Sigh. Number hitting would involve manipulating the data prior to the reconciliation.
Hate to tell you this, but too often those who opine exactly to SC price within the range do maniuplate data prior to recondiliation. I have seen it far too often in reviews, the whole report is predicated around the sales price, from the comps selected to the adjustments, etc. If nobody here is doing that, fine, but the method seems to lead to that, and prehaps it is so ingrained that some don't think of what they are doing as data maniuplation, they truly think supporting SC prices is what they are supposed to be doing.
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.
It is supposed to be the other way around. The MVO is supporte by market data, after which, the contract is ether above, below , or equal/equivalent to the MVO . The contract can be considered as ADDITIONAL SUPPORT, when it closely is aligned with the best supported MV opinion.
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".
But that is what posters say they are doing! I am aware they develop an entire report to arrive at a range, but when the value range is a 60k spread, where is the evidence for the point value other than the SC price itself?
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.
Sorry, that can be a form of number hitting. Again, this "within the range"s excuse, seemed to be dreamed up by number hitting mentors, because it shows up in no recognized appraisal sources.
If, and there are many times it happens, if, market conditions, and closed data and pending data, supports a close reconciliation to SC price, then it is legit to point out that the point value was reconciled to SC price, which was within the range.
But, there are many times where the range is too broad to state that just falling inside it is a reason to opine the point value, even when there is a contract . Why dont' you question the contract? Does it never occur to you that not well informed buyers are over paying? Like, uh, the millions who lost equity and are defaulting? They all signed contracts that were "in a range of adjusted values"
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).
Again, you are claiming it is "logical" to opine to a point value that matched SC price, because, uh, it's logical. The SC price is logical evidence for itself as the logical point that market particpants pay so the point value should be that logical price."
It's circular reasoning. The fact that it falls within a broad range means the point value is, uh, ya know, between 400k and 460k. Why 435k ? It's logical, that's the SC price!
If that is how you reconcile, do you state that in the report?
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.
