GLA Bracketing Requirments

[Surf Cat]

The grid is to help illustrate to the reader how you came to your opinion of market value. Its preference. If the reader gets past just looking at the appraised value this will typically be the first place they look comps 1-3 so I typically put the best comps in those spots.

This is the way I was taught when I worked at a fee shop (remember those?) The first 3 comps are your "primary" comps on which you're hanging your hat on. If I wasn't bracketed on GLA on the first 3 comps, I would move a dated sale or a sale from an alternative, competitive neighborhood up to the #3 spot to cover it. Same goes for # of stories, identical bed-bath count, site area, etc. If the comp I move up is a strong indicator of my opinion of value, It's up front.

 

[SRQ85]

Thank you. I have been debating this issue with my former mentor for years now. He is conviced that GLA should be bracketed in the first three positions of the appraisal, I disagree, as long as it is bracketed somewhere within adjustment grid.

Some people are just set in their ways

 

[Fernando]

This is the way I was taught when I worked at a fee shop (remember those?) The first 3 comps are your "primary" comps on which you're hanging your hat on. If I wasn't bracketed on GLA on the first 3 comps, I would move a dated sale or a sale from an alternative, competitive neighborhood up to the #3 spot to cover it. Same goes for # of stories, identical bed-bath count, site area, etc. If the comp I move up is a strong indicator of my opinion of value, It's up front.

Yes, I hope reader of report understands that the first 3 comps are most important and subsequent are for support.
Have to admit, after reconciliation, if first 3 comps adjusted value are lower than my appraised value, I move comps around. It's appraiser's prerogative.

 

[Tim Hicks (Texas)]

The grid is to help illustrate to the reader how you came to your opinion of market value. Its preference. If the reader gets past just looking at the appraised value this will typically be the first place they look comps 1-3 so I typically put the best comps in those spots.

Or they go straight to dissecting the cost approach with no knowledge of how the cost approach works.

 

[Tom4value]

Thank you. I have been debating this issue with my former mentor for years now. He is conviced that GLA should be bracketed in the first three positions of the appraisal, I disagree, as long as it is bracketed somewhere within adjustment grid

Thank you. I have been debating this issue with my former mentor for years now. He is conviced that GLA should be bracketed in the first three positions of the appraisal, I disagree, as long as it is bracketed somewhere within adjustment grid.

Your former mentor is confusing or at least equating good appraisal practice with a requirement. There is no bracketing requirement. Your only requirement is that you present a supportable conclusion. Bracketing goes a long way in accomplishing that so it should be a goal. However, beware of choosing a sale that is not comparable in anyway other than bracketing the GLA, even if the client requires it. To do so could run you a foul of USPAP.

I once did an appraisal of a cookie-cutter subject with cookie-cutter comps, all in the same neighborhood. It just so happened that all three comps were the same model so the same exact size as my subject. A dolt AMC reviewer said I needed a comp that was larger and another that was smaller to bracket. I told him I was not going to purposely use less reliable comps just to satisfy a random condition!

 

[shrubberyvaluation]

Your former mentor is confusing or at least equating good appraisal practice with a requirement. There is no bracketing requirement. Your only requirement is that you present a supportable conclusion. Bracketing goes a long way in accomplishing that so it should be a goal. However, beware of choosing a sale that is not comparable in anyway other than bracketing the GLA, even if the client requires it. To do so could run you a foul of USPAP.

I once did an appraisal of a cookie-cutter subject with cookie-cutter comps, all in the same neighborhood. It just so happened that all three comps were the same model so the same exact size as my subject. A dolt AMC reviewer said I needed a comp that was larger and another that was smaller to bracket. I told him I was not going to purposely use less reliable comps just to satisfy a random condition!

Let me guess, last order they sent you.

 

[Fernando]

Your former mentor is confusing or at least equating good appraisal practice with a requirement. There is no bracketing requirement. Your only requirement is that you present a supportable conclusion. Bracketing goes a long way in accomplishing that so it should be a goal. However, beware of choosing a sale that is not comparable in anyway other than bracketing the GLA, even if the client requires it. To do so could run you a foul of USPAP.

I once did an appraisal of a cookie-cutter subject with cookie-cutter comps, all in the same neighborhood. It just so happened that all three comps were the same model so the same exact size as my subject. A dolt AMC reviewer said I needed a comp that was larger and another that was smaller to bracket. I told him I was not going to purposely use less reliable comps just to satisfy a random condition!

What happened afterwards? Did the reviewer insists that you needed the two comps?
Or were you considered the "difficult" appraiser and you lost favor with this client?

 

[Tom4value]

What happened afterwards? Did the reviewer insists that you needed the two comps?
Or were you considered the "difficult" appraiser and you lost favor with this client?

I later got an "appraisal approved" designation. Translation: He asked his superior and his superior agreed with me. Frequently happens when non-appraisers argue with appraisers about appraisals!

 

[Tom4value]

Let me guess, last order they sent you.

Nope. It was the last time I heard from the non-appraiser reviewer, though!

 

[residentialguy]

You don’t have to bracket anything. This is a lender/client issue

Yep. The problem you run into is supporting your adjustments. I would try to get some good paired analyses in the larger or smaller range of the unbracketed features in your written comments to support your adjustments.
E.g.: Houses below 2000sf may not have the same $/sf of homes greater than 2000sf.