Absolutely agree. If sale prices are ALL (or nearly all) showing numbers like $500,000; $490,000 or $495,000, and $489,000 then the market signficant number is $1,000 and quite often $5k or even $10k

Telling someone the adjustment for site is $11,393.99 is misleading…and amateurish.

Makes me wonder who  did the appraisal. Appraiser signing it or the software programmer for the vendor selling the autoadjust software used in the report writing stage.

Dan, unless of course your “evidence” is a CoreLogic based regression program…or some other equally unreliable system that only looks at 70% of the value related characteristics of a property, and allocates the remaining 30% among those 70% factors.

Do you NOT use sensitivity analysis after you THINK you have identified the adjustment factor? By being so finite on the indication derived from ‘evidence’ I assume you are talking about ONLY statistical evidence, right? Contrary to current trends being promoted by the Big Data ‘set’, there are many other forms of perfectly acceptable market ‘evidence’.

Failing to round to market signficant numbers is a sign of rank amateurs.

Well when I try to ‘add the value’ to my house.  I end up paying retail market rates almost every single time.  Theory is a nice idea.  In the real world you pay dollar for dollar and unless you’re on a far side of the spectrum one way or another, your gains are tempered by the real world cost.  An informed buyer who’s been there and done that won’t pay a seller a fortune for installed materials they could otherwise manage themselves with simple labor processes.  Only when a home is really trashed or really dated, very simple, not keeping up with market standards, only then does it begin to make sense to buyers to pony up the cost + investment.  It’s a hassle to do that yourself, having contractors all day for weeks is no joke and not cool if you are living there.  But for just a hardwood spread, just a deck, etc, real world costs are the most applicable consideration.  In my humble out in the field and not stuck to the desk opinion of course.

I see no issue with across the board adjustments being exact with evidence to support the average, weighted average, or predominant market derived contributory value based on the unit of comparison. I agree that if OMV is developed in this manner then rounding should be completed at the end. I definitely agree that minimum thresholds should be used. When reviewing reports it is frustrating seeing $300 adjustments on reports with a final OMV around $300,000.

In my market I round to nearest $1000. Rarely is even $500 a realistic market perception. Anyone that questions this is clearly inexperienced and probably not qualified to understand the answer even if its explained to them.

I’ve said things like “Requesting party to identify self by name, company and position within the company so I have a record for my file.”

Its not the cost of the improvement, its the value the improvement adds

Its not the cost of the improvement, its the value the improvement adds

What???  I think that you might not understand what he is saying.  He is not rounding the $62 but is rounding the result of the $62/sf adjustment of the differences in GLA or $62/sf x 211 sf = $13,082 or $13,100.

HA! But you forget who we are dealing with most of the time……