Three days in a row. Different GLA than advertised.

[gregb]

It is part of the Flying-By-The-Seat-Of-The-Pants Protocol: Give more weight to the higher priced comps, all other things being near equal. As far more weight as possible, as far as you can get away with. An optimistic mind-set helps.

Is the art or the science part of your appraisal process?

 

[J Grant]

AI Overview



"Alamode weighting of comps"
refers to the automatic weighting system in the a la mode appraisal software (TOTAL), which assigns a higher weight to comparable properties (comps) that have had fewer adjustments made to them. This system is designed to give more importance to comps that are more similar to the subject property, and the weights are dynamic, meaning they change as you add, remove, or adjust other comps.

• How it works: The software assigns a weight based on the level of adjustment needed for each comp. A comp that requires minimal adjustments will receive a higher weight, while a comp that needs many adjustments will receive a lower weight.
• Automatic and dynamic: The system automatically calculates these weights, ensuring they always add up to 100%. If you add a new comp or adjust an existing one, the weights of all other comps will adjust automatically to maintain the 100% total.
• Purpose: This weighting provides a quick way to understand the relative similarity of your comps. It helps focus on the most similar properties without manual calculations or a weighted average formula, as the software does this automatically.
• Analogy to traditional appraisal: This is a digital equivalent to the traditional appraisal process where an appraiser gives more credibility to comps that are more similar to the subject property, often by making fewer adjustments to them.

 

[J Grant]

It is my observation that posts here often reflect an assumption that most other appraisers work the same way as the person writing the post.

UAD 3.6 requires an indication of how the comps were weighted. Why would you think that change was made?

UAD 3.6 requires an indication of how the comps were weighted. That is a different requirement than an indication of what reasoning was used to arrive at the point value from the comps adjusted range.

While it does not require "mathematical weighting", it is implied, since weight is a measurement on a scale. Using the word weighting imo puts the appraiser on the defensive if they don't use a math program to show how this or that comp was weighted. That is likely how the clients are going to view it - the client wants the least pushback possible in UW and math offers a safe harbor. Of course, if the wrong comps are used, or the adjustments are crappy, the fact that a weighting of the comps per least adjustment will still yield a poorly supported value.

Weighting by least adjustments is a good method but not always the best way to judge which comps are best or why the reconciliation should be X and not Y. Weighting, since it can be done by clicking on software or using a statistical program, can be done by anybody. In UAD 3.6, weighting is done by the appraiser; however, it can be used in an alternate valuation product where a non-appraiser follows the paint-by-numbers program to arrive at a value.

 

[J Grant]

It's like she inserts a "therefore you really mean this" instead of accepting what is actually said.

The original question: AB, I usually consider the width of the adjusted value range as a critical factor, i.e., the more narrow it is, the more obvious that the price point is. Question: is there a mathmatical expression to describe the width other than in absolute dollars, e.g., from $xxxx.o to $zzz.o, or $.....00? Can the width be described in relative terms, perhaps a ratio of some sort, or a variance percentage?

My answer: Coefficient of Variance, which is a statistical measure of dispersion applicable to any range.

I have know idea how she got from point A to the alternate universe she is currently arguing in.

The "alternate universe" is called appraising. My posts referenced what exists in appraisal texts and standards.

Statistics is not appraising. It is a tool that can be used in appraising.

 

[Zoe]

Is the art or the science part of your appraisal process?

It is all geographical competency with him. You know that. Cough, cough. I think I have a cold or something.

 

[Zoe]

Most consideration was accorded to Comparables #1 and #2 due to their lowest net and gross adjustments.

I think that could be a major mistake.

 

[Zoe]

No, that is not correct.

Your pushing my buttons. Okay, how do you feel about the concept of geographical competency? Don't quote USPAP on me.

I want your opinion in the current environment. All I want is your opinion on geographical competency. I won't hold it against you. I just want your opinion.

 

[Zoe]

It is part of the Flying-By-The-Seat-Of-The-Pants Protocol: Give more weight to the higher priced comps, all other things being near equal. As far more weight as possible, as far as you can get away with. An optimistic mind-set helps.

I don't want your opinion of geo competency. I already know.

 

[TerryRohrer]

UAD 3.6 requires an indication of how the comps were weighted. That is a different requirement than an indication of what reasoning was used to arrive at the point value from the comps adjusted range.

While it does not require "mathematical weighting", it is implied, since weight is a measurement on a scale. Using the word weighting imo puts the appraiser on the defensive if they don't use a math program to show how this or that comp was weighted. That is likely how the clients are going to view it - the client wants the least pushback possible in UW and math offers a safe harbor. Of course, if the wrong comps are used, or the adjustments are crappy, the fact that a weighting of the comps per least adjustment will still yield a poorly supported value.

Weighting by least adjustments is a good method but not always the best way to judge which comps are best or why the reconciliation should be X and not Y. Weighting, since it can be done by clicking on software or using a statistical program, can be done by anybody. In UAD 3.6, weighting is done by the appraiser; however, it can be used in an alternate valuation product where a non-appraiser follows the paint-by-numbers program to arrive at a value.

Gawd!

From USPAP:
"Statements have the full weight of a Standards Rule and can be adopted by the Appraisal Standards Board only after exposure and comment. There are currently no active Statements."
"Comments are an integral part of USPAP and have the same weight as the component they address. These extensions of the DEFINITIONS, Rules, and Standards Rules provide interpretation and establish the context and conditions for application."
"weigh historical information and trends, current supply and demand factors affecting such trends, and anticipated events such as competition from developments under construction, when developing income and expense statements and cash flow projections"
"Comment: This requirement calls for an appraiser, in developing income and expense statements and cash flow projections, to weigh historical information and trends, current market factors affecting such trends, and reasonably anticipated events, such as competition from developments either planned or under construction."
"The overall economic climate and variations in the business cycle should be considered and weighed in the performance of the appraisal process."

Useful perspective develops with experience (sometimes).

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

When I'm using the weighted average for my value indication will this suffice or will I need to show the worksheet formulas I used to create it? Will telling the reader to refer to this exhibit disrupt the workflow of the new form because it requires the reader to jump to an addendum or is there a drop down dialog box in the new form to insert supporting documentation such as this in the correct spot of the form? Just curious, haven't played with 3.6 yet.

View attachment 104586

M.A., I realize that you didn't post the data for this reason, but if possible please advise: 1) would the underlying formulas still apply if the net and gross adjustments were different? Also, how was the Comparable Weight Percentages determined? Thank you.