Sales Grid Adjustment Comments

[timd354]

Show me which one is i said a straight line price to GLA adjustment should be made. That is what fannie is doing.

Why don't you cite any direction or communication from Fannie that states that a straight line price to GLA adjustment should be made/ You won't because you can't because Fannie has never stated any such thing.

 

[djd09]

https://www.fanniemae.com/content/announcement/ll1502.pdf

Page 5. Graph median price per square foot. Fannie vs appraiser.

What is fannies adjustment?

Again page 5 graph. How did they come up with their price per foot?

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

could provide any plausible situation

Extraction of non-improvements has nothing to do with the CA. It isn't about the CA. It about a SF adjustment that reflects the difference in building size, nothing more. In the condo my helper lived in, when the golf course died, the value of the condos fell. It had nothing to do with the SF and everything to do with the loss of a benefit of ownership to the HOA members.
Are you saying that there are no land elements or intangible benefits to a condo development that you own part of? So that same condo would sell for the same amount in a vacuum? To use SF as a proxy for the benefits of ownership is a p poor method in my book.

 

[timd354]

Again page 5 graph. How did they come up with their price per foot?
perhaps sale price/sf lol

Nice try, but you have failed to provide any direction or communication from Fannie that states that a straight line price to GLA adjustment should be made. Chart 5 is simply provided to provide a graphical representation of Fannie's observation tha there is a strong correlation between price per square foot and price tier, but GLA adjustments remain much the same in each price tier. If you don't think there is a potential significant problem with GLA adjustments made by any appraisers when the GLA adjustments on properties that sell in significantly different price ranges are not significantly different, then you are beyond help. In any case, nowhere does Fannie mandate or instruct the appraiser on what the amount of the GLA adjustment should be nor do they advocate that a straight line price to GLA adjustment should be made

 

[Meandering]

It is not a personal attack, it is a discussion. A couple of your posts, whether you intended or not, indicate that the GLA sales price is the appropriate adjustment.

Since we are on the topic of personal attacks, please read some of your posts in this thread, it appears (being polite to you) that you have no respect for some of the posters here. Believe it or not, many people can learn on this forum. We may not like what we learn, but we learn.

I'll second Djd09's question to you.

Where is "living the dream"?

Disappeared into the thin air he/she/it materialized from after gleaming information from the happy to speak an MAI clan?

..

 

[timd354]

Extraction of non-improvements has nothing to do with the CA. It isn't about the CA. It about a SF adjustment that reflects the difference in building size, nothing more. In the condo my helper lived in, when the golf course died, the value of the condos fell. It had nothing to do with the SF and everything to do with the loss of a benefit of ownership to the HOA members.
Are you saying that there are no land elements or intangible benefits to a condo development that you own part of? So that same condo would sell for the same amount in a vacuum? To use SF as a proxy for the benefits of ownership is a p poor method in my book.

In your golf course condo, presumably some of the units were larger than others and I would bet that buyers of the larger condos paid more than buyers of the smaller condos. While there is no doubt that land elements and intangible benefits (in your case a golf course) were part of the value of the units but the larger units sold for more than the smaller units because of the difference in GLA (assuming that all units had equal access to the golf course, etc) and that is something that was probably fairly easy to measure

 

[djd09]

Nice try,

Naw . I am the only one providing any link. Fannie said "artificially low". Based on what? good try.

 

[residentialguy]

You can disagree, but to me this is boilerplate and it is BS because it can be interpreted to be "baloney"....
But again, I have no issues with it...

Thank you. So many times here poster just say things like that's BS, or stupid, etc, without supporting what they say. I'm not here to fight you on your opinion. I appreciate your explanation

 

[Meandering]

From your link;

The next chart shows the median amount of an adjustment for GLA by state. Analysis shows little variation in the median GLA adjustment despite significant variation in price. Only in Hawaii does the median GLA adjustment break $50 per square foot, even though median GLA price exceeds $50 per square foot in all 50 states and is significantly higher in certain market areas.





They divided the sale price by GLA, as if nothing else matters in the adjustment considerations.

Utils,
Utils,
Utils.

Utils don't matter when your goal is to make appraisers look stupid.
Garages don't matter,
excess and surplus land,
condition, quality, location, view,
nope
only GLA.

.

 

[residentialguy]

So.... size matters?