• Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online  community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

Deep Dive - The Cost Approach

They started at $1,699,950 and it expired at $1,450,000 after 51 DOM. Then they came back on at $1,450,000 with a different agent.
That makes more sense. The first transaction is suspect and skewed high, second transaction is more realistic. That is 16% difference.
It is not unreasonable to think that any sale in the neighborhood could have sold for 10-15% more or 10-15% less depending on things that have nothing to do with property characteristics. The market is just like that.
I think that is too much variation in most markets. Those other transactions are within 0-6% which I would say is more reasonable.
 
Those other ones are basically land, so fewer things that matter I guess. Not as much wiggle room when at the floor.
 
I never said the adjusted range was not important. I already said I agree with you in most cases. You're asking about other cases, so I'm explaining. I can give you more examples too. I can probably drum some up from the real world. It happens not infrequently in rural and high-end markets.


You still don't understand, so I’ll give you a visualization to help you better.
View attachment 92199
How much would you tinker with sensitivity in order to tighten this up? Would you make the garage stall adjustment $12,400? Or would you reduce the GLA adjustment to $35/sf first? At a certain point, this is overfitting. Are you saying my adjustments are incorrect because they don't narrow the range? Sensitivity analysis is not meaningless. But may not be as useful in certain scenarios and can be susceptible to overfitting.
The visual helped a ton!! I did a grid - trying to incorporate your scenario - and it just didn't work. And your scenario will actually distill down to a $0 adjusted range, but to your point - I agree that it would take 'overfitting' as you say (I like that term). I can get down to about a $300 range without having to overfit, and $0 overfitting. And by overfitting, I mean using $33/foot GLA factor (instead of $30 or $35).

Back to my point about hyperbole, though, this is not really an example of the range getting 'wider' after adjustment - technically, yes, but realistically, a $300 range is the same as a $0 range. My point was (and I know you know this) that the goal of ANY SCA analysis is to minimize the adjusted range. Even you are attempting to do so in your scenario - as well you should.

BTW - wouldn't you agree that, even if you 'overfit', it is more supportable from a quantitative perspective than using 'judgement'?

FTR - here's what I came up with:

1728688911240.png
 
How tight of an adjusted range are you guys typically working with?

I'm pretty happy if I can get to a 10% adjusted range.
agreed w/CG - it depends on the quantity and quality of data. If a 10% spread is the norm for you - you definitely work a challenging market. It's the rural stuff where I appraise that I typically see adjusted spreads that wide.
 
As an aside - isn't regression EXACTLY the same thing as minimizing the adjusted range? If one argues that minimizing the adjusted range isn't what we're trying to do, they're really arguing that regression isn't an accepted methodology, right?
 
What happens in regression when you have negative coefficients? How does that translate to the SCA?

BTW I’m not disagreeing that narrowing the range is the goal of analysis, it is. I’m just saying that there’s a margin of error, and there are scenarios when it doesn’t happen. No need to really discuss it any further.
 
What happens in regression when you have negative coefficients? How does that translate to the SCA?

BTW I’m not disagreeing that narrowing the range is the goal of analysis, it is. I’m just saying that there’s a margin of error, and there are scenarios when it doesn’t happen. No need to really discuss it any further.
Haha! I really appreciate the banter. Thank you. I have learned something today - that's always a good thing. I agree - there are scenarios where the range might not get tighter, and will incorporate this into future deliberations. Still don't know whether I'd see this in a residential scenario, but still - much appreciated.
 
I really appreciate the banter
There's less good discussion of appraisal related topics on the forum these days. I enjoy it, too. Defending your position forces you to think through it and hopefully improve it in the process.
 
Here is an example of why the cost approach can't reliably achieve credible results without sales data (including an argument that even older sales of the subject don't save it). This property is currently back on the market for $2.5 million (after starting at $4.5 million 320 days ago), and includes a 6,500 ft² dwelling, a 3,600 ft² dwelling, and about 85,000 ft² of outbuildings on about 70 acres with nearly 2 miles of river frontage. Almost all improvements were constructed during 1999-2003. The property is located within about 15 miles of the largest population center in the state.

A listing in about 2008 indicated that the improvements had cost nearly $10 million when constructed. The asking price then was about $2.8 million and it sold in 2010 for $2.1 million. It was on the market for 6 years through several listings beginning in 2013 with an asking price $3,550,000 before selling in early 2019 for $2 million. In general, dwellings priced above $1 million around here did not inflate during 2012 through 2019. But since then, almost all price levels inflated strongly, by as much as 20+% per year during early-2021 to mid-2022. Recently (6/23), vacant, 148 acre tract about 5 miles up river, with half the river frontage, sold for $1,260,000 after 74 dom. How many start their unsupported guesses for functional obsolescence at near 90-95%?
1739557440069.jpeg
 
Here is an example of why the cost approach can't reliably achieve credible results without sales data (including an argument that even older sales of the subject don't save it). This property is currently back on the market for $2.5 million (after starting at $4.5 million 320 days ago), and includes a 6,500 ft² dwelling, a 3,600 ft² dwelling, and about 85,000 ft² of outbuildings on about 70 acres with nearly 2 miles of river frontage.
Wow!! If only I could get my wife to move.

We have too many anchor babies....I mean grandkids, in this area.
 
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at
AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top