Three days in a row. Different GLA than advertised.

[Artemis Fowl]

I do not recall any recognized organization or continuing education appraisal texts saying any number in the adjusted range of the comps is as valid as another so pick any number.

I do not recall anyone else here saying that either. What's your point?

 

[J Grant]

The essential problem behind the claim that any number is as valid as the next in a range ( with a parallel to statistics that uses hunderds of data points ), is it stems from a false belief that the appraisal opinon of value is, somehow, a "real" value ( whatever that means ) or an accurate price prediction or universal accepted value or price, when it is not represented to be that.

Appraisers create a valuation model using the standards of appraisal development and if at the end, they are at a loss of why they reconciled at X $ point value, what were they doing? We convince ourselves first that our reconciliation $ amount is credibly supported and that in turn, allows us to explain it to the client and users.

It goes without saying that there is a range of value from the comps; it shows the adjusted range at the bottom of the sales grid. Appraisers are aware of the reality that other value opinions, value estimates, or prices are possible. Our task is to support our market value opinion in the appraisal.

 

[alebrewer]

I do not recall anyone else here saying that either. What's your point?

Now look what you started...

 

[J Grant]

Kinda what I thought. You pulled that statement right out of thin air.

You are impossible. I cited doing hundreds of review appraisals over the years as well as seeing appraisals over the years handed to me as well as referencing appraisal texts and yet you say it is pulled out of thin air. You are not able to defend your position so you are in personal attack mode now. That speaks for itself!

I did not argue here to win some personal contest of will. What I state is backed up by appraisal guidance and peer practice and it is undermining appraisals to default to statistics and rote math.

 

[J Grant]

I do not recall anyone else here saying that either. What's your point?

Terreel said it, and Alebrewer said it, even though he denies it now. Read his posts.

 

[TerryRohrer]

Statistics uses large sets of data to get results.

What is sensitivity analysis? What is the average, median, and mean of $125,000, $127,500, and $130,000?

 

[alebrewer]

Terreel said it, and Alebrewer said it, even though he denies it now. Read his posts.

I have, exhaustively, denied ever advising ANYONE to just pick a number. I'd really appreciate you providing even one example of me making such a silly statement (of course you can't, because - like your other assertion - you pulled that accusation right out of thin air (as you do most of the support for your silly propositions). What I DID say - and will say again and again - is that, within a well supported range of value, no one point is any more or less statistically significant than another.

I'd tell ya to quit lying, but I know it's not possible, so just keep lying I guess.

 

[J Grant]

I have, exhaustively, denied ever advising ANYONE to just pick a number. I'd really appreciate you providing even one example of me making such a silly statement (of course you can't, because - like your other assertion - you pulled that accusation right out of thin air (as you do most of the support for your silly propositions). What I DID say - and will say again and again - is that, within a well supported range of value, no one point is any more or less statistically significant than another.

I'd tell ya to quit lying, but I know it's not possible, so just keep lying I guess.

Read your own posts, they explain and defend doing that, even if your verbiage was different - you said any number in a range is as valid as the other .

Again, this was not meatn to be a pissing contest even if you are turning it into one. It is meant to explain how appraisers recocilen to prevent the field going into rote math/statiscs mode wich no leads to the eliminaon of the appraisal and the appraiser, or marginalizion of it. That is what is at stake and why I spent time here, not to waste it with you nit picking every word apart.

 

[alebrewer]

Read your own posts, they explain and defend doing that, even if your verbiage was different - you said any number in a range is as valid as the other .

Again, this was not meatn to be a pissing contest even if you are turning it into one. It is meant to explain how appraisers recocilen to prevent the field going into rote math/statiscs mode wich no leads to the eliminaon of the appraisal and the appraiser, or marginalizion of it. That is what is at stake and why I spent time here, not to waste it with you nit picking every word apart.

And let me guess: You're more qualified than others on this forum to do so because you're the only one that has it figured out... (grammatical issues aside, that is)

 

[J Grant]

And let me guess: You're more qualified than others on this forum to do so because you're the only one that has it figured out... (grammatical issues aside, that is)

No, I am merely referring to established standards and peer practice.