Final Reconciliation

[Vermonter]

Stipped because in my report the value indicated by the sales comparison approach doesn't match my final opinion of value. The two differ by a whooping $110 because I adjusted to the nearest $1000. I explained all this in my final reconciliation, but this AMC is saying they never heard of such a thing. The two have to match (even tho there is no requirement I can find that says so).

So my question is, if your value is primarily based on the sales comparison approach, do you always make the two match exactly?

BTW, I've worked for them in the past and they never questioned it before.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

No. I round off and I wouldn't change it. They are idiots.

 

[JSmith43]

It is getting kicked out due to an automated review programmed to check math. It must have been set up for an exact match.

Who knows what the instructions are for the AMC employee? He's probably stuck in a loop.

 

[CANative]

The client is free to draw their own conclusions.

 

[Green Hornet]

Stipped because in my report the value indicated by the sales comparison approach doesn't match my final opinion of value. The two differ by a whooping $101 because I adjusted to the nearest $1000. I explained all this in my final reconciliation, but this AMC is saying they never heard of such a thing. The two have to match (even tho there is no requirement I can find that says so).

So my question is, if your value is primarily based on the sales comparison approach, do you always make the two match exactly?

BTW, I've worked for them in the past and they never questioned it before.

Robert,

I must be missing something...why would rounding of $101 be needed. With the SCA, a range is typically identified and the appraiser typically identifies an opinion of market value within that range and explains why.

I have never come up with an SCA number that includes anything but zeros to the right of the first comma?

 

[TJSum]

Robert,

I must be missing something...why would rounding of $101 be needed. With the SCA, a range is typically identified and the appraiser typically identifies an opinion of market value within that range and explains why.

I have never come up with an SCA number that includes anything but zeros to the right of the first comma?

I have the same question? As a side note, on very low priced housing I have rounded as low as the $500 level on the SCA.

 

[Vermonter]

That was a typo, it was $110 dollar difference in SCA. I use percentages in my grid and typically round to the nearest $10-20 in the SCA and $1000 in the final reconciliation.

Is this unusual?

 

[TJSum]

That was a typo, it was $110 dollar difference in SCA. I use percentages in my grid and typically round to the nearest $10-20 in the SCA and $1000 in the final reconciliation.

Is this unusual?

I would not round that low, are we that precise where we can nail it to the $10 variable? In science and math, the term significant numbers comes to mind. You could be implying a degree of precision that does not exist.

 

[stangtime]

I got stipped by a normally okay client last week about my reconcilliation. I couldn't believe the revision request. I came in at $290,000. They added up all of the comps, divided by four, and came up with $287,000. About a one percent difference. They said because I didn't put more weight on any one particular sale that it should be done this way. I didn't change anything. They also said that active listings, of which I had two in the report that closely matched the subject, should have no bearing on my final value. What? The actives had been on the market for hundreds of days, were reduced in price several times, and, again matched the subject very closely. I think the data from those actives was very important. ARgh.

Dan

 

[Green Hornet]

That was a typo, it was $110 dollar difference in SCA. I use percentages in my grid and typically round to the nearest $10-20 in the SCA and $1000 in the final reconciliation.

Is this unusual?

Different than I do it. Not sure if it is unusual? Even if I were using percentages instead of dollar values for adjustments, I would not conclude SCA value of $125,150.

Just so I am clear...you are saying that the adjusted values within the SCA were $110 apart? Sorry, I am just not picturing what you are describing.

As was already mentioned, that level of certainty is beyond my reach.