Printer Friendly

Conditions of sale adjustment: the influence of buyer and seller motivations on sale price.


To render a reliable estimate of value, the sales comparison approach must accurately account for numerous differences between comparable sales and the subject property. Although substantial research has been conducted on the influence of financing terms, location, and physical characteristics on transaction price, few studies have been conducted on the influence of unusual conditions of sale. By summarizing prior research, this article shows that properties involved in a tax-deferred exchange, sold by a bank after foreclosure, purchased by REIT-s, and purchased by out-of-state buyers may require substantial adjustment for conditions of sale when the sales comparison approach is used.


Generally, the objective of the sales comparison approach is to estimate the market value of a subject property by comparing it with similar properties that have recently been sold, are under contract, or are listed for sale. Differences between the subject property and the comparable properties are identified and adjustments to the sale prices of the comparable properties are made to account for these differences. A basic premise of the sales comparison approach is that markets are competitive and transactions of similar properties provide a market indication of value for the subject property. Appraisers seek recent transactions involving the most similar properties to minimize the number and magnitude of adjustments necessary to derive a reliable opinion of value. Because of the heterogeneity of real property and the thin markets often encountered in real property valuation, the differences among comparables may be numerous and require careful analysis in the adjustment process. The Appraisal Institute recognizes that these differences may include the real property rights appraised, financing terms, conditions of sale, market conditions, location, physical characteristics, economic characteristics, use, and nonrealty components of value. (1) An examination of the real estate literature, however, finds very little research pertaining to the conditions of sale variable.

This article highlights the importance of giving careful consideration to the conditions of sale for each comparable. The most common definition of market value requires that the buyer and seller be typically motivated. Implied in this requirement is the adverse impact that atypical motivations may have on price. (2) A review of prior empirical research shows that the magnitude of the conditions of sale adjustment in the valuation process may be substantial and may overshadow many other adjustments. Careful consideration is therefore warranted for this integral part of the sales comparison approach.

This study proceeds by examining four conditions of sale that may influence transaction prices and subsequently appraised values. These include properties that are involved in a tax-deferred exchange, properties sold by a bank after foreclosure, properties acquired by real estate investment trusts (REITs), and properties purchased by out-of-state buyers.

Tax-Deferred Exchanges

Tax-deferred exchanges--referred to as IRS Section 1031 exchanges--allow an owner to defer the tax liability in an appreciated property. Before Starker v. United States in 1979, (3) all tax-deferred exchanges had to be direct exchanges of like-kind properties. The result of this case allowed for nondirect exchanges. In the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (4) and in a follow-up Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulation in May 1991, (5) the parameters regarding nondirect exchanges were clearly defined, providing the fertile ground that has allowed tax-deferred exchanges to flourish.

In his article on Section 1031 exchanges, Frank (6) notes that property owners have 45 days after selling an appreciated property to identify a replacement property. The transaction on the replacement property must close within 135 days after the 45-day selection period. Thus, property owners have a total of 180 days to finalize a tax-deferred exchange. The ability to shelter or delay capital gains tax on appreciated property results in substantial tax savings for property owners and provides the conditions that allow for more transactions of real property. In their study of apartment sales in Phoenix, Holmes and Slade (7) find that out of 656 transactions of apartment properties that occurred from 1995 to 1997, 79 transactions (12% of transactions) were involved in tax-deferred exchanges. This percentage suggests that appraisers may encounter a substantial number of such transactions in daily appraisal practice. A natural question in the context of the sales comparison approach then becomes whether these transactions should or can be used as comparables in the valuation of similar properties. If participation in a tax-deferred exchange influences the transaction price, an adjustment for conditions of sale is warranted. If there is no adverse influence, no adjustment is necessary.

Cuff (8) suggests that the 45-day limit for identifying a replacement property is a binding constraint in a Section 1031 exchange and Raitz and Raitz (9) suggest that this time constraint limits the due-diligence capacity of the participant seeking the replacement property, thereby potentially influencing the purchase price. Even though identifying candidate replacement properties before the sale of the relinquished property may mitigate this constraint, anecdotal evidence suggests that many owners of appreciated property do not do this. (10)

Holmes and Slade, (11) investigating these questions empirically, suggest in their study that upward price pressure on replacement properties may exist for two primary reasons. First, the limited due-diligence period imposed by the 45-day time constraint when coupled with thin real estate markets may pressure buyers of replacement properties to pay a premium. Second, the buyer of the replacement property may be willing to forfeit some portion of the tax savings to induce the seller to transfer the replacement property in a timely manner. After specifying a reduced-form price equation, Holmes and Slade test their hypothesis on a data set of apartment property transactions in Phoenix. Their analysis finds that exchange participants acquiring a replacement property do pay a premium. In their data set the premium approximated 7.9% and was significant at the 0.05 level. No discount or premium was found on the sale of the relinquished property. (12)

These findings suggest that owners of appreciated property are under no time constraint to sell their property. Therefore, the transactions conform to the assumptions of the market value definition and require no conditions of sale adjustment. Once they sell their appreciated property, however, they encounter the 45- and 135-day time constraints on the acquisition of the replacement property that allows exemption from paying the capital gains tax. Therefore, appraisers must use caution when considering these replacement property transactions for use as comparables in the sales comparison approach. Specifically, appraisers must eliminate these sales from the list of possible comparable sales or they must perform a thorough investigation of the transaction to reliably estimate the conditions of sale adjustment.

Bank-Foreclosed Properties

National banks generally refer to foreclosed properties as other real estate owned (OREO). The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Federal Reserve, the Department of the Treasury, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) all issue regulations pertaining to the management and accounting of foreclosed properties. These regulations encourage banks to sell foreclosed properties within a stipulated time or risk adverse accounting adjustments. (13) Cory and Zinn (14) outline three alternative accounting techniques banks may use for dealing with foreclosed or troubled real estate. In all cases the banks are motivated to sell these assets quickly in order to avoid adverse consequences to their financial statements. In short, the banking regulation dearly encourages the quick sale of foreclosed properties and discourages banks from "holding out" for the best price.

Downs (15) finds that the market penalizes the stock price of banks that have high levels of foreclosed properties. Credit rating agencies also penalize banks that have large portions of their assets in real estate, making it difficult for these institutions to raise capital. These findings suggest that a bank's stock price and credit rating may actually improve with the sale of foreclosed properties and the subsequent reduction in its OREO portfolio. Regulatory, accounting, and market forces combine to encourage financial institutions to accept below-market prices in exchange for reduced marketing times. One of the primary assumptions in the market value definition is that both the buyer and seller are typically motivated. It is clear in the case of bank-foreclosed properties that the seller is not typically motivated. A conditions-of-sale adjustment may, therefore, be warranted if transactions of previously foreclosed properties are used to estimate market value.

Prior empirical research on this alleged discount include Shilling, Benjamin, and Sirmans (16) and Forgey, Rutherford, and VanBuskirk (17) who investigate residential properties; Hardin and Wolverton (18) and Lambson, McQueen, and Slade (19) who investigate apartment properties; and Downs and Slade (20) and Munneke and Slade, (21) who investigate office properties. Shilling, Benjamin, and Sirmans, (22) analyzing 62 residential transactions that occurred in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, during 1985, found that foreclosed properties sold at an average 24% discount compared to other properties. Forgey, Rutherford, and VanBuskirk, (23) using a larger data set of 2,482 residential properties in Arlington, Texas, found that foreclosed properties sold at a 23% discount, similar to the finding of Shilling, Benjamin, and Sirmans.

Hardin and Wolverton, (24) examining 90 transactions of apartment properties in Phoenix from 1993 to 1994, found that foreclosed apartment properties sold at a 22% discount compared with nonforeclosed properties. Analyzing a much larger apartment-data set of approximately 2,800 transactions of apartments in Phoenix from 1990 to 2002, Lambson, McQueen, and Slade (25) found that foreclosed apartment properties sold at approximately a 23% discount, which is very similar to the results from the Hardin and Wolverton Phoenix study. (26)

Downs and Slade (27) investigate the characteristics of a full-disclosure, transaction-based index of commercial office properties. Using a sample of 935 office-property transactions that occurred from 1987 to 1996 in the Phoenix area, they found that foreclosed office properties sold at approximately a 30% discount relative to non-foreclosed properties. Munneke and Slade (28) investigated various index construction techniques using a similar data set. Depending on the model and year(s) analyzed, foreclosed properties sold at discounts ranging from 11% to 31% compared with nonforeclosed properties. This range of discount, especially when compared with the approximately 8% premium for the replacement property of a tax-deferred exchange, makes it clear that appraisers must be very cautious when using comparables that are sold by financial institutions as a result of foreclosure. The appraiser may elect to eliminate these sales from consideration or conduct the necessary research to estimate a reliable conditions-of-sale adjustment for foreclosure status.

Real Estate Investment Trusts

According to the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (NAREIT), the total market capitalization in equity REITs increased from $5.5 billion in 1990 to $151 billion in 2002, a 2,600% increase. This explosion in REIT capitalization was accompanied by a substantial increase in property acquisitions. For REITs to increase their real estate holdings, they of course must outbid other market participants. Some hypothesize that this type of bidding leads to property acquisition premiums.

Linneman (29) identifies various operating efficiencies and economies of scale that equity REITs may realize compared with other ownership forms, which motivate equity REITs to outbid other market participants. Graff and Webb (30) argue that equity REIT managers, when looking to balance portfolios or increase their portfolios in a particular sector, may encounter supply constraints, thus motivating them to pay a premium.

Hardin and Wolverton (31) suggest that an aggressive acquisition policy by REITs in the 1990s resulted from the investment community's demand for greater REIT size and geographic diversity, resulting in acquisition premiums. Graff (32) notes that real estate related investments must account for at least 75% of annual REIT income, providing the motivation for REIT managers to place incremental capital in equity real estate as soon as possible. Graff also argues that REIT management fees are a product of the real estate under management and that managers are not required to return investor capital once it is placed in real estate properties. Therefore, managers have greater incentive to acquire properties quickly, thus increasing management fees. These agency issues increase the likelihood that REITs would incur an acquisition premium.

Hardin and Wolverton (33) investigated acquisition premiums by REITs in three large metropolitan areas: Atlanta, Phoenix, and Seattle. In Atlanta, they examined 78 transactions of apartment properties that occurred from 1993 to 1995. Of the 78 transactions, 19 were acquisitions by REITs. After formulating a regression model that accounted for property and economic variables, they found that REITs paid a statistically significant premium of 21.6% in Atlanta. They conducted a similar analysis on 105 apartment transactions in the Phoenix market that occurred from 1993 to 1996. REIT acquisitions account for 16 of these transactions. The regression analysis shows that REITs paid a statistically significant premium of 27.5% compared with non-REIT buyers. Hardin and Wolverton (34) also investigate 119 apartment transactions (18 REIT transactions) that occurred from 1991 to 1997 in Seattle, but found no evidence of a REIT premium. Graft, Slade, and Webb (35) and Lambson, McQueen, and Slade (36) confirmed the substantial overpayment by REITs for apartment properties in the Phoenix market.

The many empirical studies accompanied by convincing arguments suggest that REIT transactions may not conform to the "typical motivation" assumption cited in the market value definition. There is clear evidence that REITs may pay a premium when acquiring investment properties. Because of the potential magnitude of the premium, appraisers must be cautious when using REIT acquisitions in the sales comparison approach.

Out-of-State Buyers

Casual conversation among real estate professionals often suggests that out-of-state buyers pay a premium for real estate. These conversations are generally more prevalent in lower-cost areas that are located near high-cost areas. As an example, property values in some California communities are often many times higher than property values in nearby or adjacent states. Anecdotal evidence suggests that buyers coming from such high-cost areas perceive greater value in properties located in lower-cost areas, motivating them to pay more than local buyers do. In addition to the "high-cost area effect" that may motivate out-of-town buyers to overpay, extensive literature shows that real estate markets are heterogeneous and search costs are significant for buyers of real property. Thus, it is rational that out-of-state buyers will encounter greater search costs when buying real estate--costs that potentially lead to overpayment.

Motivated by this anecdotal evidence, Lambson, McQueen, and Slade (37) investigated the validity of the out-of-state premium. They found prior studies that suggest that buyers from high-cost markets may begin the search with an anchoring-induced bias. Extensive literature explains and supports the concept of anchoring-induced bias, which tells us that individuals carry in their minds arbitrary reference values (anchors) that influence their estimates of value. Slovic and Lichtenstein (38) and Tversky and Kahneman (39) are generally credited as pioneers in this area of research. In a number of studies, they found that deviations from an anchor are often conservative. In a real estate example, Northcraft and Neale (40) found that anchoring bias influences amateur and expert valuations of real estate. Specifically, they asked individuals with and without real estate experience to value a home after being provided with identical comparable sales and demographic data. The only item that varied among the individuals was the list price of the property (the anchor). Northcraft and Neale found that as the list price of the anchor increased, so did the value estimate. This finding was similar in both groups of individuals.

Lambson, McQueen, and Slade (41) also review the literature pertaining to information asymmetries and higher search costs by out-of-state buyers. One of the more prominent articles that they cite is a study by Turnbull and Sirmans (42) that outlines a theoretical model that explains why rational out-of-state investors may pay more for real estate. In this study, the authors argue that investors will continue to search for greater value until the marginal cost of an additional search equals the marginal benefit. This implies that investors with higher search costs (out-of-state buyers) will search less than will investors with lower search costs (in-state buyers) and, consequently, overpay on average. Considering both the anchoring-induced bias and the information asymmetries arguments, Lambson, McQueen, and Slade analyzed a data set of over 2,800 apartment transactions that occurred in the Phoenix area from 1990 through mid-2002. They found convincing evidence that out-of-state buyers pay a statistically significant premium compared with their in-state counterparts. They also found that buyers who have not previously owned or purchased apartments in Phoenix and come from high-cost areas pay more than their experienced non-high cost counterparts do. In fact, their analysis found that out-of-state buyers often pay a premium ranging from 5% to 7%. In a separate study of industrial property price determinants, Slade (44) found that out-of-state buyers paid a statistically significant 9.2% premium compared with local buyers.

This empirical evidence, coupled with the supporting theoretical literature, suggests that comparable sales of properties purchased by out-of-state buyers may suffer from upward bias. Therefore, appraisers must be cautious and give careful consideration to this potential bias when using comparables acquired by out-of-state buyers.

Summary and Conclusion

For the sales comparison approach to result in a reliable estimate of value, it must accurately account for numerous differences between the subject property and the comparable sales. Substantial research has been conducted on the influence of financing terms, location, and physical characteristics on transactions price; however, little has been studied on the influence of unusual conditions of sale. By summarizing existing empirical research, this article shows that properties involved in tax-deferred exchanges, properties sold by a bank after foreclosure, properties purchased by REITs, and properties purchased by out-of-state buyers may require substantial adjustment for conditions of sale when used in the sales comparison approach. Table 1 summarizes the principal findings from this study.

Buyers acquiring a replacement property as part of a Section 1031 tax-deferred exchange paid close to an 8% premium. Properties sold out of bank portfolios of foreclosed properties where found to sell for discounts ranging from 11% to 31%, with 22% to 24% being more typical. REITs were found to pay premiums ranging from 0% to 32%, and out-of-state buyers were found to pay premiums from 0% to 9%.

The intent of this article is to highlight the importance of giving careful consideration to the conditions of sale for each comparable when performing the sales comparison approach. This article is by no means a comprehensive summary of all potential conditions of sale that may influence purchase price. However, the existing empirical studies do provide insight into the magnitude that unusual conditions of sale may have on price. Other conditions of sale that may influence transactions price, such as reduced marketing period (liquidation) and eminent domain, need to be explored.
Table 1 Summary of Principal Findings from Related Literature

 Author(s) and Publication
Topic Date(s)

Tax-Deferred Exchanges Holmes & Slade (2001)
Bank-Foreclosed Properties Shilling et al. (1990)
 Forgey et al. (1994)
 Hardin & Wolverton (1996)
 Lambson et al. (2003)
 Downs & Slade (1999)
 Munneke & Slade (2000,

Real Estate Investment Trusts (REIT5) Hardin & Wolverton (1999)
 Graff et al. (2000)
 Lambson et al. (2003)

Out-of-State Buyers Lambson et al. (2003)
 Turnbull & Sirmans (1993)
 Slade (2003)

 Estimated Quantitative
Topic Impact on Price

Tax-Deferred Exchanges 7.9% Premium (replacement
Bank-Foreclosed Properties 24% Discount (homes)
 23% Discount (homes)
 22% Discount (apartments)
 23% Discount (apartments)
 30% Discount (office)
 11% to 31% Discount

Real Estate Investment Trusts (REIT5) 0% to 27% Premium
 32% Premium (apartments)
 28% Premium (apartments)

Out-of-State Buyers 5% to 7% Premium
 0% Premium (homes)
 9.2 % Premium (industrial)

(1.) Appraisal Institute, The Appraisal of Real Estate, 12th ed. (Chicago: Appraisal Institute, 2001), 415-468, especially 426.

(2.) The federal financial institutions regulatory agencies define market value as follows:

"Market Value means the most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeable, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:

(1) buyer and seller are typically motivated; (emphasis added)

(2) both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their own best interests;

(3) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;

(4) payment is made in terms of cash in US dollars or in terms of financial arrangements compatible thereto; and

(5) the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associates with the sale."

Source: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Department of Treasury, 12 CFR, Part 34, subpart C, Appraisals, Definitions, 34.42(f).

(3.) Starker v. U.S. 602 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1979).

(4.) Tax Reform Act of 1986, Public Law 99-514.

(5.) Internal Revenue Service Regulation 1-1031(k)-(1) (1991).

(6.) John J. Frank Jr., "1031 Exchanges Offer Unlimited Opportunities for Investors," The Real Estate Finance Journal 10, no. 3 (1995): 82-84.

(7.) Andrew Holmes and Barrett A. Slade, "Do Tax-Deferred Exchanges Impact Purchase Price? Evidence From the Phoenix Apartment Market," Real Estate Economics 29, no. 4 (2001): 567-588.

(8.) Terence F. Cuff, "Tax-Free Real Estate Transactions: Identification of Multiple Replacement Properties in a Deferred Exchange," Journal of Real Estate Taxation 25, no. 2 (1998): 165-174.

(9.) Ronald Raitz and Bridgette M. Raitz, "Park Your Reverse Exchange," Commercial Investment Real Estate Journal 19, no. 3 (2000): 30-34.

(10.) "Finding Replacement Property," The Practical Accountant 30, no. 7 (1997): 28.

(11.) Holmes and Slade.

(12.) Studies by David H. Downs and Barrett A. Slade, "Characteristics of a Full-Disclosure, Transaction-Based Index of Commercial Real Estate," Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management 5, no. 1 (1999): 95-104; and Henry J. Munneke and Barrett A. Slade, "An Empirical Study of Sample Selection Bias in Indices of Commercial Real Estate," Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 21, no. 1 (2000): 25-64 include an exchange variable in hedonic price analysis of office properties. In both studies, the data did not allow for identification of the exchange status, for example, if the transaction was part of the exchange participant's relinquished property or the replacement property. It was only known that the transaction was part of an exchange. In both cases, the parameter on the exchange variable was positive and significant.

(13.) In 12 CFR part 34, subpart E, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) of the Department of the Treasury requires that "a national bank shall dispose of OREO at the earliest time that prudent judgment dictates, but not later than the end of the holding period permitted by 12 U.S.C. 29." The maximum holding period generally allowed by 12 U.S.C. 29 is five years. With regard to disposition efforts, the OCC requires the following: "A national bank shall make diligent and ongoing efforts to dispose of each parcel of OREO, and shall maintain documentation adequate to reflect those efforts."

(14.) Brian R. Cory and James M. Zinn, "Real Estate Workout Alternatives: Three Approaches," Commercial Lending Review 9, no. 3 (1992): 81-84.

(15.) Anthony Downs, "Who's Running U.S. Banks Anyway?" National Real Estate Investor 34, no. 6 (1992): 22-24.

(16.) James D. Shilling, John D. Benjamin, and C.F. Sirmans, "Estimating Net Realizable Value for Distressed Real Estate," Journal of Real Estate Research 5, no. 1 (1990): 129-140.

(17.) Fred A. Forgey, Ronald C. Rutherford, and Michael L. VanBuskirk, "Effect of Foreclosure Status on Residential Selling Price," Journal of Real Estate Research 9, no. 3 (1994): 313-318.

(18.) William G. Hardin III and Marvin L. Wolverton, "The Relationship Between Foreclosure Status and Apartment Price," Journal of Real Estate Research 12, no. 1 (1996): 101-109.

(19.) V. Lambson, G. McQueen, and B. Slade, "Do Out-of-State Buyers Pay More for Real Estate? An Examination of Anchoring-Induced Bias and Search Costs," forthcoming in Real Estate Economics.

(20.) Downs and Slade.

(21.) Munneke and Slade, (2000); Henry J. Munneke and Barrett A. Slade, "A Metropolitan Transaction-Based Commercial Price Index: A Time-Varying Parameter Approach," Real Estate Economics 29, no. 1 (2001): 55-84.

(22.) Shilling, Benjamin, and Sirmans.

(23.) Forgey, Rutherford, and VanBuskirk.

(24.) Hardin and Wolverton.

(25.) Lambson, McQueen, and Slade.

(26.) Agency problems may be created if the person responsible for selling the apartments is a bank or government employee whose compensation is not closely tied to the price. Alternatively, the OREO variable could be correlated with deep discounts by way of a "tainted property" characteristic. Properties with a fatal flaw (i.e., poor floor plan or close to a dump) are likely candidates for a substantial discount relative to similar property without the flaw.

(27.) Downs and Slade.

(28.) Munneke and Slade, (2000, 2001).

(29.) Peter Linneman, "Changing Real Estate Forever," The REIT Report 17, no. 4 (1997): 24-33.

(30.) Richard A. Graft and James R. Webb, "Agency Costs and Inefficiency in Commercial Real Estate," Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management 3, no. 1 (1997): 19-36.

(31.) William G. Hardin III and Marvin L. Wolverton, "Equity REIT Property Acquisitions: Do Apartment REITs Pay a Premium?" Journal of Real Estate Research, 17, no. 1/2 (1999): 113-126.

(32.) Richard A. Graft, "Economic Analysis Suggests That REIT Investment Characteristics Are Not as Advertised," Journal of Real Estate Portfolio Management 7, no. 2 (2001): 99-124.

(33.) Hardin and Wolverton, (1999).

(34.) Ibid.

(35.) Richard A. Graft, Barrett A. Slade, and James R. Webb, "Empirical Evidence Suggests REITs Buy and Sell Property at a Premium to the Real Estate Market" (working paper, 2000).

(36.) Lambson, McQueen, and Slade.

(37.) Ibid.

(38.) Paul Slovic and S. Lichtenstein, "Comparison of Bayesian and Regression Approaches to the Study of Information Processing in Judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 6 (1971): 649-744.

(39.) Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, "Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases," Science New Series 185, no. 4157 (1974): 1124-1131.

(40.) Gregory B. Northcraft and Margaret A. Neale, "Expert, Amateurs, and Real Estate: An Anchoring-and-Adjustment Perspective on Property Pricing Decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 39 (1987): 228-241.

(41.) Lambson, McQueen, and Slade.

(42.) Geoffrey K. Turnbull and C.F. Sirmans, "Information, Search, and House Prices," Regional Science and Urban Economics 23, no. 4 (1993): 545-557.

(43.) Lambson, McQueen, and Slade.

(44.) Barrett A. Slade, "Industrial Property Price Determinants: An Empirical Investigation," (working paper, 2003).

Barrett A. Slade, PhD, MAI, is assistant professor of finance at the Marriott School, Brigham Young University. He received his PhD in real estate from the University of Georgia. His work has been published in numerous real estate finance and economics journals, including Real Estate Economics, Real Estate Finance and Economics, and The Journal of Real Estate Research. Previously, Slade served as vice president and chief appraiser for First Interstate Bank of Arizona and as president of Slade and Associates, Inc., a real estate appraisal and consulting firm located in the Phoenix area. Contact: Marriott School, Brigham Young University, 685 TNRB, Provo, UT, 84602; T 801-422-3504; F 801-422-0108; E-mail:bslade@byu.ed
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:valuation
Author:Slade, Barrett A.
Publication:Appraisal Journal
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jan 1, 2004
Previous Article:A higher and better definition.
Next Article:How green is your building? An appraiser's guide to sustainable design.

Related Articles
Market value: does one size really fit all?
The sales comparison approach and timberland valuation.
What does "market value" mean?
Thinking Statistically About Valuations.
A primer on comparable sale confirmation. (Features).
A statistical definition of value. (Features).
Disassembling assemblage.
Considerations in gross rent multiplier analysis.
Ken Harney - Demanding the freshest comps.
Financing and sales concessions: do we adjust or not? Can paired data analysis work if we don't?

Terms of use | Copyright © 2017 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters