instrument may BE this note or a senior it wraps. Resolve with: Title report / recorded instrument.
• Payment status is unsubstantiated — Attached ledger is stale and does not substantiate the seller's current-performing claim — its last entry is 2024-09-30. Resolve with: Current servicing ledger.
• Ordinary transaction diligence remains yours: title work, the collateral file, servicer verification, and legal review. NoteGage narrows where that money and time go — it doesn't replace them.

How this report gets built: how it works · the methodology · the due-diligence guide