Denver Real Estate

REcolorado.com - brought to you by Metrolist Inc. -- Welcome to REcolorado - Colorado's Premier Public Property Listing Website Find A Home Required Fields Property Type: Residential Condominium Income Land Sort Order: Price City Square Feet Bedrooms Bathrooms Street Name Optional Fields Price: (default $0 to $999,999,999) From To Finished Square Ft: From To Bedrooms: From To Bathrooms: From To Car Spaces: From To Address #: From To Street Name: City: ALL AGATE AGUILAR AKRON ALLENSPARK ALMA ARVADA AURORA BAILEY BELLVUE BENNETT BERTHOUD BLACK HAWK BOULDER BOW MAR BRECKENRIDGE BRIGHTON BROOMFIELD BRUSH BUENA VISTA BUFFALO CREEK BYERS CALHAN CANON CITY CARBONDALE CASTLE ROCK CEDAREDGE CENTENNIAL CENTRAL CITY CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE COALDALE COKEDALE COLORADO CITY COLORADO SPRINGS COLUMBINE VALLEY COMMERCE CITY COMO CONIFER COPPER MOUNTAIN COTOPAXI CRAIG CRESTED BUTTE DACONO DEER TRAIL DELTA DENVER DILLON DIVIDE DRAKE DUMONT DUPONT EAGLE EASTLAKE EATON EDGEWATER ELBERT ELIZABETH ELK SPRINGS EMPIRE ENGLEWOOD ERIE ESTES PARK EVANS EVERGREEN FAIRPLAY FEDERAL HEIGHTS FIRESTONE FLAGLER FLORISSANT FORT COLLINS FORT LUPTON FORT MORGAN FOUNTAIN FOXFIELD FRANKTOWN FRASER FREDERICK FRISCO GARDNER GEORGETOWN GILCREST GLENDALE GLENWOOD SPRINGS GOLDEN GRANBY GRAND JUNCTION GRAND LAKE GRANT GREELEY GREENWOOD VILLAGE GROVER GUFFEY HAMILTON HARTSEL HENDERSON HIGHLANDS RANCH HILLROSE HOEHNE HOT SULPHUR SPRINGS HUDSON HUGO IDAHO SPRINGS IDLEDALE INDIAN HILLS JAMESTOWN JEFFERSON JOHNSTOWN KEENESBURG KEYSTONE KIOWA KITTREDGE KREMMLING LA SALLE LA VETA LAFAYETTE LAKE GEORGE LAKEWOOD LARKSPUR LAST CHANCE LEADVILLE LIMON LINDON LITTLETON LIVERMORE LOCHBUIE LONE TREE LONGMONT LOUISVILLE LOVELAND LYONS MATHESON MEAD MEEKER MERINO MILLIKEN MOFFAT MONTROSE MONUMENT MORRISON NATHROP NEDERLAND NIWOT NONE NORTHGLENN NUNN ORCHARD OTIS PALMER LAKE PARKER PARSHALL PEETZ PENROSE PEYTON PINE PINECLIFFE PLATTEVILLE PUEBLO RAMAH RED FEATHER LAKES ROGGEN ROLLINSVILLE RUSH SAGUACHE SALIDA SAN LUIS SAN PABLO SEDALIA SEIBERT SEVERANCE SHAWNEE SHERIDAN SILVER PLUME SILVERTHORNE SIMLA STEAMBOAT SPRINGS STERLING STRASBURG SUPERIOR TABERNASH THORNTON TRINIDAD TWIN LAKES VAIL VICTOR VONA WALDEN WALSENBURG WATKINS WATTENBURG WESTCLIFFE WESTMINSTER WESTON WHEAT RIDGE WIGGINS WINDSOR WINTER PARK WOODLAND PARK WOODROW WRAY YODER Zip Code: County: ALL ADAM ALAMOSA ARAPAHOE ARCHULETA BENT BOULDER BROOMFIELD CHAFFEE CLEAR CREEK CONEJOS COSTILLA CROWLEY CUSTER DELTA DENVER DOLORES DOUGLAS EAGLE EL PASO ELBERT FREMONT GARFIELD GILPIN GRAND GUNNISON HINSDALE HUERFANO JACKSON JEFFERSON KIOWA KIT CARSON LAKE LARIMER LAS ANIMAS LINCOLN LOGAN MESA MOFFAT MONTROSE MORGAN OURAY PARK PUEBLO RIO BLANCO ROUTT SAGUACHE SEDGWICK SUMMIT TELLER WASHINGTON WELD YUMA Subdivision: -- MLS Number: MLS Number: MLS Number: MLS Number: MLS Number: MLS Number: MLS Number: MLS Number: MLS Number: MLS Number: Terms of Use Privacy Policy Fair Housing © 1998-2005 Metrolist, Inc. All rights reserved.

New Homes Features of

Features of ENERGY STAR Qualified New Homes : ENERGY STAR What is ENERGY STAR? | Newsroom Search What are ENERGY STAR Qualified New Homes Features of ENERGY STAR Qualified New Homes Benefits of ENERGY STAR Qualified New Homes Homebuyer Resources New Homes Partner Locator For Residential Building Professionals PRODUCTS HOME IMPROVEMENT NEW HOMES BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT PARTNER RESOURCES -- Home > New Homes > Features of ENERGY STAR Qualified New Homes -- -- Features of ENERGY STAR Qualified New Homes ENERGY STAR qualified new homes achieve their energy savings through a variety of reliable and established technologies and building practices. Builders are free to select the energy efficiency features used in their new qualified homes, tour the home below to learn more about the technologies and practices that are typically included. Tight Construction (Reduced Air Infiltration) Tight Ducts Improved Insulation High Performance Windows Energy Efficient Heating & Cooling Equipment Benefits of ENERGY STAR for Homebuyers > Looking for a new home? Print and take this helpful checklist (184KB) with you to be sure you are getting the 'most' house for your money. Benefits of ENERGY STAR for Home Industry Professionals < What are ENERGY STAR Qualified New Homes? Benefits of ENERGY STAR Qualified New Homes > -- Products | Home Improvement | New Homes | Business Improvement | Partner Resources Newsroom | Privacy | Contact Us | Site Index EPA Home EPA Search DOE Home DOE Search

INVESTMENT PROPERTY HISTORY OF

IAS Plus International Accounting Standards IAS 40, Investment Property Home Site Map Standards Interpretations Agenda Structure Newsletter Resources Countries/Regions Links Search STANDARDS: IAS 40 INVESTMENT PROPERTY HISTORY OF IAS 40 October 1984 Exposure Draft E26 Accounting for Investments March 1986 IAS 25 Accounting for Investments 1 January 1987 Effective Date of IAS 25 December 1999 Exposure Draft E64 Investment Property April 2000 IAS 40 Investment Property superseded those portions of IAS 25 that addressed investment property and withdrew IAS 25 1 January 2001 Effective Date of IAS 40 (2000) 18 December 2003 Revised version of IAS 40 issued by the IASB The summary below reflects the revisions. 1 January 2005 Effective date of IAS 40 (Revised 2003) RELATED INTERPRETATIONS Issues Relating to This Standard that IFRIC Did Not Add to Its Agenda SUMMARY OF IAS 40 Definition of Investment Property Investment property is property (land or a building or part of a building or both) held (by the owner or by the lessee under a finance lease) to earn rentals or for capital appreciation or both. [IAS 40.5] Examples of investment property: [IAS 40.8] Land held for long-term capital appreciation Land held for undecided future use Building leased out under an operating lease Vacant building held to be leased out under an operating lease The following are not investment property and, therefore, are outside the scope of IAS 40: [IAS 40.5 and 40.9] property held for use in the production or supply of goods or services or for administrative purposes; property held for sale in the ordinary course of business or in the process of construction of development for such sale (IAS 2 Inventories); property being constructed or developed on behalf of third parties (IAS 11 Construction Contracts); owner-occupied property (IAS 16 Property, Plant and Equipment), including property held for future use as owner-occupied property, property held for future development and subsequent use as owner-occupied property, property occupied by employees and owner-occupied property awaiting disposal; property that is being constructed of developed for use as an investment property (IAS 16 applies to such property until construction or development is complete). However, IAS 40 does apply to existing investment property that is being redeveloped for continuing use as investment property; and property leased to another entity under an finance lease. Other Classification Issues Property held under an operating lease. A property interest that is held by a lessee under an operating lease may be classified and accounted for as investment property provided that: [IAS 40.6] the rest of the definition of investment property is met; the operating lease is accounted for as if it were a finance lease in accordance with IAS 17 Leases; and the lessee uses the fair value model set out in this Standard for the asset recognised. An entity may make the foregoing classification on a property-by-property basis. Partial own use. If the owner uses part of the property for its own use, and part to earn rentals or for capital appreciation, and the portions can be sold or leased out separately, they are accounted for separately. Therefore the part that is rented out is investment property. If the portions cannot be sold or leased out separately, the property is investment property only if the owner-occupied portion is insignificant. [IAS 40.10] Ancillary services. If the enterprise provides ancillary services to the occupants of a property held by the enterprise, the appropriateness of classification as investment property is determined by the significance of the services provided. If those services are a relatively insignificant component of the arrangement as a whole (for instance, the building owner supplies security and maintenance services to the lessees), then the enterprise may treat the property as investment property. Where the services provided are more significant (such as in the case of an owner-managed hotel), the property should be classified as owner-occupied. [IAS 40.11] Intracompany rentals. Property rented to a parent, subsidiary, or fellow subsidiary is not investment property in consolidated financial statements that include both the lessor and the lessee, because the property is owner-occupied from the perspective of the group. However, such property could qualify as investment property in the separate financial statements of the lessor, if the definition of investment property is otherwise met. [IAS 40.15] Recognition Investment property should be recognised as an asset when it is probable that the future economic benefits that are associated with the property will flow to the enterprise, and the cost of the property can be reliably measured. [IAS 40.16] Initial measurement Investment property is initially measured at cost, including transaction costs. Such cost should not include start-up costs, abnormal waste, or initial operating losses incurred before the investment property achieves the planned level of occupancy. [IAS 40.20 and 40.23] Measurement subsequent to initial recognition IAS 40 permits enterprises to choose between: [IAS 40.30] a fair value model; and a cost model. One method must be adopted for all of an entity's investment property. Change is permitted only if this results in a more appropriate presentation. IAS 40 notes that this is highly unlikely for a change from a fair value model to a cost model. Fair value model Investment property is remeasured at fair value, which is the amount for which the property could be exchanged between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm's length transaction. Gains or losses arising from changes in the fair value of investment property must be included in net profit or loss for the period in which it arises. [IAS 40.35] Fair value should reflect the actual market state and circumstances as of the balance sheet date. [IAS 40.38] The best evidence of fair value is normally given by current prices on an active market for similar property in the same location and condition and subject to similar lease and other contracts. [IAS 40.45] In the absence of such information, the entitymay consider current prices for properties of a different nature or subject to different conditions, recent prices on less active markets with adjustments to reflect changes in economic conditions, and discounted cash flow projections based on reliable estimates of future cash flows. [IAS 40.46] There is a rebuttable presumption that the enterprise will be able to determine the fair value of an investment property reliably on a continuing basis. However, if, in exceptional circumstances, an entity follows the fair value model but at acquisition concludes that a property's fair value is not expected to be reliably measurable on a continuing basis, the property is accounted for in accordance with the benchmark treatment under IAS 16 , Property, Plant and Equipment (cost less accumulated depreciation less accumulated impairment losses). [IAS 40.53] Where a property has previously been measured at fair value, it should continue to be measured at fair value until disposal, even if comparable market transactions become less frequent or market prices become less readily available. [IAS 40.55] Cost Model After initial recognition, investment property is accounted for in accordance with the cost model as set out in IAS 16 , Property, Plant and Equipment – cost less accumulated depreciation and less accumulated impairment losses. [IAS 40.56] Transfers to or from Investment Property Classification Transfers to, or from, investment property should only be made when there is a change in use, evidenced by: [IAS 40.57] commencement of owner-occupation (transfer from investment property to owner-occupied property); commencement of development with a view to sale (transfer from investment property to inventories); end of owner-occupation (transfer from owner-occupied property to investment property); commencement of an operating lease to another party (transfer from inventories to investment property); or end of construction or development (transfer from property in the course of construction/development to investment property. When an enterprise decides to sell an investment property without development, the property is not reclassified as investment property but is dealt with as investment property until it is disposed of. The following rules apply for accounting for transfers between categories: for a transfer from investment property carried at fair value to owner-occupied property or inventories, the fair value at the change of use is the 'cost' of the property under its new classification; [IAS 40.60] for a transfer from owner-occupied property to investment property carried at fair value, IAS 16 should be applied up to the date of reclassification. Any difference arising between the carrying amount under IAS 16 at that date and the fair value is dealt with as a revaluation under IAS 16; [IAS 40.61] for a transfer from inventories to investment property at fair value, any difference between the fair value at the date of transfer and it previous carrying amount should be recognised in net profit or loss for the period; [IAS 40.63] and when an entity completes construction/development of an investment property that will be carried at fair value, any difference between the fair value at the date of transfer and the previous carrying amount should be recognised in net profit or loss for the period. [IAS 40.65] When an entity uses the cost model for investment property, transfers between categories do not change the carrying amount of the property transferred, and they do not change the cost of the property for measurement or disclosure purposes. Disposal An investment property should be derecognised on disposal or when the investment property is permanently withdrawn from use and no future economic benefits are expected from its disposal. The gain or loss on disposal should be calculated as the difference between the net disposal proceeds and the carrying amount of the asset and should be recognised as income or expense in the income statement. [IAS 40.66 and 40.69] Compensation from third parties is recognised when it becomes receivable. [IAS 40.72] Disclosure Both Fair Value Model and Cost Model [IAS 40.75] whether the fair value or the cost model is used; if the fair value model is used, whether property interests held under operating leases are classified and accounted for as investment property; if classification is difficult, the criteria to distinguish investment property from owner-occupied property and from property held for sale. the methods and significant assumptions applied in determining the fair value of investment property. the extent to which the fair value of investment property is based on a valuation by a qualified independent valuer; if there has been no such valuation, that fact must be disclosed. the amounts recognised in profit or loss for: rental income from investment property; direct operating expenses (including repairs and maintenance) arising from investment property that generated rental income during the period; and direct operating expenses (including repairs and maintenance) arising from investment property that did not generate rental income during the period. restrictions on the realisability of investment property or the remittance of income and proceeds of disposal. contractual obligations to purchase, construct, or develop investment property or for repairs, maintenance or enhancements. Additional Disclosures for the Fair Value Model [IAS 40.76] a reconciliation between the carrying amounts of investment property at the beginning and end of the period, showing additions, disposals, fair value adjustments, net foreign exchange differences, transfers to and from inventories and owner-occupied property, and other changes. significant adjustments to an outside valuation (if any) if an entity that otherwise uses the fair value model measures an item of investment property using the cost model, certain additional disclosures are required. Additional Disclosures for the Cost Model [IAS 40.79] the depreciation methods used; the useful lives or the depreciation rates used; the gross carrying amount and the accumulated depreciation (aggregated with accumulated impairment losses) at the beginning and end of the period; a reconciliation of the carrying amount of investment property at the beginning and end of the period, showing additions, disposals, depreciation, impairment recognised or reversed, foreign exchange differences, transfers to and from inventories and owner-occupied property, and other changes; the fair value of investment property. If the fair value of an item of investment property cannot be measured reliably, additional disclosures are required, including, if possible, the range of estimates within which fair value is highly likely to lie.

FLORIDA REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONAL

Sarasota Florida real estate golf & waterfront homes - Rich Stover Sarasota Florida real estate. Search here for Sarasota FL real estate on a golf course or the waterfront. SARASOTA FLORIDA REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONAL REALTOR® 2000 Webber Street, Sarasota, Florida 34239 Office: Home Ofc: Toll-Free: (941) 954-5454 (941) 951-6784 (800) 966-2334 Send Me An E-Mail Find your perfect Sarasota Florida real estate golf course or waterfront property in our paradise of warm water and top-rated golf courses. Whether you are a first time buyer or an experienced investor, you will find useful Sarasota real estate information on choosing the "right" property, making an offer, negotiating, financing and everything involved in making an informed Sarasota real estate decision. I list and sell properties in all price ranges in the Sarasota FL real estate market including Siesta Key, Longboat Key, and Bradenton. Every client, from the first-time buyer to the million dollar investor deserves respect and a dedicated professional. I'll go "that extra mile" to help you find the Sarasota Florida real estate property you will love. To search for Sarasota FL real estate properties on the waterfront or a golf course, you've come to the best Sarasota Florida real estate website. Search for Homes Visitors Guide to Sarasota Sarasota Golf Courses Meet Rich Stover Home Buyer and Seller Tips Real Estate Articles Consumer Info Rqst Free Info Home Page Site Map The Sarasota real estate information provided here is considered accurate and timely but not warranted. © 2001-2005 This website visited times since July, 2001 This website provides info on Sarasota Florida golf course and waterfront real estate properties, access to the Sarasota MLS database for Sarasota County, and extensive local information. Selecting a Sarasota Realtor® is an important decision. As a top RE/MAX Realtor®, Rich Stover is your best source of Sarasota Siesta Key and Bradenton real estate info. For all your Sarasota Florida real estate needs, call on and count on Rich Stover. Other Real Estate Resources Real Estate Resource Directory Real Estate Resources AL - AR Real Estate Resources - CA Real Estate Resources CO - DE Real Estate Resources FL - GA Real Estate Resources HI - MO Real Estate Resources MN - SC Real Estate Resources SD - WY Mortgage & International Real Estate Other Real Estate Resources REALS.COM Florida Real Estate Link Partners.com Real-Estate-Agents.com National Realtor® Directory Real Estate Link World AgentPreview - Real Estate Agents and Realtors InternetRealtyNetwork.com Epowered Professionals Real Estate Agents Directory Realtors® Indexed by State Designed by BerStan Web Creations

Real Estate Prices Still

Agricultural Economist Newsletter: Winter 2001--Farm Real Estate Prices Still Rising in Minnesota Farm Real Estate Prices Still Rising in Minnesota Steven J. Taff Average Minnesota farm real estate sales prices just keep on climbing (figure 1). This despite low output prices, rising input costs, and continued uncertainty about the future of federal subsidies. Sales price increases were seen in all parts of the state except in the northwest. In this annual sales price summary, I can provide only an overview, some cursory analysis, and--as always--a few opinions. I'll not bore you with text that simply repeats what's already shown in the charts. Instead I'll spend some time discussing how land transaction data are recorded, adjusted, and employed. I think it's useful to go through some administrative and procedural details to further our understanding of what these data are and what they are not. If this prospect makes you say, "Just show me the data, Steve," then you can stop right after the sales summary section. Or, if your impatience knows no bounds, go straight to the Minnesota Land Economics (MLE) Web site at http://apec.umn.edu/faculty/sjtaff/landdata/index.html and start working the numbers yourself. Farm Land Sales in 2000 Assessors are required to report initial assessments in late fall, based on sales data to date. That's why the data are reported on a "record year" basis: these are the sales that were, presumably, available for assessor scrutiny at the time the initial estimated market-values are calculated. Final values are set by summer, to be used in the succeeding tax year. So, for example, sales made in late 1999 are used by assessors to set initial values for January 2001. These estimates are adjusted in spring 2001, finalized in summer 2001, and then used for tax purposes in 2002. The adjusted record year 2000 sales data were therefore not available until April of this year. Figure 2 shows the distribution of all farmland sales in 2000. The bulk of the sales lie between $500 and $2,000 per acre. I excluded a small number of sales that exceeded $5,000 per acre as well as those involving parcels of land less than 20 acres in size. Both were excluded as not being plausibly "agricultural"--despite their designation on the Certificate of Real Estate Value (CRV) as "agricultural" land. (Although excluded from figure 2, these data are included in the MLE Web site data.) Even though MAE readers and MLE Web site users can view the full distribution of sales prices, most still ask for a single number that somehow captures the story behind the figures. Obviously, for a set of sales that span such a wide range in prices, any single number fails completely to accomplish this end. Movements in averages, while arithmetically correct, usually fail to tell the entire story. The particular average I use in this article is a location- and size-weighted mean (table 1). In last year's farm real estate report ( agecon.lib.umn.edu/mn/mae699.pdf ), I discussed the usefulness of such weighting as well as the desirability of examining sales data at the smallest geographic scale possible. Table 1. Minnesota farm real estate sales summary Record year Number of sales Acres sold Average price* 1996 2,504 263,728 936 1997 2,641 296,803 1,039 1998 2,724 303,968 1,113 1999 2,212 235,359 1,196 2000 2,258 250,979 1,222 * Location- and size-weighted per-acre mean Figure 1 compares the movements of actual sales price averages with those two other estimates of land value--the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) annual state estimates (based on a farmer opinion survey) and the average assessor estimates (the location- and size-weighted mean estimated market value). The University of Minnesota sales prices averages are location- and size-weighted means. The fact that all three (somewhat) independent estimates of farmland real estate values shown in figure 1 move in lockstep adds credence, I believe, to the conclusion that, on average, farmland values really are increasing in Minnesota. Geographic variations in real estate values for the past 11 years are shown in the box-and-whisker plots of figure 3. (District boundaries are shown in figure 4.) The range of sales prices for each district for each year is shown by the endpoints of the vertical lines. The ends of each box show the prices at which 25 percent of the sales were higher (or lower). The median is indicated by the horizontal bar within each box. So, for example, the median Central district farmland sale was about $1,200 per acre, with 25 percent of the sales lower than $750 and 75 percent lower than $1,850 per acre. In previous years' reports, I've noted the wide variation in average price movements among districts. Such differences were accentuated in 2000 by the continued climb of values in the South East district combined with the continued stagnation in the North West district (figure 5) . Farm Sale Data When a Minnesota property is sold, the transaction details must be recorded at the county courthouse on a form called a CRV. On it, the seller attests that such-and-such a property was sold to so-and-so on a certain date for a specific price. Other information about the property (its size, soil characteristics, prior year's estimated market value) is often entered on the CRV as well. Frequently, the per-acre prices that underlie this article and are also shown in the MLE Web site are not the prices entered on the CRV. Long before a land sales figure enters the official data base, it has been passed through an array of filters and adjustments designed to make comparison among transactions more meaningful and more reliable. Recording the Transactions There are many possible slips between an ownership change and data analysis. Of course, there is always the chance that simple recording errors are made. For example, numbers may be miscopied from bills of sale onto the CRV, or into a computer file, or into a spreadsheet. There is also a chance of misrepresentation. The person who fills in the CRV might have a reason to understate or overstate the actual sales price--perhaps to avoid a tax. This, of course, is illegal, but, as any courthouse veteran can tell you, it occasionally happens. Not every sale receives further processing. Local or state officials remove from subsequent analysis any sale not deemed "arms-length," because it was sold, for example, to a member of the seller's immediate family. Or, a sale might be pulled because the new buyer intends to convert the land to a non-agricultural use. Adjusting the Prices After this filtering, sales prices are frequently adjusted to make comparison among sales more appropriate. First, to expunge the effects of inflation, sales prices are deflated by an officially reported rate to January 2 of the year in which they were recorded. This "adjustment for time" is fairly minor in years (like the past decade) where inflation has been low. The second adjustment is "for terms." Not all farm real estate sales are for the full property. Some are made through a contract for deed, an arrangement that allows the buyer to pay a certain amount now and other amounts at stated intervals. Until the final payment is made, the property remains in the possession of the seller--even though it has been "sold." Because the full payment schedule is entered on the CRV, the Department of Revenue can calculate a present value of the initial and subsequent payments at an official discount rate. This becomes the official sales price of the property, regardless of what the buyer and seller had in mind when they sealed the deal. Adjustments don't end with a time- and terms-adjusted sales price, honestly reported and accurately recorded. In most cases, users of the data are interested in per-acre prices, not per-parcel prices. That means some chosen total price must be divided by some total acreage. But which price? Which acres? Should we use the total price or should we first subtract out the value of buildings, personal property, ancillary property, or machinery to get closer to the "true" land price? In this article (and on the MLE Web site), I choose to follow conventions established years ago in Minnesota. I report the time- and terms-adjusted total sales price, minus the value of personal property, divided by the entire acreage of the parcel. That's why, when I'm being careful, I speak of the average price of farm real estate, not of farm land . Employing the Data The sales reported here are only those recorded between October 1, 1999, and September 30, 2000. These "record year 2000" sales are so bundled because of the way real estate transactions are used to help local assessors value land for property tax purposes. Strange as it may seem, the Department of Revenue does not collect sales data merely to satisfy the data cravings of University economists like me. No, statewide sales data are collected principally to create statistics that are used to "equalize" property tax valuations across county boundaries. Each year, county assessors are required to assign an estimated market value (EMV) to each of the thousands of real estate parcels in the county. The estimate is supposed to be based on an examination of similar properties that were actually sold recently. (The combined valuations for each township, city, or county are the source of the Land Values--in contrast to the Farmland Sales--data on the MLE Web site.) Because every county has its own assessor who uses largely independent valuation procedures, there are inevitably discontinuities across county lines--even for adjacent properties. Farmer Brown wonders why Farmer Olson's land, just across the fence line in the next county, carries an assessed value that is lower by $200 per acre. The state has created an equalization procedure that is supposed to smooth over such discontinuities. Assuming that nearby properties really would sell for similar prices, any observed difference in assessed values for otherwise similar properties is presumed to be evidence that one or both of the assessors is either undervaluing (that is, assigning an EMV that is too low) or overvaluing properties. To test this, the state calculates a sales ratio (the EMV divided by sales price) for every property sold in a particular area. If an assessor systematically undervalues properties (shown by sales ratios that are consistently lower than some threshold), the state might demand the EMVs in that jurisdiction be uniformly raised, to better accord with what is thought to be "true" market conditions. How Accurate Are the EMVs? We can see for ourselves how close the final assessor estimates are by comparing actual sales prices against the previous year's estimated market values for the same property (figure 2). Each point in the figure represents one sale. For example, the rightmost point is for a property that was estimated to have a value of $4,900 per acre, but actually sold for only $2,900 per acre. While some of the estimates are obviously way off (like this example), the bulk are pretty close. In most cases, the EMV was lower than the sale price, but in a neatly predictable manner. A simple one-variable regression model, shown as the straight line in the figure, accounts for nearly 75 percent of the observed variation in farm real estate sales prices. Parting Thoughts What accounts for the ever-onward-and-upward movement of average farm real estate prices in Minnesota? We need only to round up the usual suspects, most of which I have discussed at length in previous issues of MAE . These include 1) perennial farmer optimism about future crop and livestock prices, 2) expected extensions of federal farm subsidy programs, 3) continued favorable local property tax treatment for farmland, 4) the desire of some farmers to increase the size of their current operation by buying adjacent farmland, 5) the desire of some non-farm buyers to use land as a hedge against inflation, and 6) inflation itself. An additional suspect that we need to add is the increasing prominence of location even in rural land markets. We simply can't explain current price levels on the basis of income potential (including subsidies) and speculation potential alone. Clearly, where the land sits with respect to job centers and what it looks like is influencing the price buyers are willing to pay for a particular parcel of land. As always, I caution potential land buyers and sellers about reading too much into the average land prices reported here and elsewhere. If you've got land to sell or if you have a hankering to buy land--look before you leap. The financial stakes are too high for casual empiricism. Hire an appraiser. Talk with your spouse. Check your finances. Think about the children. Be careful out there! Steven J. Taff is an associate professor and extension economist with the Department of Applied Economics at the University of Minnesota. Return to Minnesota Ag Economist Newsletter Index Page University of Minnesota Extension Service HomePage