Concession Adjustments Missing
Concession Adjustments are expected to be made…
Appraisers,
As noted previously, I ‘observe’ various reports from various sources. A new one arrived last week.
In looking over the grid, I noticed the concession adjustments are missing in the grid, as shown below. Commentary continues below the image.
The appraiser correctly shows the concession amount in the left portion of the comp grid (Comp 1 & 2 – Green Arrows), but does not put a corresponding adjustment for the concession in the actual grid column (Red arrows). This is NOT the first time I have seen this in reports. Apparently this adjustment process is not well understood by some appraisers. Had the adjustment been included, the adjusted values (Blue arrows) would have been lower. (A concession is ALWAYS a negative adjustment.)
Frankly, many RE Agents don’t understand what concessions are, why we appraisers make concession adjustments, and why we bug them with phone calls and emails to ask about this. Likewise with the borrower(s) understanding when they see/read our report, since they seldom encounter appraisal reports.
FNMA and the other ‘users’ expect concession adjustments to be made…Fannie Mae (FNMA), and the other ‘users’, expect concession adjustments to be made. It can be ‘dollar for dollar’ or an amount considered appropriate by the appraiser on the grid ‘right’ side, per FNMA guidelines. But the actual concession amount should be shown on the ‘left’ side of the comps column.
Whenever I find concession amounts for the comps, I include the following commentary in my report Addendum:
Discussion about Concessions:
A Concession is any inducement offered by the seller to the buyer to help facilitate the property sale. A Concession is not any fee ‘normally paid by sellers as a result of tradition or law in a market area,’ which includes sales commissions, recording excise fee, property taxes, association dues, etc. A Concession is an optional item negotiated between seller and buyer, to benefit the buyer.
Subject Concession is indicated on Form page 1; the Concession for gridded properties is entered as a negative adjustment in the grid on Form page 2 (and others). This adjustment can be, or may not be, dollar-for-dollar. Per instructions on the Form page 4, the appraiser can enter an adjustment amount based on the appraiser’s perceived market reaction to the seller’s inducement.
A concession is not revealed in the public record relating to property sales. The actual concession amount is included in the recorded sale price, but not shown separately.
In the ‘real world’ a Concession on a property may be known to the appraiser based on information in the MLS, however the actual dollar amount of the Concession may not be known, or obtainable. This is because in this area, per advice from the Realtor Association and MLS staff attorneys, Concessions are considered confidential information between seller and buyer. Therefore, the listing or selling agent may not reveal the actual Concession amount to the appraiser. The appraiser does not have normal access to the HUD-1 closing statement, and may not be able to confirm the actual Concession amount from the parties to the transaction because the appraiser does not typically have contact info for comp property sellers and buyers.
Because Concessions vary, are optional, and do not have any ‘set amount,’ the appraiser will not enter a negative adjustment in the Concession field for any property on the grid unless the actual Concession amount can be confirmed.
For this assignment, the following applies to Concessions:
The checked comparable properties are shown in the MLS to have a concession, however the exact Concession amount could not be confirmed from parties related to the transaction or other sources. If the Concession is known to exist, a Zero (0) will be entered in the grid. These properties will be weighted lower in the analysis to determine the Opinion of Market Value.
[ ] Comp 1 [ ] Comp 2 [ ] Comp 3 [ ] Comp 4 [ ] Comp 5 [ ] Comp 6The checked comparable properties are shown in the MLS to have a concession, and the amount has been confirmed from parties related to the transaction. The concession adjustment determined by the appraiser has been entered in the grid. These properties would be considered to have ‘normal’ weighting in the analysis to determine the Opinion of Market Value.
[ ] Comp 1 [ ] Comp 2 [ ] Comp 3 [ ] Comp 4 [ ] Comp 5 [ ] Comp 6
The above two paragraphs are used to tell the reader the status of the concession and how it or they apply to the final Opinion of Market Value.
You may use the above commentary in your reports if you like.
By all means, if you show a concession on the ‘left’ part of the grid, be sure to include a concession adjustment amount on the ‘right’ side.
Dave Towne on e-AppraisersDirectory.com
- New UAD Overhaul: What Appraisers Can Expect in 2025 & Beyond - September 19, 2024
- Cindy Chance Terminated - September 16, 2024
- Key Part of USPAP Not Available from TAF - July 19, 2024
Dave. Going to have to totally disagree on you with this article. Concession adjustments are made based on paired sales anaysis. Your example supports no adjustments need to be made to sales 1 and 2 based on a pairing with sale 3 (unless you missed the market based adjustments to sale 3). All adjustments on the market grid are derived from market data and support and you show no support for removing all of the concessions. If the GSEs wanted a cash only equivalency – then they should Require all concessions to be removed and the appraisers could explain their skewed valuations. As a broker as well as an appraiser, i have traded repairs for seller paid buyers’s closing cost and we did not increase the sales price to pay the concessions. The subject is still a good comp at market value
As long as concessions are made that does not raise sales price above market value then where is the basis for an adjustment? A $200,000 house is still worth 200k regardless of how much money was paid to the buyer and that is why market support is required for ALL adjustments
Adjustments for concessions should be made when market data exists to support the adjustment. Why would all other adjustments within the market grid be based on market data except for concession adjustments?
With your line of thinking – better call some investors including FHA because the loan to value ratio of all loans made with concessions (or where no concession adjustments were warranted on subjects) are fraudulent because they were “over-valued” and dont represent the actual LTV ratios stated in loan docs.
So how can it be that a FHA subject of $100,000 with 3 points being paid can be appraised (with the points) by a FHA appraiser, underwritten by a FHA underwriter, insured by FHA, closed and funded but the next day the house is only worth $97,0000 because some appraiser “thought” all seller paid buyers’s closing costs inflate values all the time – ridiculous!!
Hogwash. Learn the difference between net and gross. You don’t pair up sales to determine net to seller or cash equivalency factors for individual deal terms. The buyer and seller are ‘the market’ and if a home sells for less, it’s no longer enjoying a fixed pricing point as you presume, now although price was still 200k, value is 200k less concessions. If the sellers net is reduced, the value is not the same as the price. The market data which supports the adjustment is obvious; Seller reduced net to accommodate the concession. The limited range of applicable scenarios regarding nullifying market response to concessions should not include open market arms length gse financed deals. Value is price less concession, not price plus concession. A concession is a tangible hard number mathematical factor and arguing that a real number has nill value in a simple cash based linear equation is missing the point regarding order of operation rules and differences between price and value. ‘Off the top, so to speak’. By not adjusting you’re misleading report users indicating value included a figure which reduced the net to seller but that factor in the equation was disregarded. Value is the end amount achieved after expenses, price is the gross amount before expenses. Value is what the seller gets, price is what the buyer pays. Not the same. In regular financed deals net to seller is the only thing that matters pertaining to concessions. If the seller conceded a reduced amount via concession, it needs adjusted, and ‘other deals’ which had no concessions has absolutely no bearing on net to seller in a deal where concessions were granted. It’s not a government subsidized fdic backed and insured concession which does not reduce net to seller for chrsts sake. However, take the criticism with a grain of salt, I’ve learned about this in the past, it gets confusing because not all states have equivalent disclosure rules, per below comments as well. If concession always indicates reduced net to seller and not repair or subject to items, it should be adjusted for.
I don’t agree that concession adjustments are necessary for this one. The concession amount doesn’t always translate into an adjustment for the same amount.
The adjustment on the right could be “0”. It would show you considered the concession but determined no market adjustment was required. Also – realtors consistently add “repair” costs to the concession amount. This would be a condition situation not a concession. Every realtor should read FANNIE’s definition of a concession. We call on EVERY concession to validate.
The term ‘market’ needs specifically parsed for applicable proper definition. The ‘market’ for housing is the larger picture. The concession for an individual deal is a singular consideration which does it’s individual part to set ‘the market’, as a whole. Individual instances of concession does matter and in any singular instance of reduced net to seller, that certainly is a reduction in value indicator.
However, we probably have it easier in CO, as concession is always the straight forward closing costs paid by seller on behalf of buyer and usually nothing else. In CO this is always disclosed and always a straight forward reduction in net to seller, in order for the seller to continue to work with a buyer whom has qualification but inadequate pocket cash for closing costs. Repair negotiations are on proper form or in a proper form section and not included as concessions costs in CO. One thing I’ve learned from running this maze for many years, is that the quality of brokerage disclosure and mandated forms in a specific state can vastly change the quality of valuation result based on known or often unknown disclosure points.
Help me out appraisers. The list price of a property is $100,000 and is selling for $105,000 with a $5,000 concession towards closing costs. Can anybody please tell me why you would not deduct $5,000 off for concessions for this as a comp? If the MLS notes concessions, I ALWAYS deduct that same amount.
Why would you “always” deduct that amount?
While I don’t agree that paired ales are the only valid method of determining market perceptions, I DO disagree that rote adjustment of any kind is improper. Some lender guidelines indicate concession adjustment’s ‘should be’ made based on market reactions-not dollar for dollar equivalents. That is unless the market does not recognize those adjustments. A suggested hint is those adjustments that are present in virtually ALL similar type transactions. Example is in a market where significant majority of VA sales include all or portions of buyer closing costs being paid by sellers; or even more common where sellers pay the lender discount fees (points).
As one poster pointed out, unless we are reverting to the old R41(b) or R41(c) cash equivalence (with carefully explained and documented procedures) automatic concessions adjustments are not required where the market does not dictate what they are.
Lets not forget the differences between OUR assumptions and valid market data.
Oops! “paired ales” are not a thirst quenching substitute-just a typo 🙁
You know, appraisers and agents alike often duck and cover behind definitions of the market as a whole. It’s important to remember the value of an individual deal takes into account the terms of an individual deal, and we are usually valuing individual homes through individual deals. Frequency of concession type has no bearing on net to seller for an individual deal. In the event of prolific concessions, it’s more important than ever to give them dollar for dollar. Markets where everyone demands and attains a concession are weak markets that need eventual balance or price reduction. Markets where buyers compete are often markets where asking for a concession puts a buyer in a weak and often losing position. People I think misunderstand the purpose of these fnma rules and allowances. They are present to account for the anomalous data and complex new builder approaches, not to provide a reason to ignore sound linear math and make a reduced net to seller somehow equate to a nill factor where value still matches price despite net reductions in secondary market sales. Individual seller, individual buyer, individual price, individual value, individual net analysis for each and every individual deal.
Furthermore, you’re dead on sights with the other analysis. Only adjusting for time and not tangible factors? I wish I could have picked up the matching twin of my home with twice the land size for a mere thousand dollars more. Wouldn’t that have been something? Like the grid has absurdly short description lines, it’s not that tough to fill them in with slightly more specific text. Insul windows? Wow, I’m sure that covers it. And of course all porch and patios are created equal, nothing to see here, passed FNMA CU and that’s all that matters these days, move along. The system of backwards rewards are here; If you put in real effort and do it right, the CU system won’t be able to insta pass your credible valuation results. Appraisers should focus on better data research so they don’t have to do corny things like adjust month over month for time, that’s so weak compared to tangible relative comparisons from a 1 year relative time frame. Adjusting for time? Did he account for deflation of the dollar or is that adjustment based on rate terms or what? Seriously, the rate is not linear and neither should time be linear. Adjusting for time is a can of worms because automatic review software expects time adjusts to be linear, matching month over month. That’s simply not realistic. Keep rocking on Dave & Mike.
Because the market may not recognize the concession or an concession adjustment. Any adjustment should be supported…by replicable data that reflects market reaction in the subject market segment.
Comparable sales that include sales or financing concessions must be adjusted to reflect the impact, if any, on the sales price of the comparables based on the market at the time of sale. For information related to sales or financing concessions for the subject transaction, see B3-4.1-02, Interested Party Contributions (IPCs).
THE IMPACT, IF ANY, BASED ON THE MARKET AT TIME OF SALE.
I’m a seller and my feelings are still hurt that I had to give that buyer $5k of my walking money to make this deal happen. Hows that for impact? My value was reduced because that dang buyer could not actually afford this deal, and I could not find anyone else to take his place in an acceptable time period.
So your value wasn’t reduced you just didn’t have the patience to wait for the right buyer.
Close, no cigar. Truly a reduction in net which did not reflect in the price, has to be a reduction against value or what else could it be if not reflected in price? Maybe it was aliens or something, but I maintain the position that if price is not altered, reduced final rake is in fact a reduction in net, aka price and value no longer in exact alignment, aka concessions reduce the net and must be disclosed since they take price and value out of alignment.
Herb, I get the feeling you’re just messing with me. My net feelings hurt quantity is limited, offset by notable gross valuation skill inadequacy, so no need to adjust for feelings just yet.
WAIT = TIME = VALUE. Most appraisals call for current value, not yesterdays, not tomorrows, TODAYS! Relocation Appraisals typically ask for a value 90 days in the future when they will acquire the property. Sometimes its higher sometimes not. Who are you telling to wait?
It’s bad enough to try for just close, trying for the right buyer is just tooo much
can’t use you now as a comp. not an acceptable marketing period (short sale, haha). or maybe not an acceptable greed factor. i mean as a seller, not an appraiser.
Dave – Seller concessions are just like ALL other market extracted adjustments – You are assuming too much and not measuring the market. The sale with the concession (and cash sales too) did 1 of 3 things – sold below market, sold at market or sold above market value – and the only way to know which one of the 3 occurred is to extract from market data – compare to other sales without a concession (or didn’t sell for cash as used in this example).
This really is basic Appraisal 101. The only fact that you know is that a sale sold with a concession – don’t presume to know what the seller/buyer and agents were thinking when they negotiated the sale. Assuming the sale would have sold for something else or without a concession is just that – An assumption (might want to include that in your Extraordinary Assumptions). Use the market data to support an adjustment or lack of one.
Also appraisers – the FNMA definition of market value and concessions in particular (and I know there are several definitions out there, but its the one that’s on the form) should be read and taken in its entirety and not sentences taken out of context.
Thanks for the comments everyone – I’m just commenting to get appraisers to question this – you are going to write the appraisals you write.
Nicely said
It’s just important to understand this argument is parsed by location. In CO I know the agents are disclosing seller assist closing costs every time in MLS data. It’s on state mandated forms, and somehow is also a standard for local MLS participants. I know that concession demands a dollar for dollar adjustment and there is no wiggle room based on possible conflicting motivations or unusual negotiations of agents. That concessions line in Denver MLS always is a 100% reduction of net to seller via either dp assist or closing costs assist, therefore always requiring a dollar for dollar adjust. Really, it’s just easier that way and all states should be mandating this sort of disclosure by this time already. I’m pretty sure this happened by way of state mandated realty forms in CO. I can’t imagine having to play the guessing and verification game regarding what concessions were and possibly were not valid net to seller reduction disclosures, and I would certainly have written a letter to the state about that by now if that was a local problem. Fix the problem, demand honest transparent reliable and consistent disclosure. Relying on FNMA is not a solution, look where they’ve already led us.
Dave (as he so often does) tried to be helpful to us all and demonstrate ongoing flaws or observations he’s noted in appraisals and we being typical, overly anal retentive appraisers burned him at the stake for it. Sorry Dave!
He’s had an ongoing series of posts in various media about common recurring errors or unexplained exceptions. In the larger context of his articles, he’s right. The absence of an adjustment should have been adequately explained-just as we would explain NOT adjusting for a 250 SF difference in GLA (possibly offset by a fully finished “Casita” of similar size)..
My own issue with the grid provided (not with Dave for providing it) is that it makes me wonder if the appraiser just used ACI or alamode’s or CoreLogic/Relists AVM based “data” and suggested adjustment amounts instead of real market data relevant to the subject and its location? If that’s the case, then it wasn’t an appraisal at all, was it?
ALL UPWARD time adjustments? Okaaaaaay from a purely philosophical standpoint nothing wrong BUT couldn’t he find a CURRENT comparable sale that required no time or market adjustment?
Is the appraiser really able to tell a $100 location adjustment? Also, if an ‘average’ (N;res) location is superior and jet noise is equal to the subject as inferred, I think the more relevant issue not in the grid is the probability the subject location is “less than average” (I REFUSE to describe comparisons in communication with other appraisers in UAD terms as if those terms have real meanings in the market).
How about the $72 lot size adjustment? SERIOUSLY??? I bet the buyer and seller negotiated for days over that one!
Unless the appraiser wrote the Great American novel of necessary and credible explanations for his or her treatment of adjustments I think the best course of action would be a phone call, and then consideration of a referral to state regulators…and THATS coming from a guy that spends much of his union efforts defending appraisers!
I think we would or should all agree that (subject to no further adequate explanations) the grid provided would best be technically described using Harry Truman’s habitual term for pony loaf.
In that sense I think Dave’s example was well worth the time and effort. Thanks Dave!
Mike, (I REFUSE to describe comparisons in communication with other appraisers in UAD terms as if those terms have real meanings in the market) I like and use something similar to that statement already!
Let’s fix it. Never higher than 70% LTV. Those “little” numbers won’t matter. During the crash did the “appraised” values mean anything? What was the median percentage of return on foreclosed properties? Wasn’t 97% that is for sure!!
Gman..Lets assume that all adjustments in the example are prefect except for concessions. Then, after further evaluation you find that the shown grid adjustment of blank or zero in all three sales is perfect too! You might notice that the sale with no dollar concession is the highest adjusted indicated value. There’s your answer.-no adjustment was warranted for concession based on the provided market data. All is food for thought.
Following
Let’s say you appraised comp 1 in the appraisal and it had concessions. You appraised it for the sales price or above. You are saying it’s worth that at the time of your appraisal but then you use it as a comp and take off for the concession amount? So in one case it’s worth the sales price but then not when using as a comp. I’ve seen this many times and it makes no sense. Concessions don’t determine the value of a home. The market does. I’m a fan of paired sales to determine adjustments for concessions as long as it’s done properly.
What comparable 1 had a MV of when it sold is irrelevant because ITS value was predicated on what other comparable sales suggested it was worth. It was measured against ITS comparables, just as the current re-use of it is measuring it in relation to a different subject. Maybe comparable 1 had an appraised value of $500,000 and a SP of the same amount…after having already been discounted down from an asking price of $525,000 when repair needs were discovered. Imho A concession is best measured on the entire transaction (listing to close) if you really want to see whether it had an impact. As an agent before becoming an appraiser I can tell you that I was very adept at using concessions to gin up higher prices where sellers were willing to gamble above a certain amount.
Same thing applied to getting 7% commissions versus competitors offering 5% vs 6%. It didn’t happen every time; but I got more than a dozen 7% or selling agent bonus listings back when I was selling (eons ago).
Concessions that affect the MV of the home may exist, but that is not to say they always will affect the homes MV. I concur that adjustments need to be supported. ALL adjustments.
RE paired sales-I’ve seen valid paired sales in Southern, California where the adjustment and amount were beyond dispute…twice in thirty years. One ‘practice’ I disagree with is to suggest or argue that absent a paired sale to prove it, that any adjustment is invalid. It’s merely ONE method of suggesting a specific adjustment is supported.
Its also the second most abused claimed method that exists…right behind “based on discussions with unspecified area brokers or agents” with no contact data.
nice appraisal. wish i could adjust to the $1 +/- level. when i was a broker i never heard some of those numbers on that appraisal. yes ms jones, that lot should bring in $72 more than the house you like. i think the wrong thing was talked about on this thread.
by the way, on reverse mortgages, concessions are taken off dollar for dollar. fha wants to figure out the loan amount on the cash value of the home. i don’t think some appraisers know that. great article, but i didn’t understand any of it.
Does that mean there are 2 values for the same home at the same time. 1 for market value and 1 for reverse mortgage value..I’m confused?
The market value is not the same as the market price. The market value is straight forward as comparative value analyzed against price less concessions costs which reduce net to seller. The value can fall in winning favor of either party, but hopefully they’re striking a fair deal. If the buyer needs 50% down assist from the seller that must be disclosed. There is no magical point in space or time where a lessor number would not need disclosed just because it’s a lessor or partially more common figure. Think of it like propping up or subsidizing the price. Unless it’s standard in the cost expenses, it’s an unexpected or variable figure which must be included in the value analysis.
Gary – see website mfford.com “Value Definitions tab” on left – look about 3/4 of the way down for a long Memo from Joan Gaar to Ron Cerruti (both of IRS) – more than half a dozen different values discussed there.
Short answer – yes. Whether intended or not, no one should ever believe that the final reviewed value of a reverse mortgage is what the “market value” of the property is.
I have never found a case in which the original appraisal was fairly, competently or even honestly analyzed in the review process (& I really DID try to seek them out). It used to be mandatory for them to be reviewed by a company operating out of San Diego where that owner had lost or surrendered his license in more than six different states. I ceased accepting ALL RM work the second time I ran into those guys.
My personal belief was that based on discussions with them, I would be participating in consumer fraud if I ever did another appraisal for an RM as they were then conducted (circa 2012), and as long as “review” by their firm was a requirement.
They took what was potentially a good program in isolated cases and turned it into a (funding lender) money making consumer rip off.
This article is self-indulgent trash. Here it is, directly from FNMA:
Where to find it: Fannie Mae Selling Guide, B4-1.3-08,Comparable Sales (01/31/2017) Adjustments for Sales or financing Concessions Fannie Mae recognizes that the effect of sales or financing concessions on sale prices can vary with the amount of the concessions and reaction in different markets. Adjustments must reflect the difference between what the comparables actually sold for with the sales or financing concessions and what they would have sold for without the concessions so that the dollar amount of the adjustments will approximate the reaction of the market to the concessions. In some cases, that may mean no adjustment is warranted, or in other cases, the appropriate adjustment might be less than the actual dollar amount. If the appraiser’s analysis determines that the market’s reaction is the full amount of the financing concession, a dollar-for-dollar adjustment is acceptable.
I repeat: “In some cases, that may mean no adjustment is warranted.”
If a builder only offers one model and only one option package and the cost is $100,000 and each sale has a $3000 seller paid concession, is the value, after thousands of sales in the neighborhood, $97,000 or $100,000. If you answered $97,000, quit your job. Read the definition of market value.
The appraiser has identified that the seller traditionally pays for up to 3% of the buyers closing costs in virtually all transactions, therefore, in order to meet the FNMA definition of market value, cited on page 4 of 6 of each 1004, no adjustment has been given to seller paid concessions unless they exceed 3%. Furthermore, these concessions are neither special or creative in that they are typical and allowed by most lending programs.
And some times the buyer agrees to a higher sales price due to included concessions.
Some times the sales price ain’t the sales price
True. THAT is why we are supposed to individually analyze each transaction and appraisal rather than use rote adjustments or habit.
Before I became an appraiser, I was a real estate agent for 14 years and 2 of those years I worked for a relocation company. In my experience, an appraiser, the real estate agents involved in a transaction and even the buyer and/or seller may not know exactly how much a seller paid concession impacted the sale price. ie: One of my clients at the relocation company paid their relocating employee a bonus if the net sale price fell within a certain range. Oddly enough 95-98% of the list price, not 100%. That company also reimbursed their employee any seller paid concessions and minor repair issues up to 5% of the sale price. I worked with several relocating employees in a hot market, that would accept the initial offer of 100% of the asking price, but would counter by adding enough seller paid concessions to reduce the net sale price into the 95-98% range so they could receive their bonus. I know this is an extremely rare scenario, but shows that it may be impossible to know everything a buyer or seller may be thinking during negotiations or how it impacts the final sale price. I would love to know what some experienced appraisers think of this idea. Since we can almost never know for sure what exact dollar amount the concessions impacted the sale price, what if we looked at the average sale price-to-list price ratio for similar sales in the subject’s market area and based the concession adjustment on that figure.
If a comp was listed for $100,000, sold for $97,000 and the average sale-to-list price ratio was 3%, I don’t think the market supports an adjustment for concessions.
Same scenario, but in this case, the sale price was $100,000 with $5000 in concessions. Could an appraiser be justified and be able to defend his adjustment by making a negative $3000 adjustment ? (based on average sale-to-list ratio, it appears that the sale price should have been $97,000. So even though there were $5000 in concessions, it only appears to have impacted the sale price by $3000.
I know always, never and typical, don’t really exist in the real estate business, and that there are other factors involved in the sale-to-list price average, but wouldn’t this be a way to apply the concession adjustment with some consistency, that is derived from the market and defendable? I have never been accused of being the smartest one in the room, even when I am alone with my dog. Would like to hear your thoughts. Thanks
I have written an article on this subject of concessions before. Here is the problem as I see it. You are appraising a home in a subdivision with a sale of $ 200,000 with $ 5,000 in concessions. You have 3 model matches which sold in the subdivision within the prior 3 months. There are no adjustments required except possibly for the concessions. Comp # 1 sold for $ 200,000 with a $ 5,000 concession, comp # 2 sold for $ 200,000 with a $ 5,000 concession and comp# 3 sold for $ 200,000 with $ 5,000 concession. If no adjustments are made for concessions, all 3 sales have an adjusted price of $ 200,000 therefore there is no problem reaching the sales price of $ 200,000. If you adjust all comps for the concessions (dollar for dollar) your adjusted price range is $ 195,000. Since you do not have any adjusted sales price at or above the sales price of the subject how can you value the subject at the $ 200,000 sales price? What would you value this property at if you were not aware of the sales price or did not have a copy of the sales contract? What if this was a “refinance loan request” would you value the subject at $ 200,000 or $ 195,000? I posed this question to Fannie & HUD with no solutions offered.
Why cut it for 2.5 percent. It appears $5,000 is a typical concession. I wouldn’t deduct in this instance. Just note in the comments that each sale had $5,000 give-back which appear typical for this market. Nobody then could say you were misleading anyone. Let the bank decide from there. Just my two cents…..
I’m with Dave on that one. You can ASSUME there is a deduction but you don’t know it. IF you had one at $195,000 with no concession, then you’d have your answer. You’d have to employ extraordinary assumption in order to break a deal for 2.5%? Not me. The concluding value is no greater than conclusions from rounding adjustments would be.
These days, many realtors are increasing the purchase price to include the concessions. Home listed for $100,000, sold for $105,000 with $5,000 back. Home is probably worth $100,000
Nothing new. 40+ years ago I listed a property ‘worth’ 95-98 tops based on most relevant but not particularly great comps. Qualitatively my subject was superior. Subject relatively new in older area. Sided small power generating sub station. As the listing agent I listed it at $105,000 with VA no down, seller paying buyers closing costs (typical in that area…$3,000) AND $1,500 bonus to selling agent office. We expected the appraisal to come in around $100k tops. I stuffed the deal with comps that were as much (qualitatively) superior as the most relevant ones were inferior. This was 1972 or so-predated computerized comps. I gave VA appraiser mls copies; doc numbers and verified sale prices with title insurance customer service # in addition to the doc numbers. Market impact of all this was $7,000 but no one identified it as such. Lucky listing sale? You betcha. Good appraisal? Not really. Note to agents today – ALWAYS meet the appraiser yourself & submit something credible that supports your price! Its our job to see through it IF its BS.
Nice discussion…. but I’m more concerned about the highly depressed contributory value adjustment for land…. based on the adjustments made, the subject property has a lot size of 9,879 sf adjusted at $0.22…. I’m guessing this was an appraisal in the gorgeous, extremely dry lots of the Sahara…?
If comparable sales concessions cannot be verified via MLS, purchase agreements, buyers, sellers, or another third party, appraisers shouldn’t be adjusting for comparable sales peer concessions that show up in prior reports.
All concessions must be verified before making adjustments, this is basic Fannie Mae guidelines. If you are unable to obtain verification, concessions for comparable sales used in a report should be omitted.