Did you ask the question to gain a knowledgeable answer or did you just ask it to elicit an argument? It seems the latter may be the case. If so I have to agree with CAN
I would like to know you all do when faced with the scenario.
Did you ask the question to gain a knowledgeable answer or did you just ask it to elicit an argument? It seems the latter may be the case. If so I have to agree with CAN
You might want to take a step back and think through your assumptions. Economic obsolescence can affect a site's value, or can be measured in terms of a change in land values, but economic obsolescence is never attributable to (caused by) a site's value.I had plenty of recent land sales and plenty of bubble land sales-no brainer to calculate economic obsolescence attributable to site value. ...
Sorry, I keep forgetting that you don't read English. No, non, nyet, nee, ne, iie, nope, naw
Well,
Crickets chirping must be the answers.
Still waiting.
.
Instead of talking down to people and trying to be less combative you might get some useful thoughts. Your posts do not inspire many to contribute.
Bullies always run when someone stands up to them!:icon_lol:
"famous" appraisers?
Question- Do you include in your CA a specific number for Economic obsolescence or not?
I would never expect it it be a "specfic" number as each and every property and their respective market has its own unique attributes. If you do a proper cost approach with proper lot sales and proper physical depreciation, then the EO would be abstracted from the difference in cost approach and the adjusted opinion of value of sales. Different properties would require different numbers. Homes with pools, smaller homes, larger homes, etc all might have varying effects of EO. Up north, some say pools give no extra value. The smallest home in the subdivision may need less EO, the largest might require more. What if a certain style of home is now obsolete. There is never any one yes or no answer to just about anything when it comes to arriving at an opinion of value. That is why don't arrive at the same opinion of value on every property as every appraiser.
You might want to take a step back and think through your assumptions. Economic obsolescence can affect a site's value, or can be measured in terms of a change in land values, but economic obsolescence is never attributable to (caused by) a site's value.
A change in site value can be attributed to economic obsolescence, but a change involves estimating value at two or more different times. Which site value do you plan on entering onto the form, the site value before, after, or during the change?
OK - I'll bite:
If - all of your original parameters were in place
If - I had adequate land sales to produce a credible opinion of site value
If - I had new construction (not our subject) in the neighborhood that I could use to reliably account for the market value effect of physical depreciation on our subject (see other thread) -
If - I believed the M and S was the least bit accurate (and maybe I do - not poking sticks here) or had reliable cost information from builders that were not yanking my chain
Then - if there was a difference between my opined market value and the value derived from the cost approach I would put in place a separate figure for the economic obsolescence that is represented by that difference. Or if it was a positive figure I'd label it economic incentive.
If one or more of the above do not apply then my direct answer to your question would be no - and if questioned about EO I'd indicate that it is accounted for in the land value.[/QUOTE
Yeah yeah-thank you! Indulge me one more answer-given your scenario how many appraisers would you guess/estimate would put the EO number in their CA and how many would leave it out and let the sca and ca be significantly different?