UAD 3.6

[timd354]

Folks who do appraisals for a living, rather than opine about how they should be done, recognize very early on that "text book" examples are rare or nonexistent in the real world, and must find a means to finish the job. What Alebrewer suggests is nearly always how it must be done if the analysis needs to rely on "pairing."

Having said the above, it is also quick and easy to articulate that was how the issue was resolved, and there is no credible defense for appraisers who fail to make that explanation. I typically do the same to gauge the impact of differences in quality and condition on price, though I generally use significantly more than a pair of sales, rate them compared to the subject, and run a small regression. That process takes little more explanation than the previous sentence.

Never said that paired sales is not a legitimate technique, but a lot of appraisers simply lie and state that is what they did, when they clearly did not. Additionally, many appriasers seem to confuse the concepts of "paired sales" with "grouped data" analysis... many appraisers states that they did a paired sales analysis, when in reality they actually did a grouped sales analysis (assuming they did any analysis at all). By the way what you describe above that I highlighted in red is a perfect example of a grouped data analysis using a regression to derive an adjustment.

 

[timd354]

In the edition you're citing, they're called 'pure pairings' (i.e. primary pairings) and 'adjusted pairings (i.e. secondary pairings). The idea is the same, though.

View attachment 104809

You can try to state that it says something else than what it actually says......people can read it for themselves and decide what it actually says....By the way your accusation that I was being deceptive or disingenuous is ridiculous as frankly I don't care enough about what you think to try to deceive you.

 

[J Grant]

Grant doesn't believe in "statistics" or "math" in appraisal.

I never said that. I said that statistics should be used to augment traditional methods in this post, for example. I have said many times that math or statistics are a tool that can be used in appraisals.

How about you prove what you just alleged? Paste a link from any of my posts where I said that I don't believe in statistics or math in appraisal.

I did say, which you conveniently left out, that traditional appraisal methods are modeled on buyer and seller behavior in the market and are easy for readers to understand in the report.

 

[J Grant]

We need a separate thread section for people who make personal insults rather than debate the topic at hand.

 

[timd354]

Duplicate

 

[alebrewer]

You can try to state that it says something else than what it actually says......people can read it for themselves and decide what it actually says....By the way your accusation that I was being deceptive or disingenuous is ridiculous as frankly I don't care enough about what you think to try to deceive you.

How else do you interpret the pairing of 'adjusted sales'? Asking for a friend.

 

[TerryRohrer]

Never said that paired sales is not a legitimate technique, but a lot of appraisers simply lie and state that is what they did, when they clearly did not. Additionally, many appriasers seem to confuse the concepts of "paired sales" with "grouped data" analysis... many appraisers states that they did a paired sales analysis, when in reality they actually did a grouped sales analysis (assuming they did any analysis at all). By the way what you describe above that I highlighted in red is a perfect example of a grouped data analysis using a regression to derive an adjustment.

I generally do what I do, explain what I do, and let others provide the "labels" they prefer for what I did. No input from me is required for that exercise. I don't know what the correct label for the phrase you highlighted in red, but I'm guessing 80,000 appraisers would have their own unique label for it.

For the record, I didn't suggest you claimed that paired sales were inappropriate, nor am I arguing that appraisers do not need to say what they did or do what they said they did. Further, they need to say what they did and what they concluded in a clear and concise manner that can be accurately understood. It is beyond me how anyone can decode the gibberish that must pervade a high percentage of the appraisal reports being written. Most appraisers commenting on forums and fakebook don't seem capable of conveying what they think or what their question is in a manner that any rational person can follow with any confidence they understood what was written.

 

[alebrewer]

You can try to state that it says something else than what it actually says......people can read it for themselves and decide what it actually says....By the way your accusation that I was being deceptive or disingenuous is ridiculous as frankly I don't care enough about what you think to try to deceive you.

For the record, I apologize for accusing you of being deceptive. It is clear that you weren't (being deceptive). My apologies.

 

[TerryRohrer]

I never said that. I said that statistics should be used to augment traditional methods in this post, for example. I have said many times that math or statistics are a tool that can be used in appraisals.

How about you prove what you just alleged? Paste a link from any of my posts where I said that I don't believe in statistics or math in appraisal.

I will let you do your own research. I have pointed out that very statement on numerous occasions in previous posts. Others can attest to seeing those.

I did say, which you conveniently left out, that traditional appraisal methods are modeled on buyer and seller behavior in the market and are easy for readers to understand in the report.

This is something appraisers say. As far as "modeled on buyer and seller behavior", well, what exactly is any form of analyzing prices in terms of their associated property characteristics? Regression and paired sales and sensitivity analysis and grouped sales analysis all do that. As far as "easy for readers to understand in the report", well, that is largely garbage. Few outside of some appraisers and some frequent users of reports have a chance to understand appraisal reports. Very often, neither the author nor the consumer has a clue due to a combination of appraisers lacking competence in both appraisal methods and communication, and ignorant users.

 

[Alsie35]

Why does this thread increasingly remind me of a discussion about the best way to equip your horse drawn carriages, taking place in the year 1909 as Mr. Ford starts cranking out those new fangled horseless carriages in Detroit!.