Your Thoughts on this

[Bruce Lennick]

I am doing a review and I was wondering what anyones thoughts are these comments:

ADJUSTMENTS:

Time: The comparables sales included in this report are considered the best available sales that this market area provides. Sales, which occur within a six-month period, are generally considered current. Sales past six months may warrant an adjustment. None of the selected comparables warrant an adjustment in this appraisal report.

Site Size: Subject and sales differ in site size. Adjustments are made based on a review of sales of similar sites in similar locations and adjusting for market recognized factors effecting utility. Modest site size differences do not warrant an adjustment as their utility to a homeowner is similar.

Views: Subject and sales differ in view quality. Adjustments are made based on comparisons of sales, using the matched pair sales analysis concept.

Design: Purchasers are more concerned with living area and livability than design. Design differences do not significantly affect purchasing decisions. For this reason, no adjustment is made for design.

Quality: Quality adjustments are made based on a review of the Marshall & Swift Residential Cost Handbook and analysis of sales of homes utilizing the matched pair analysis concept.

Age: The subject and selected comparables differ in actual & effective age. Age adjustments are taken from the Marshall & Swift Residential Cost Handbook's Depreciation Schedule. Updates are then taken into account to determine an effective age for the subject and all comparable sales. An adjustment figure is concluded after analysis of all related factors. Comparables with similar effective ages to that of the subject do not warrant adjustments.

Bathroom Fixtures: Subject and sales differ in the number of bathroom fixtures. An adjustment for bathroom fixtures is made based on $2,000 per full bathroom.

GLA: Adjustments for differences in finished Gross Living Area are market derived and are made in the amount of $30 per square foot.

Basement Area: No basement.

Heating & Cooling: Adjustments are made by utilizing electric baseboard systems as a base heating source. Forced air gas, oil or electric units are considered $1,000 superior to the baseboard systems. Wall or swamp air conditioners are given a value of $500. Central air conditioning is given a value of $1,000.

Garages/Carports: Garages are adjusted at the amount $5,000 per space and carports are adjusted at the amount of $2,500 per space in this market area.

Porches/Patios/Decks: These are not considered substantially valuable home features as recognized by the market. For this reason, no adjustments are made for such items.

Fireplaces: The market considers a fireplace or similar wood burning apparatus, to possess market value. Market data indicates a fireplace contributes $1,500 to overall value.

Fencing: No adjustment is made for fencing, as fencing is of minor consequence in a purchasing decision.

Outbuilding(s): Sales are adjusted for such buildings based on utility and the estimated value they contribute to overall market appeal of the subject or sales.

*The comparable sales used in this appraisal report are felt to be the best comparables available at the time of the inspection. Typically, It is very difficult to abstract an exact adjustment for additional features (landscape, views, and overall market appeal). Some of these additional features do not bring in a premium to ALL (majority) potential purchases, especially not dollar for dollar. If an appraiser can not do Paired Sales and abstract an adjustment, no adjustment can be proven or made, even if the upgrade visually enhances the property.

 

[Richard Carlsen]

I don't think it is a question of what is said in the comments but how they relate to the data presented in the grid.

I can envision a situation where every single one of these is an accurate statement and another situation where every one is an example of someone blowing smoke.

You are the review appraiser. Only you can answer if they are well thought out and justified.

 

[Bruce Lennick]

Design: Purchasers are more concerned with living area and livability than design. Design differences do not significantly affect purchasing decisions. For this reason, no adjustment is made for design.


This boiler-plate statement simply states that an average buyers is not concerned with design of a home, I find that hard to believe. if functionality was the only concern then comparing any 3 bedroom 2 bath house with another would be acceptable would it not, who cares where the bedrooms are located, 3 bedrooms splits equal to 3 bedrooms ranchers and 2 story homes. all the same??

I guess I have never seen this much boiler-plating.

 

[hastalavista]

I agree with Richard C's comment; given a certain situation, these comments could be appropriate.

I disagree in general (although, again, it could work in a specific situation) in regards to using Marshall & Swift to make market grid adjustments since (as the appraisal report later says) Cost does not necessary equal Value, so why use a costing service to base market adjustments on?

As to the design/appeal comment, I don't know what we are talking about here; is the difference between a "cottage" and a "bungalow"? Between a 2-story "Hi-Ranch" and a 2-story Contemporary? Maybe there's no design/appeal difference.
Is the design difference between a one-story ranch vs. a two-story Queen Anne? I think there might be a market reaction to those design differences.

I very much appreciate your comment on "boilerplating". I don't have a problem with those comments if they are appropriate to the assignment and there is additional commentary where necessary on specific adjustments. If, however, those are the only comments and that's supposed to suffice for some odd-looking comparisons made in the grid, it is likely inadequate.

 

[Non Sequitur]

I guess I have never seen this much boiler-plating.

My thoughts exactly. I'll bet this appraiser trained at a large fee shop and picked up "language" every time a UW barked at something. Now he has this addendum page which is added to every report and on occasion slightly edited which leads to-

I can envision a situation where every single one of these is an accurate statement and another situation where every one is an example of someone blowing smoke.

Adding to the above, most of it is poorly written.

The good news is that from the looks of it he has the secret adjustment list.

PS What in the world is a "wood burning apparatus"? Is that a homemade fireplace?

 

[Em Tee]

From my experience I have found it a bad idea to post appraisals you are reviewing on a public forum.

I guess client-appraiser confidentiality isn't a concern for you.

I don't see where any confidential information was displayed. This could be an appraisal anywhere in the country - there's absolutely nothing in there to identify it. (unless you happen to recognize it as your own-LOL!)

 

[Mike Boyd]

Mary....did you mean in addition to the poor spelling, punctuation and grammar......and the obvious lack of proof reading?

I think the appraiser tried to make a thorough report. He/she may not have a lot of years of experience and is trying too hard to explain ALL adjustments. However, I agree with Richard in the over-all opinion

 

[Farm Gal]

Hi Jesse,

Welcome to the forum.

An excepted entirely unidentifieable series of comments as are indicated above are neitehr against forum rules nor professional practice as the comments pasted into the are so bland and generic as to lack ANY idenifiable features.

Which was pretty much the point of the post asking for feedback.

I tend to agree with others that if the specific comments are explanitory and appropriate to the report under review - so much the better (if a little wordy)... but if they are just blah blah then perhaps not the best use of the readers time and a complete waste of space in the report it self!

Good bad or ugly depends entirely on the context.... Since the poster has better sense than to post the entire identifiabel context... well generic feedback is about all it's going to get! (as opposed to SOME folk who post here on occasion)


Chuck:

Wood Burning Apparatus is generic speak for FP and WBS and BBQ and lesseee any thing which results in NOT having to even rough tune (or think) abotu BS boiler plate... Actually now I AM going to come down on the "it's blah-blah" side of the debate.:new_silly:

WBA my ***!

 

[ginna currie]

"Modest site size differences do not warrant an adjustment as their utility to a homeowner is similar."

Too general of a statement for me. I guess the front footage has no impact on the value/desire either.

 

[Don Clark]

Lot's of CYA

My main concern is with the boiler plating per se. It appears to be another example of "one size fits all" . Hopefully with the new scope of work rule such bolier plating will not survive. If a report is written for the client, property, and the SOW for same, such boiler plating just won't work. Such statements are akin to saying hey, let's make all mens trousers size 50 waist and 36 length. Sure, some will have to use several large pins to adjust the waist size, and some will have to cut the waist to make it larger(boilerer plating) and some will have to roll up the pant legs, and some will have to let the seams out(boiler plating) but everyone can use them, after all they are trousers. Hopefully, in the future with a properly written scope of work, there will be a better fit as the trousers(report) will be made for the property and the client, not a generic one size fits all.

I strongly disagree with the statement about style. If continues to amaze me how many appraisers ignore many same style properties in a given neighborhood or market and will go miles away and use different style sales as comps. I believe, unless there are unusual circumstances, or the property is in a rural location with very few sales that you compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges, or Ranch style to Ranch style, and 2 story to 2 story. The market does recognize a difference in style, IMNSHO.