Reconciliation of Approaches

[Mr Rex]

What part of "necessary for credible assignment results" are you having difficulty with?

As far as an office building, do you need the income approach for credible assignment results if you have a plethora of sales of similar office buildings with similar rents.....?:new_smile-l:

 

[CANative]

What part of "necessary for credible assignment results" are you having difficulty with?

As far as an office building, do you need the income approach for credible assignment results if you have a plethora of sales of similar office buildings with similar rents.....?:new_smile-l:

If it's necessary for credible assignment results. And it probably would be.

Don't you remember the wording in the departure rule: "Applicable but not necessary"

 

[Mr Rex]

You need to let go of Departure, USPAP did.

FWIW, do you think the bubble would have been any smaller in Cali if the IA was supplied with every Residential Appraisal done over the last decade or so?

 

[CANative]

You need to let go of Departure, USPAP did.

FWIW, do you think the bubble would have been any smaller in Cali if the IA was supplied with every Residential Appraisal done over the last decade or so?

It didn't go away. It just became redundant.

No. Not unless appraisers stated that GRMs of 400 and cap rates of 2 were ridiculous.

 

[Mr Rex]

As relevant as an Income Approach when there is a plethora of sales. Review the definition of market value, and see where the Cost and Income Approaches are implied as part of the definition.:icon_idea:

Been fun, but its football time. Iron bowl and then some:icon_mrgreen:

 

[CANative]

Look. If something (an approach) is not relevant, then it can't be applied. Like appraising a vacant lot. The cost approach is not relevant. The approach is not applicable. "Necessary" or "not necessary" doesn't enter into the consideration.

 

[Mr Rex]

Look. If something (an approach) is not relevant, then it can't be applied. Like appraising a vacant lot. The cost approach is not relevant. The approach is not applicable. "Necessary" or "not necessary" doesn't enter into the consideration.

Again, you have narrowed the definition to your defintion. Look now before its too late, you may be developing webbed feet.

 

[CANative]

Enjoy your football games. Be careful who you bet on.:icon_mrgreen:

 

[The Warrior Monk]

IMHO, there are basically three ways of valuing property:

1. Reflecting the actions of market participants;
2. Using mathematical methodologies to find patterns in the data;
3. Making up scenarios that do not reflect the actions of market participants to attempt to derive a value conclusions.

Examples of each:

1. Valuing an investment property, purchased for its income stream, via the income approach.
2. Using a best fit line to value a property in a large subdivision.
3. Valuing property via an Income Approach when buyers do not purchase properties for their income stream, or the Cost Approach for properties that can't be reproduced.

I personally prefer the scenarios in number order. Reflecting the actions of market participants first, hypothetical scenarios last and only under extraordinary circumstances.

 

[PropertyEconomics]

Can the approaches be reconciled in one or two sentences? How far does one need to take the quality/quantity and applic. and relevance, methods and techniques. How brief can this be...or how long should it be. Brian Underwood from the NH Real Estate Appraiser Board states that, "These requirements in USPAP cannot be accomplished in one or two sentences". Is this just opinion, I know it's not in USPAP...how can HE state it can't be done. Is this in fact a violation of USPAP in itself?

Thanks,
Kathleen

Kathleen ... my question to you is Why would an appraiser want to reconcile the approaches in one or two sentences? If you can answer that then further discussion can be had.

Thank you.