Public Record Versus MLS

[PhillyApp]

CAN, thank you for noting the fact that companies like NDC and CoreLogic are data aggregators, they are also responsible for what I like to call data pollution.

 

[J Grant]

My argument on this issue is that the property is marketed and sold based on the MLS square footage. The buyer believed they were buying what MLS said and looked at other properties with similar MLS square footage and made their offer and agreed on a price based on the MLS square footage. For the SALES comparison approach I like to consider the data that was the basis of the SALE. If the property was really larger or smaller the buyer probably did not know that when they made their purchase decision.

The market value definition references a WELL INFORMED or well advised buyer, acting knowledgeably and prudently...a hypothetical well informed buyer for our subject is what our OMV is based on in an appraisal. Which is why it is a market value opinion and not a price opinion...we are supposed to adjust for/analyze impact of physical property feature value elements such as the correct vs inflated MLS reported SF, which a sales price may not.

. So, if in your area you see a bunch of not well informed buyers purchasing on basis of misleading MLS, then you as an appraiser are supposed to use the more reliable source for actual Sf of the comps that a well informed buyer would have discovered. ( an UW should not direct that you must st use public records, but they are telling you they want verifiable actual sf, from a source such as public records, and not MLS inflated sf when that is done on MLS .)

If we make an effort to find out actual sf vs MLS we may be off some of the time on some of the comps, but we will tend to be correct more of the time on majority of the comps (imo 100% correct for comps is not possible but we can try ). If we see inflated sf on MLS as common ,,including garages, basements etc, then assume the listings sf is inflated sf unless it also matched public records. Of course if you find out from talking to agent or viewing a comp that the comp has been expanded /enlarged and indeed is bigger than public records sf, then you would use the larger sf as the more correct.

 

[Sid Holderly]

The MLS is generally better than the County records. However many local agents not state they are using county records. County records are not very accurate in this area.
Agents need to measure the homes they list. The county only checks about 10% of the properties in every reassessment cycle (not very often), and do not measure upper levels or basements at those times. Last year the county representative measured my garage and reported it 2 feet wider than it is. He spent less than 5 minutes measuring the house and garage.

On the appraisal I am working on the county lists it as 1768 sq ft and it measure 1349 sf, the MLS has 1328. House is on a hill 2nd floor is under garage, but not all the garage. By ANSI standards it has 0 sf above ground.

 

[Non Sequitur]

Knowing that CU and other systems are out there, I think it is prudent practice to proactively address any discrepancy between the data in the report and the data in public records. To me, that is just a more efficient use of time. It is easier to address while working on the report than it is to go back and have to address it later.

I don't disagree. But I think many posters have a problem with the "must use public records" demand more than having to explain to an arm chair quarterback two time zones away why there's a difference.

 

[bnmappraisal]

do you report MLS Sq Ft or the GLA you calculated in your sketch? "

my calculated GLA from my sketch/measurement of the subject

"For the record I run into this wall all the time, and I report what I measured and use that as my GLA in future reports...That is my standard, which is part of the scope of work listed in my reports, when I use a GLA from a previous report, I note that might differ from public record, I note that and why it differs.

I do pretty much the same thing. I use the GLA which I calculated from having measured the comp in the past. Then I add verbiage in the report (typically the addendum) stating this. I usually state something similar to my prior post (#29)

 

[Peter LeQuire]

I generally ask whatever verification source I use for each sale the source of their living area if it differs substantially from that shown in the assessor's office record. Most MLS briefs will show the source of living area.

The notion of accepting MLS's statement of living area "because that's the information the market uses" makes me uncomfortable. My experience this week reminds me that it is wrong, unethical and stupid to, in the presence of conflicting information, accept that without questioning and reconciling the difference. I certainly don't want to knowingly pass on important information that I know to be false, and would rather respond to a criticism that I used correct, rather than convenient, information.

 

[QWERTY Pi]

In most of my area public records are fairly good *** I always read the MLS comments to see if the agent says there was a room addition or something else that would be the reason for the difference . If the property had a room addition then I would probably use the MLS data. In your case I wonder where these agents came up with their GLA numbers because it's rare for agents to physically measure a house. As far as only using public record data in appraisals that's simply not true because many times we measure a house and it's not what public records indicated but your situation is kind of weird because like I said these are very small properties so where did the agents come up with what they reported in MLS. Personally I would not want to die on this hill so I would check public records on each one and unless the agents have some comments about additions etc I would use the public record GLA and be done.

*** UW or review may have run collateral underwriter and the other appraisers reported public record GLA in their reports which then got placed into the big Wizard of Oz Fannie Mae machine and now it's choking when the UW ran yours and it did not match up Lol

Both sources are awful by me. Did you try extracting a multiplier? Maybe you can find some consistency and reliability from MLS vs Assessor using a multiplier? Or better yet, use a Multiplier to reconcile why you chose to cite MLS data vs Assessor for each comp individually -depending on whichever two GLA sets seemed in agreement. Multipliers don't always jive -but using one could help support your chosen data source.

 

[George Hatch]

One of the elements of geo-competency is being aware of the limitations, strengths and weaknesses of the different local databases. Over the years I've paced off or otherwise measured *lots* of buildings that appeared to be of different size than reported.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Did you try extracting a multiplier

huh?

 

[QWERTY Pi]

huh?

My native language is French. Forgive me for my hasty use of the term multiplier. I was suggesting he develop another means to help confirm or support the varied GLA data reported by his sources. Riddle me, "utilize room count dimensions via MLS as a tool".

I'd go on but me thinks a busy man such as yourself (using your valuable time to reply with 3 letters to my post), certainly you patronize moi, Monsieur Shields.

ANSI Z765
Circumstances can exist when direct measurement of a structure is not possible. Access to the interior may not be available and the nature of the terrain, structure, or other obstacles may preclude direct physical measurement of the exterior in the time available. Building dimensions developed through some means other than direct measurement or plans can be susceptible to inaccuracy, as is the calculated area. Calculations developed under such circumstance must include a declaration similar to the following: DECLARATION 3 “Finished square footage calculations for this house were made based on estimated dimensions only and may include unfinished areas, or openings in floors not associated with stairs, or openings in floors exceeding the area of associated stairs.”