Incomplete purchase contract provided

[J Grant]

Stone, I use common sense, and consider the contract price when the reconciliation is supported anyway and is extremely close .

But this line of reasoning, picking a point value only because it matches the SC price which happens to fall within a broad range of value is weak support, and though it might not apply to those posting, this kind of weak reasoning is used in many a number hitting appraisal to mask poor comp selection and other issues which created the faulty range of value in the first place.

I asked posters for a link, source, text, or course reference, because that is common on the board , you read enough posts to know that. And when there are sources out there, people can come up with it in a few minutes. Yet not one poster who swears by this method is able to do that.

Which means, this method works for them in a business sense, but in reality, there is no recognized coursework or AI opinions or other sources to point to this as sound appraisal practice, other than that it makes "common sense".

Hundreds of thousands are lent and buyers may be over paying or over borrowing , on the flimsy support of "common sense"...

If you want to use common sense as the rationale, fine, but are you disclsosing it in the reconciliation?

"Appraiser opined market value opinion of 720k because it made common sense, since 720k is the contract price, and it fell within a value range."

If the above is how you reconcile the point value, but you don't disclose that this is how you reconciled, are you being misleading?

 

[J Grant]

Reconciling to the contract price is often the most logical outcome and is entirely compatible with the definition of market value.

Really, did you just make that up? What source did it come from?

There are times, when MV and SC price are the same or equivalent, and then it is a logical outcome, but not the rest of the time.

 

[CANative]

Do you understand what reconciling means? It doesn't sound like you do.

 

[J Grant]

DOh, yes, and you did not disclose souce of quote... I guess from another post?

What do you understand about reconciling, other than going with a SC price that falls within a range?

 

[CANative]

A source for what quote?

 

[J Grant]

Your post #48, you had it as a "quote"...then took it out, it seems...I guess that is your opinion?

Not a single one of you has produced a published source that shows reconciling to a SC price falling with a value range is a recognized appraisal method outside your own preference for it.....still waiting

 

[CANative]

The source is me. I said that.

I don't understanding why you are being so hard-headed about this. It's logical, pure and more consistent with the definition of MV as to be beyond argument or controversy.

 

[J Grant]

I figured the source was you, since nobody can state an appraisal source to reference.

Less critical appraisal methods, such as a line adjustment have recognized sources and coursework, here we have people basing hundreds of thousands in value using a method with no recognized appraisal educational courses or publisheds cources, the source is their own chest beating and calling it "logic", and "common sense"... "I say so, therefore it is"

If the SC price was supported anyway, and they opine SC price because it is within the range, then the method seems logical and they luck out. If not, they take their chances and hope nobody looks too hard.

You have not proved that this method is "pure", or more Consistent with the MV definition except by repeating over and over that it is.

 

[Stone]

Stone, I use common sense, and consider the contract price when the reconciliation is supported anyway and is extremely close .

But this line of reasoning, picking a point value only because it matches the SC price which happens to fall within a broad range of value is weak support, and though it might not apply to those posting, this kind of weak reasoning is used in many a number hitting appraisal to mask poor comp selection and other issues which created the faulty range of value in the first place.

I asked posters for a link, source, text, or course reference, because that is common on the board , you read enough posts to know that. And when there are sources out there, people can come up with it in a few minutes. Yet not one poster who swears by this method is able to do that.

Which means, this method works for them in a business sense, but in reality, there is no recognized coursework or AI opinions or other sources to point to this as sound appraisal practice, other than that it makes "common sense".

Hundreds of thousands are lent and buyers may be over paying or over borrowing , on the flimsy support of "common sense"...

If you want to use common sense as the rationale, fine, but are you disclsosing it in the reconciliation?

"Appraiser opined market value opinion of 720k because it made common sense, since 720k is the contract price, and it fell within a value range."

If the above is how you reconcile the point value, but you don't disclose that this is how you reconciled, are you being misleading?

Sigh. Number hitting would involve manipulating the data prior to the reconciliation. It isn't number hitting when the evidence (in the case of a contract - actual market participants) is considered as part of the data something that supports an opinion of value. Stop with using phrases like "picking a point value only because it matches the SC price which happens to fall within a broad range of value". There is an entire report documenting how you got to the adjusted range. The report should be filled data and reasoning describing that process. Once you are there, if the contract happens to be in your range, it isn't number hitting to reconcile to the point where the market participants happened to agree. And you are most certainly not arriving at an opinion of value "only" because of the sales contract. You should have spent an entire report explaining why you are down to this range - that the sales contract fits in is simply further evidence. And, since most intended users want a specific point, it is logical that the further evidence of the market participants' contract would be that point. It wouldn't have to be (you won't find a quote of mine stating otherwise).

I explain (likely with more detail than many or most here) how my sales are selected, adjusted and how I arrive at my final opinion of value. I previously noted it has been some time since I appraised a property where I considered a contract as evidence. However, when I do that I certainly describe my reasoning as to why I do or do not consider it significant. That goes for whether I end up at that point or some other number. One doesn't describe something as "common sense". That is kind of the point of common sense.

 

[Stone]

You have not proved that this method is "pure", or more Consistent with the MV definition except by repeating over and over that it is.

What I have learned over the past year or so is that nobody can "prove" anything to you.