How would you value this 240 m² Manila flat with only one completed comparable?

P

paintsAndEmber

Landlord
A new-build description paired with dated-looking interiors made me reassess this Manila flat. It is a five-bedroom unit of about 240 m², listed at PHP 73,660,000 after 98 days—roughly PHP 306,900 per m² before parking and other extras are separated.

The light and location seem favourable, but I cannot yet grade the condition properly or quantify the service and tenure-related costs. There are three asking comparables and just one completed transaction, so the sold unit is useful only if it is in the same building or a genuinely similar development with comparable parking.

Which missing fact would change your adjustment most: exact building, tenure position, condition, floor, view or parking? I am also wary of applying one rate across all 240 m², since the extra area may carry a lower marginal value. I will have the resulting range checked by a local appraiser.
 
I would like to use the completed transaction as the anchor, but only after establishing that it belongs in the same comparison set. Was it in this development, and did its price include similar parking? Floor level, orientation, view and condition could each outweigh the apparent similarity in bedroom count.

I also would not value every one of the 240 m² at a single average rate. Extra space may attract a lower marginal value, so compare the subject with smaller and larger units rather than applying one rate mechanically.
 
I think the biggest missing fact is the exact micro-location, including the building and orientation. In Manila, two units with the same area and bedroom count can still differ materially because of traffic exposure, view, natural light and access. Also clarify what “possible lease length costs” means here. Without the tenure details, it is difficult even to identify the right comparison set.
 
Agreed on needing those details before choosing percentages. For condition, I would cost the work needed to bring the subject up to the completed comparable’s standard, then add a modest allowance for disruption rather than using a broad label like “average.” Dated cosmetic finishes and tired building systems are very different adjustments. Do you know whether the completed sale was renovated, furnished or sold as delivered?
 
The immediate constraint is the limited buyer pool for a large five-bedroom unit. That means 98 days can reflect slow demand for this format, not necessarily an excessive asking price.

I would check the listing sequence before drawing a valuation conclusion: original price, reductions, withdrawals, relistings and any negotiations that failed. Repeated cuts would support price resistance. An unchanged listing with little activity would say more about liquidity, and should be weighed alongside the completed comparable rather than converted into an automatic discount.
 
That’s fair. The 98 days is supporting evidence, not a valuation adjustment by itself. At PHP 73.66m, I’d separate the package into the flat, parking, outdoor space if any, and anything included in the sale. Otherwise a comparison based only on internal floor area may make one unit look cheaper when it simply includes fewer valuable extras.
 
Service charges could change the answer substantially too. Compare the recurring charge, what it covers, and whether any unusual building expenditure is anticipated. A buyer capitalising a large annual difference may bid less even when the physical units are similar. I would also verify that all stated floor areas use the same measurement basis.
 
I disagree slightly with making service charges the leading missing fact. They matter, but one solid same-building completed sale would usually tell us more about market value than a precise fee figure. The key is its transaction date and whether the price included parking. If it is older, you also need evidence for any time adjustment rather than assuming the market moved in one direction.
 
For floor area, use paired comparisons if the three listings include smaller and larger units in the same development. They will not prove the final value because they are asking prices, but they can show how sellers price extra space. I’d run at least two scenarios: all area at the comparable’s average rate, and the excess area at a lower marginal rate. The spread makes the uncertainty visible.
 
The number of variables discussed here makes a single per-m² adjustment look less convincing, even though a simple figure is tempting. I would put the subject and each comparable into one grid covering completed price, transaction date, internal area, floor, orientation, view, condition, parking, outdoor space, tenure and service charges.

Then give each adjustment a short reason. Where the difference can be tied to an observed feature or a repair estimate, include it in the main case. Where it cannot, show it separately as a sensitivity. That keeps the completed sale as the anchor without pretending the weaker evidence is equally reliable.
 
With the information given, I would not defend a single adjustment range yet. I’d anchor to the completed sale, use the listings only to frame the current ceiling, and produce low/base/high cases for condition and marginal floor area. The facts most likely to move those cases are whether the sale is in the same building, what parking is included, and the exact tenure position. Those are worth obtaining before negotiating around PHP 73,660,000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top