Printer Friendly

Base adjusting in the sales comparison approach.

absract

This article demonstrates that the same value indication can be developed in the sales comparison approach by using either dollar or percentage adjustments. However, the dollar adjustments are summed while the equivalent percentages should be multiplied. Each time an independent, market-derived adjustment is made to a sale price, a new base is established. This article demonstrates that the adjustment process in the sales comparison approach is simply the application of base adjusting.

**********

The sales comparison approach is probably the most commonly used technique for developing an indication of value in the valuation process. This technique is based on the principle of substitution, which states that "when several similar or commensurate commodities, goods, or services are available, the one with the lowest price will attract the greatest demand and the widest distribution." (1) A knowledgeable, prudent purchaser will not pay more for a particular property than the cost of acquiring an equally desirable substitute property without delay. The sales comparison approach is applicable to virtually every type of property as long as sufficient market information is available, i.e., recent sales of similar properties that have the same highest and best use as the property being appraised.

Elements of Comparison

The principle of substitution is applicable for individual value-influencing differences between a comparable property and a subject property, such as market conditions, location, size, etc. A specific adjustment is made for each characteristic. The collective adjustments for the differences are applied to the comparable to make it equal to the subject as of the date of value, thereby developing an indication of value for the subject property. The sales comparison approach is probably most important for any property type typically not held for its income potential.

The most common property components, or elements of comparison, considered for their influence on value are as follows: (2)

* Real property rights conveyed

* Financing terms

* Conditions of sale

* Expenditures made immediately after purchase

* Market conditions (time)

* Location

* Physical characteristics

* Economic characteristics

* Use (zoning)

* Non-realty components of value.

Often a basic element of comparison is divided into subcategories. For example, physical characteristics may be adjusted for age, condition, quality, j size, and amenities. Economic characteristics may include expense ratios, tenant mix, lease provisions, and management. Some economic characteristics, however, may be a function of physical characteristics, e.g., expense ratios can be affected by the age and condition of a structure. Care must be taken not to adjust twice for any element of comparison.

Units of Comparison

Because a property should be appraised in the same manner that the market buys and sells it, a property's sale price is divided by the units of comparison that are most applicable in the property's market. Some often-used units of comparison are price per acre, price per animal unit, price per square foot of gross building area or net leasable area, price per apartment unit, and price per bed. Units of comparison reflect market interactions, facilitate comparison, and usually minimize size adjustments.

Adjustments

Adjustments are made from the known to the unknown. The comparable property is a known transaction that is adjusted to make it equal to the unknown (i.e., the value indication of the subject property). When a sufficient number of adjusted comparables is available, a reliable indication of value can be developed. The number of comparables should be sufficient to allow accurate interpretation of the market; three comparables have been time tested to be an absolute minimum. Experience generally teaches, however, that something will be wrong with one of the three, and the two that remain are probably insufficient to develop an indication of value. Therefore, care should be taken in selecting comparable properties, and more than three comparables should be obtained whenever possible. Appraisal Institute Course 530, "Advanced Sales Comparison and Cost Approaches," suggests that a good rule of thumb is that the number of sales minus the number of elements should be at least three. (3)

Adjustments for the various dissimilarities between the subject property and the comparables can be made on a dollar or a percentage basis. If a comparable property is superior to the subject property to which it is being compared, then a negative or minus adjustment is made to take the comparable property from its superior position down to an equal level with the subject property. If the comparable is inferior in relation to the subject property, then a positive adjustment is made. The market itself dictates whether the item is superior or inferior. A corner influence is generally recognized as being a positive feature for a commercial property because of items such as exposure and accessibility. For an amenity property, such as single-family home, the lack of privacy resulting from a corner location may make the property less desirable than a home located on an interior site.

Adjustments can be derived by using a paired data set analysis, or "matched pair" technique, which measures the price difference between two known transactions that are identical except for one feature. After the value of the feature is isolated, a dollar or percentage adjustment is made. The adjustment takes the comparable from an existing base and adjusts it to a new base after consideration of the single feature. Either dollar or percentage adjustments should result in the exact same adjusted sale price.

Each adjustment is independent of the other adjustments, and a new base is established every time an adjustment is made to a comparable property. If the adjustments for individual characteristics are calculated in dollar amounts, each adjustment moves each individual item from base to base. In a similar manner, if percentage adjustments are made accurately, one adjusts from base to base. In moving from one base to another, the amount of the adjustment is established and then applied.

Dollar Adjustments

The premise for a base adjusting is as follows:

New Base ($) - Original Base ($) = Adjustment ($)

The bases may be identified by pairing two different comparables or a sale and resale of a single comparable. If two properties are essentially equal except for one feature, the adjustment is implemented. The following example shows the process for making an adjustment for market conditions.

Assume the sale of a property one year ago for $100,000 and a current sale of the same property for $120,000. The adjustment is calculated by applying the base adjustment concept as follows:

New Base ($) - Original Base ($) = Adjustment

or

$120,000 - $100,000 = $20,000

The adjustment for the change in market conditions is $20,000 for a one-year period. The direction of the movement from the original base indicates that the market is getting better and the adjustment is positive.

Percentage Adjustments

The concern in using percentage adjustments is to make them equal to dollar adjustments. To express an adjustment as a percentage (%), the relationship to the original base is applied.

New Base ($) - Original Base(S)/Original Base ($) = % Change or Adjustment

The market conditions adjustment, previously calculated above in dollars, is calculated as a percentage as follows:

$120,000 (New Base) - $100,000 (Original Base)/$100,000 (Original Base) = 20% Change or Adjustment/Year

Since the market is shown to be getting stronger, the original base is inferior, resulting in a positive adjustment to bring the sale current to the date of value. In base percentage adjusting, the sale is brought current with the subject by applying the change from the original base of 100%, or 1.00. In this example, the 20% is added to the original base.

1.00 + 0.20 = 1.20 or 120%

This calculation can also be represented by the following formula for the dollar change.

P + A = P x [(1 + (A/9))]

where:

P = Comparable sale price

A = Adjustment in dollars ($)

Multiplying $100,000 by 1.20 equals $120,000. This process can be stated as a formula as follows:

$120,00 = $100,00 x [(1 + ($20,000/$100,000))]

This calculation applies the adjustment and brings it current to the date of value.

Using the Proper Base

Care must be taken to identify the correct base to be adjusted. A corner location for a commercial site typically commands a higher price than an interior site, however, it is easy to become confused in making the adjustment for a corner location if one loses sight of the original base from which the adjustment is made. The two examples that follow demonstrate why base adjusting is important and should be implemented.

Corner Site to Interior Site Adjustment. Assume that in a particular commercial neighborhood a corner site sells for $100,000 and a similar interior site sells for $80,000. In the example that follows, the original base is the sale price of a corner site. The adjustment will be made from the corner site to the interior site.

New Base Interior- Original Base Corner/Original Base Corner = % Change or Adjustment/Year

or

$80,000 - $100,000/$100,000 = -$20,000/$100,000 = -20%

Adding the -20% to the original base results in the following:

1.00 + (-0.20) = 0.80

or

100% + (-20%) = 80%

The adjustment is then made by multiplying the original base of $100,000 by the percent change or the percentage adjustment.

$100,000 x 0.80 = $80,000 for an interior site

Interior Site to Corner Site Adjustment. Assume again that in a particular commercial neighborhood a corner site sells for $100,000 and a similar interior site sells for $80,000. In this example, however, the original base is an interior site.

New Base Corner - Original Base Interior/Original Base Interior = % Change or Adjustment

or

$100,000 - $80,000/$80,000 = +$20,000/$80,000 = +25%

The adjustment is made by multiplying the original base of $80,000 by 1.25 or 125%.

$80,000 x 1.25 = $100,000 for a corner site

Multiple Adjustments--Dollar or Percentage--Develop the Same Value Indication

Dollar adjustments, individually developed from the market for dissimilarities that measurably affect value, are simply added together. The sum of the adjustments is then added to or subtracted from the comparable's sale price to make the comparable equal to the subject as of the date of value. This is base dollar adjusting. Percentage adjustments, however, are handled differently in base adjusting to make them equivalent to dollar adjustments.

Multiple percentage adjustments should not be added together and then applied to adjust comparable sales. It would be technically and mathematically incorrect to add the adjustments because this does not result in moving from base to base. When percentage adjustments are applied, the results must be mathematically equal to dollar adjustments derived separately from the market. Adding or subtracting the percentage adjustments gives an answer that is different from that derived by base adjusting using dollars--in effect, an incorrect answer. It is the intent of this article to demonstrate that multiple percentage adjustments are an implementation of base adjusting and must be multiplied in order to adjust from base to base to provide an adjustment that equals that obtained by using dollar adjustments.

The following formula is used to adjust a comparable for multiple percentage adjustments.

(P + [A.sub.1] + [A.sub.2] + [A.sub.3] ... [A.sub.N]) = P X

[(1 + ([A.sub.1]/P))) X (1 + ([A.sub.2]/P + [A.sub.1]))

x (1 + ([A.sub.3]/P + [A.sub.1] + [A.sub.2]))

X (1 + ([A.sub.N]/P + [A.sub.1] + [A.sub.2] + [A.sub.3] ... + [A.sub.N-1]))]

where:

P = Sale price ($)

[A.sub.1] = 1st Adjustment ($)

[A.sub.2] = 2nd Adjustment ($)

[A.sub.3] = 3rd Adjustment ($)

[A.sub.N] = Nth Adjustment ($)

The conclusion here is that base percentage adjusting can be used for all elements of comparison in the sales comparison approach, but it would be incorrect to simply add or subtract these adjustments and apply the sum to the comparable sale price.

In Table 1, a comparison of multiplying percentage adjustments (column one) and adding percentage adjustments (column two) in an extreme situation is shown. It provides a simple test of reasonableness for the base adjusting premise.

It is obvious that although the property in the example is not worth very much, it does have a positive value as shown by base adjusting and not a negative one as shown by the summative technique. The example is taken from an extreme situation in a marketplace with few or poor sales. The point here is that base adjustments (multiplicative adjusting of percentage adjustments) still works, while adding the separate percentage adjustments (summative adjusting) gives an inaccurate and misleading indication.

Offsetting Errors

Typically, both inferior and superior adjustments are made as the appraiser brackets superior and inferior features of the comparables to the subject property in the sales comparison approach. The positive and negative adjustments tend to offset the summative error as shown in Table 2.

The offsetting error is somewhat minimized became of the combination of positive and negative adjustments, giving a similar but not equal value indication.

Sequence of Adjustments

The Appraisal of Real Estate discusses the ten elements of comparison mentioned at the beginning of this article. It also provides the procedure for adjusting for property rights conveyed, financing terms, conditions of sale, expenditures made immediately after purchase, and market conditions. The text asserts that these adjustments should be made in a specific sequence or order and that they are usually applied to the sale price of each comparable before applying units of comparison. (4)

Using the suggested sequence of adjustments creates the Table 3 adjustment scenario, which is similar to that shown in The Appraisal of Real Estate. (5)

Of course it is preferable to use dollar adjustments if data is available in the market for each item. Dollar adjustments do not require any specific order as long as they are independently derived from the marketplace. The question addressed here is the proper implementation of percentage adjustments to develop the same adjusted value indication as the dollar adjustments. By applying the percentage adjustments shown in Table 3, the adjustments in Table 4 can be developed.

Base Percentage Adjusting. As shown in Table 4, base percentage adjusting develops the same indicated value as applying dollar adjustments as shown in Table 3.

Sale Price x Total Adjustment = Indicated Value

$100,000 x 1.0788 = $107,880

It can be asserted, then, that making dollar adjustments (base dollar adjusting) and applying base percentage adjusting are synonymous and interchangeable processes that result in the same value indication.

Summative Percentage Adjusting. If the percentage

adjustments are summed, the total indicated adjustment is +8% (+3% -5% +5% +0% +5%). This procedure develops an indication of value of $108,000, which is similar (due to offsetting errors), but not equal to the $107,880 value indication developed using base dollar and base percentage adjustments.

Sale Price x Total Adjustment = Adjusted Value Indication

$100,000 x 8% = $108,000

Each time an adjustment is made from the market, it can be measured in dollars or an equivalent percentage. The dollar adjustments are added, but the percentage adjustments must be multiplied to derive the same adjusted value indication.

Percentage Adjustments Using Dollars In the example shown in Table 5, the adjustments are made in dollars. As each dollar adjustment is made (column 2), the equivalent percentage adjustment is calculated (column 3). Because cash is the constant, the percentage adjustments are derived from the dollar adjustments. The percentage adjustments are then tested by both summation (column 4) and base percentage adjusting (column 3).

The adjustment grid follows the base adjustment formula now restated below for the five dollar adjustments.

(P [A.sub.1] + [A.sub.2] + [A.sub.3] + [A.sub.4] + [A.sub.5]) = P x

[(1 + ([A.sub.1]/P)) x (1 + ([A.sub.2]/P + [A.sub.1]))

x (1 + ([A.sub.3]/P + [A.sub.1] + [A.sub.2]))

x (1 + ([A.sub.4]/P + [A.sub.1] + [A.sub.2] + [A.sub.3]))

x (1 + ([A.sub.5]/P + [A.sub.1] + [A.sub.2] + [A.sub.3] + [A.sub.4]))

The left side of the equation is calculated as follows:

[MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII.]

The right side of the equation can be restated as follows:

= P x [(1 + ([A.sub.1]/P)) x (1 + ([A.sub.2]/P + [A.sub.1]))

x (1 + ([A.sub.3]/P + [A.sub.1] + [A.sub.2]))

x (1 + ([A.sub.4]/P + [A.sub.1] + [A.sub.2] + [A.sub.3]))

x (1 + ([A.sub.5]/P + [A.sub.1] + [A.sub.2] + [A.sub.3] + [A.sub.4]))

or

= $100,000 x [(1 + (-$5,000/$100,000)) x (1 + ($3,800/$100,000-$5,000))

x (1 + ($15,000/$100,000 - $5,000 + $3,800))

x (1 + ($5,500/$100,000 - $5,000 + $3,800 + $15,000))

x (1 + ($20,000/$100,000 - $5,000 + $3,800 + $15,000 + $5,500))

Reducing the equation gives the following:

= $100,000 x [(0.95000) x (1.0400) x (1.15182) x (1.04833)

x (1.16765)

= $100,000 x 1.39300

= $139,300

Thus, the left side of the equation (base dollar adjusting) and the right side of the equation (base percentage adjusting) give an equal adjusted value indication ($139,300 = $139,300). If the adjustments are independent of each other, the dollar and percentage adjustments should show the same indication of value. Adding the percentage adjustments results in an indication approximately $3,520 lower in this example ($139,300 - $135,780); see Table 5, column 4.

Percentage Adjustments Using Dollars and Changing Order

In Table 6, the order is changed and the dollar adjustments remain the same. Because the base from which the percentage adjustments are being derived in this example has changed, the percentage adjustments are different. Again the percentage adjustments are tested as before by both summation and base adjusting. While the developed percentage adjustments have changed due to the new base from which they are derived, the same adjusted value indication is derived by both base percentage adjusting and base dollar adjusting.

After changing the order of the adjustments and holding the dollar adjustments constant, the derived percentage adjustments have changed because as the dollar adjustments are applied, the base from which the percentage adjustments are derived has changed t from the previous bases shown in Table 5, column 2. The cumulative base adjustment remains as before at 39.300%, while summing the adjustments equates to 35.88227%. The summative adjustment is $3,418 lower than the base dollar and base percentage adjusted value indications. Although order may be useful in explaining the adjustments, a specific order is not necessary to derive the value indication as long as the adjustments are independently market derived. For the percentage adjustments to result in the same adjusted value indication, however, base percentage adjusting must be implemented.

Conclusion

The base adjusting premise is not fully reflected in current and past appraisal literature and teaching, but it might be viewed as a refinement of the techniques currently being used by appraisers. Base percentage adjusting reflects the same premise as dollar adjustments and properly implements market-derived percentage adjustments. A market-derived adjustment assumes that two (or more) properties are equal except for a single feature. Each feature being adjusted for is independent of all other adjustments and should be handled separately. Only base dollar adjustments and base percentage adjustments accomplish this; summing the percentage adjustments does not. If adjustments are estimated as percentages, base percentage adjusting should be applied to derive the same adjusted value indication as that derived using base dollar adjustments. The adjustment process in the sales comparison approach is simply the application of base adjusting using either dollar or percentage adjustments.

(1.) Appraisal Institute, The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 4th ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2002), 281.

(2.) Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate, 12th ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2001), 426.

(3.) E. Nelson Bowes and Nancy Mueller, "Course 530: Advanced Sales Comparison and Cost Approaches" (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2000), 1-20.

(4.) Appraisal Institute, the Appraisal of real Estate, 442-44.

(5.) ibid., 443.
Table 1 Comparison of Base Percentage Adjusting and Summative
Percentage Adjusting in Extreme Situation

 Base Percentage Adjusting

Unit Price $5.00/sq. ft.
Location x 0.850
Corner x 0.750
Size x 0.800
Utilities x 0.750
Topography x 0.800

Total adjustment 0.306
Adjusted value indication $1.53/sq. ft. ($5.00 sq. ft. x 0.306)

 Summative Percentage Adjusting

Unit Price $5.00/sq. ft.
Location -15%
Corner -25%
Size -20%
Utilities -25%
Topography -20%

Total adjustment -105%
Adjusted value indication $-.25/sq. ft. ($5.00 - [1.05 x $5.00])

Table 2 Offsetting Adjustment Errors

 Base Percentage Adjusting

Unit Price $5.00/sq. ft.
Location x 1.150
Corner x 0.750
Size x 0.800
Utilities x 1.250
Topography x 0.800

Total adjustment 0.690
Adjusted value indication $3.45/sq. ft. ($5.00 sq. ft. x 0.690)

 Summative Percentage Adjusting

Unit Price $5.00/sq. ft.
Location +15%
Corner -25%
Size -20%
Utilities +25%
Topography -20%

Total adjustment -25%
Adjusted value indication $3.75/sq. ft. ($5.00 - [0.25 x $5.00])

Table 3 Sequence of Adjustments

 Market-Derived
Element of Comparison Adjustment

Sale price
1. Property rights conveyed adjustment +3%
 Adjusted price
2. Financing terms adjustment -5%
 Adjusted price
3. Conditions of sale adjustment +5%
 Adjusted price
4. Expenditures immediately after purchase adjustment -0%
 Adjusted price
5. Market conditions adjustment +5%
 Adjusted price

 Adjustment
 Applied
Element of Comparison to Price

Sale price $100,000
1. Property rights conveyed adjustment +3,000
 Adjusted price $103,000
2. Financing terms adjustment -5,150
 Adjusted price $97,850
3. Conditions of sale adjustment +4,893
 Adjusted price $102,743
4. Expenditures immediately after purchase adjustment +0
 Adjusted price $102,743
5. Market conditions adjustment +5,137
 Adjusted price $107,880

Table 4 Comparison of Base Percentage and Summative Percentage
Adjusting

 Base Percentage Summative Percentage

Sale Price $100,000 $100,000
1. Property rights x 1.030 +3%
2. Financing terms x 0.950 -5%
3. Conditions of sale x 1.050 +5%
4. Expenditures after purchase x 1.000 -0%
5. Market conditions x 1.050 +5%

Total Adjustment 1.0788 +8.0%

Table 5 Percentage Adjustments Using Dollars

 Adjustments

Vacant Commercial Dollar

Comparable Selling Price: $100,000

Terms: Land Contract (Below Market)
 Feature: Superior
 Adjustment: (minus) ($5,000.00)
Adjusted Price $95,000
Market Conditions: 14 Mos.
 Feature: Inferior
 Adjustment: (plus) $3,800
Adjusted Price $98,800
Location: Interior
 Feature: Inferior
 Adjustment: (plus) $15,000
Adjusted Price $113,800
Public Utilities: No Water
 Feature: Inferior
 Adjustment: (plus) $5,500
Adjusted Price $119,300
Topographical: Needs Fill
 Feature: Inferior
 Adjustment: (plus) $20,000
Adjusted Price $139,300

Total Adjustment $39,300
Adjusted Value Indication $139,300

 Adjustments

Vacant Commercial Base %

Comparable Selling Price: $100,000

Terms: Land Contract (Below Market)
 Feature: Superior -5.0000%
 Adjustment: (minus) 0.95000
Adjusted Price
Market Conditions: 14 Mos.
 Feature: Inferior 4.0000%
 Adjustment: (plus) 1.04000
Adjusted Price
Location: Interior
 Feature: Inferior 15.1822%
 Adjustment: (plus) 1.15182
Adjusted Price
Public Utilities: No Water
 Feature: Inferior 4.8330%
 Adjustment: (plus) 1.04833
Adjusted Price
Topographical: Needs Fill
 Feature: Inferior 16.7645%
 Adjustment: (plus) 1.16764
Adjusted Price

Total Adjustment 1.393000
Adjusted Value Indication $139,300

 Adjustments

Vacant Commercial Summative %

Comparable Selling Price: $100,000

Terms: Land Contract (Below Market)
 Feature: Superior -5.0000%
 Adjustment: (minus)
Adjusted Price
Market Conditions: 14 Mos.
 Feature: Inferior 4.0000%
 Adjustment: (plus)
Adjusted Price
Location: Interior
 Feature: Inferior 15.1822%
 Adjustment: (plus)
Adjusted Price
Public Utilities: No Water
 Feature: Inferior 4.8330%
 Adjustment: (plus)
Adjusted Price
Topographical: Needs Fill
 Feature: Inferior 16.7645%
 Adjustment: (plus)
Adjusted Price

Total Adjustment 35.7797%
Adjusted Value Indication $135,780

Vacant Commercial Subject

Comparable Selling Price: $100,000

Terms: Land Contract (Below Market) Cash
 Feature: Superior
 Adjustment: (minus)
Adjusted Price
Market Conditions: 14 Mos. Current
 Feature: Inferior
 Adjustment: (plus)
Adjusted Price
Location: Interior Corner
 Feature: Inferior
 Adjustment: (plus)
Adjusted Price
Public Utilities: No Water All Cust.
 Feature: Inferior
 Adjustment: (plus)
Adjusted Price
Topographical: Needs Fill Level
 Feature: Inferior
 Adjustment: (plus)
Adjusted Price

Total Adjustment
Adjusted Value Indication

Table 6 Percentage Adjustments Using Dollars and Changing Order

 Adjustments

Vacant Commercial Site Dollars

Comparable Selling Price: $100,000

Public Utilities: No Water
 Feature: Inferior
 Adjustment: (plus) $5,500
Adjusted price $105,500
Terms: Land Contract (Below Market)
 Feature: Superior
 Adjustment: (minus) ($5,000.00)
Adjusted price $100,500
Topographical: Needs Fill
 Feature: Inferior
 Adjustment: (plus) $20,000
Adjusted price $120,500
Market Conditions: 14 Mos.
 Feature: Inferior
 Adjustment: (plus) $3,800
Adjusted Price $124,300
Location: Interior
 Feature: Inferior
 Adjustment: (plus) $15,000
Adjusted Price $139,300

Total Adjustment $39,300
Adjusted Value Indication $139,300

 Adjustments

Vacant Commercial Site Base %

Comparable Selling Price: $100,000

Public Utilities: No Water
 Feature: Inferior 5.5000%
 Adjustment: (plus) 1.05500
Adjusted price $105,500
Terms: Land Contract (Below Market)
 Feature: Superior -4.7393%
 Adjustment: (minus) 0.95261
Adjusted price $100,500
Topographical: Needs Fill
 Feature: Inferior 19.9005%
 Adjustment: (plus) 1.19900
Adjusted price $120,500
Market Conditions: 14 Mos.
 Feature: Inferior 3.1535%
 Adjustment: (plus) 1.03154
Adjusted Price $124,300
Location: Interior
 Feature: Inferior 12.0676%
 Adjustment: (plus) 1.12068
Adjusted Price $139,300

Total Adjustment 1.393000
Adjusted Value Indication $139,300

 Adjustments

Vacant Commercial Site Summative %

Comparable Selling Price: $100,000

Public Utilities: No Water
 Feature: Inferior 5.5000%
 Adjustment: (plus)
Adjusted price
Terms: Land Contract (Below Market)
 Feature: Superior -4.739%
 Adjustment: (minus)
Adjusted price
Topographical: Needs Fill
 Feature: Inferior 19.900%
 Adjustment: (plus)
Adjusted price
Market Conditions: 14 Mos.
 Feature: Inferior 3.154%
 Adjustment: (plus)
Adjusted Price
Location: Interior
 Feature: Inferior 12.068%
 Adjustment: (plus)
Adjusted Price

Total Adjustment 35.882%
Adjusted Value Indication $135,882

Vacant Commercial Site Subject

Comparable Selling Price:
 Subject
Public Utilities: No Water No Water
 Feature: Inferior
 Adjustment: (plus)
Adjusted price
Terms: Land Contract (Below Market) Cash
 Feature: Superior
 Adjustment: (minus)
Adjusted price
Topographical: Needs Fill Level
 Feature: Inferior
 Adjustment: (plus)
Adjusted price
Market Conditions: 14 Mos. Current
 Feature: Inferior
 Adjustment: (plus)
Adjusted Price
Location: Interior Interior
 Feature: Inferior
 Adjustment: (plus)
Adjusted Price

Total Adjustment
Adjusted Value Indication


Thomas P. Williams, MAI, CRE, is a principal in The Oetzel-Williams Group of Mt. Pleasant and East Lansing, Michigan, conducting appraisals and providing consulting services throughout the Great Lakes region. Williams has been an instructor for various Appraisal Institute courses and for appraisal classes for the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Pennsylvania State University, and a number of other colleges. He has served the Great Lakes Chapter of the Appraisal Institute as president and as member of the board of directors and various committees. He also has served on regional and national committees of the Appraisal Institute in the areas of education, ethics, and admissions. Williams is the author of the Appraisal Institute seminar titled "Applied Sales Comparison Approach" and has written a number of feature articles for The Appraisal Journal. He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy with a bachelor of Naval Science and served five years as a naval aviator. Contact: 1414 West High Street, Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858-3027; T 989-775-5050; F 989-772-6151; Email: thomaswilliams@journey.com
COPYRIGHT 2004 The Appraisal Institute
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2004 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:property appraisal
Author:Williams, Thomas P.
Publication:Appraisal Journal
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Mar 22, 2004
Words:4527
Previous Article:Evaluating the valuers.
Next Article:Macroeconomic variables and real estate returns: an international comparison.
Topics:


Related Articles
A survey approach for demonstrating stigma effects in property value litigation.
USPAP--the bottom line: what to do, what to write.
Appraisal standards and professional negligence claims.
Considerations in gross rent multiplier analysis.
Three approaches?
An introduction to the valuation of aircraft Hangars-Part 2.
Financing and sales concessions: do we adjust or not? Can paired data analysis work if we don't?
You can't get the value right if you get the rights wrong.
Relationships between the overall property and its parts, and the three approaches to value.
Not an either/or: accurate property valuations are critical to the well-being of the housing market. The key to better valuations is blending the...

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters