Reconciling Comps Adjusted Values To Determine Final Subject Value

[hastalavista]

...the value indication that comes in at $437,521, am I going to determine that it is unreliable, but a reliable indicator would have been $437,000 or $438,000? ...Its the precision is unexpected, but in the context of the intended use and SOW, it is acceptable.

(my bold)

Of course it matters.

It doesn't matter. Not in the least. It is what it is and it is either supported or not.
You want to call an appraisal at $437,521 unreliable when it would be reliable at $437,000 or $438,000? Do me and every other appraiser a favor: turn down any review appraisal assignments that might come your way.

 

[J Grant]

(my bold)

It doesn't matter. Not in the least. It is what it is and it is either supported or not.
You want to call an appraisal at $437,521 unreliable when it would be reliable at $437,000 or $438,000? Do me and every other appraiser a favor: turn down any review appraisal assignments that might come your way.

Jeez, if I was reviewing the darn thing I might agree with the value, but note that it is not peer practice to express value down to a dollar.

I've done lots of reviews btw and have agreed with value conclusions where it might differ a bit from what I would have done but it was well supported in the market and OA.

How ironic, vigorously defending $437,521 when for years here, appraisers mocked anybody coming in a few k below a SC price because nobody is "that good "

 

[hastalavista]

How ironic, vigorously defending $437,521 when for years here, appraisers mocked anybody coming in a few k below a SC price because nobody is "that good "

Its only ironic if you failed to read the posts. Something you are quick to point out to others when you think they failed to read yours.
Everyone said that such a level of precision was hard to believe. I specifically said that it wasn't the expectation, isn't taught, and arguably isn't a best practice.
However, whatever it is, it is the appraiser's opinion and its credibility in terms of the SOW and intended use can be evaluated. I then say that despite its precision, does it really matter if the rounded value (above and/or below what was opined) are supported and can be relied upon? This entire post is about the review function.

I'm telling you it doesn't; you insist it does. How you can claim that position isn't ironic; it is simply untenable.

 

[J Grant]

Its only ironic if you failed to read the posts. Something you are quick to point out to others when you think they failed to read yours.
Everyone said that such a level of precision was hard to believe. I specifically said that it wasn't the expectation, isn't taught, and arguably isn't a best practice.
However, whatever it is, it is the appraiser's opinion and its credibility in terms of the SOW and intended use can be evaluated. I then say that despite its precision, does it really matter if the rounded value (above and/or below what was opined) are supported and can be relied upon? This entire post is about the review function.

I'm telling you it doesn't; you insist it does. How you can claim that position isn't ironic; it is simply untenable.

Read what I wrote, I never said this level of precision is not supportable or credible, I said it is not peer practice to opine to the dollar. (and explained why)

I do find it ironic to see you defending a value drilled down to a dollar while staying silent when posters on the board were mocked for being a few k "off" a SC price...

 

[BRCJR]

Read what I wrote, I never said this level of precision is not supportable or credible, I said it is not peer practice to opine to the dollar. (and explained why)

I do find it ironic to see you defending a value drilled down to a dollar while staying silent when posters on the board were mocked for being a few k "off" a SC price...

I don't see it that way..
Denis is not defending the "down to the dollar" opinion.
The opinion of value, albeit, "down to the dollar" is between both rounded directions. So what difference does it make in the grand scheme of things?
If I comprehend correctly, Denis is saying it doesn't matter.
I agree, it is atypical but, it doesn't matter.

 

[hastalavista]

I do find it ironic to see you defending a value drilled down to a dollar while staying silent when posters on the board were mocked for being a few k "off" a SC price...

Let me clear up that perceived irony for you.

I've never stayed silent on the matter.
What I have said (and continue to say) is if the contract price is within the adjusted range, I'd need a very strong and compelling reason why the opinion of value is below the contract price.
I've said that the appraisal should analyze the data first; and that last piece of date to consider is the contract price (this position is consistent with the USPAP; as you may or may not know).
I've said that if the contract price is outside of the adjusted range, then it isn't supported; I've also said that appraisers should expect to be questioned on this, but it is an easy thing to support.
However, I've said that if the contract price is within the adjusted range, then without a compelling reason, the expectation would be to consider that agreement between buyer and seller as the final piece of market data, and consider it in the valuation. My adjusted range is $495k to $508k and the contract price is $505k. I would have some serious questions about the rationale for that report that concluded, given the data, $503k is more credible than $505k.

There is nothing ironic in my position other than your misapplying it to fit your narrative.

 

[TRESinc]

If the preponderate of support is for $437,000, that is where the MV opinion should be. However, in all but rare cases, appraisers jump up to the SC $440,000, for fear of being mocked by peers, and for fear of push back from clients and RE agents for being so close but not at SC price.

so sayeth the self-appointed representative for all appraiser opinions nations wide, so be it!

How ironic, vigorously defending $437,521 when for years here, appraisers mocked anybody coming in a few k below a SC price because nobody is "that good "

no, not anybody, just you.

 

[J Grant]

Let me clear up that perceived irony for you.

I've never stayed silent on the matter.
What I have said (and continue to say) is if the contract price is within the adjusted range, I'd need a very strong and compelling reason why the opinion of value is below the contract price.
I've said that the appraisal should analyze the data first; and that last piece of date to consider is the contract price (this position is consistent with the USPAP; as you may or may not know).
I've said that if the contract price is outside of the adjusted range, then it isn't supported; I've also said that appraisers should expect to be questioned on this, but it is an easy thing to support.
However, I've said that if the contract price is within the adjusted range, then without a compelling reason, the expectation would be to consider that agreement between buyer and seller as the final piece of market data, and consider it in the valuation. My adjusted range is $495k to $508k and the contract price is $505k. I would have some serious questions about the rationale for that report that concluded, given the data, $503k is more credible than $505k.

There is nothing ironic in my position other than your misapplying it to fit your narrative.

Obviously a competent appraiser will not opine 503k when a 505k contract is within their own value range. oy veh caramba

As a person who has done a lot of field reviews , the issue is not about the SC price being within the adjusted value range. The value problem, (if there is one), stems from bad comp choices forming a bad value range.

Such as the cherry picked high sale to form the top end of a range. The question of credibility is the value range itself, how it was developed and the comp choices that created it.

 

[hastalavista]

Obviously a competent appraiser will not opine 503k when a 505k contract is within their own value range. oy veh caramba.

I can appreciate the exasperation, but correct me if I am wrong: this thread isn't about contract price differences, is it?
And it wasn't the OP or myself who introduced that that into the discussion was it?

 

[TRESinc]

I can appreciate the exasperation, but correct me if I am wrong: this thread isn't about contract price differences, is it?
And it wasn't the OP or myself who introduced that that into the discussion was it?

notice a recurring theme?