Problem Or not

[sputnam]

Recently reviewed a report that included all three approaches to value. There were some other issues that needed to be addressed but, the one that caught my eye was that the opinion of the subject's monthly market rent had a different effective date that of the final opinion of market value.

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

Recently reviewed a report that included all three approaches to value. There were some other issues that needed to be addressed but, the one that caught my eye was that the opinion of the subject's monthly market rent had a different effective date that of the final opinion of market value.

How did they reconcile the different effective date for the rental data for the income approach? I'm curious how far apart are we talking? A day, a week, a month? Was a reason given for the different effective date?

It sounds like something that needs to be addressed. How are you using it to opine market value for a specific day if the effective date differs?

 

[Tom D]

Typo error. I only ever, ever do, 1 approach to value. But i'm big urban, the market grid is maybe 2 adjustments mostly. Don't need to dip my toes in those other 2 piranna infested approaches.

 

[J Grant]

It sounds like it is a typo. Make note of it or ask - what other options are there?

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

I rarely do less than two approaches. The cost approach is too valuable in determining the land values when I am sorting through land sales (for comps and subject both). Land is a major adjustment often in this market. Using costs also means I can apply the Epley method in deconstructing the comps and calculating effective ages.

 

[sputnam]

How did they reconcile the different effective date for the rental data for the income approach? I'm curious how far apart are we talking? A day, a week, a month? Was a reason given for the different effective date?

It sounds like something that needs to be addressed. How are you using it to opine market value for a specific day if the effective date differs?

They didn't reconcile or provide any explanation. It was only about a week. Apparently (I don't know the exact sequence of events), the appraiser report was completed and delivered without the 1007 and the Client went back to the appaiser and had it added.

I agree that it should be addressed.

 

[J Grant]

The didn't reconcile or provide any explanation. It was only about a week. Apparently (I don't know the exact sequence of events), the appraiser report was completed and delivered without the 1007 and the Client went back to the appaiser and had it added.

I agree that it should be addressed.

I have had that happen - what is the problem with it ?

 

[sputnam]

I have had that happen - what is the problem with it ?

The indication of value by the Income Approach reflects a different effective date than the indications of value by the Sales Comparison and Cost Approaches. The Income Approach was a look at the value on one date. The Sales Comparison and Cost Approaches looked at the value of the subject on a different date. There were no explanatory comments in the report. The simple fix would be to include the extraordinary condition that the subject's monthly market rent was the same on both effective dates.

 

[Tom D]

Some part of the 1007 has to match 1004 date if included. The later date on 1007, then the signature date on the appraisal should have been that date on the 1007, assuming you put the 1007 into that report.
I'm thinking the appraiser forgot the date needing some matching with the newer 1007 date involved.

 

[sputnam]

Some part of the 1007 has to match 1004 date if included. The later date on 1007, then the signature date on the appraisal should have been that date on the 1007, assuming you put the 1007 into that report.
I'm thinking the appraiser forgot the date needing some matching with the newer 1007 date involved.

Yeah... probably and oversight.