Analysis in Action
Their files. Their figures. Our reading.
Three real cases where our perspective changed the outcome. Real estate is not an exact science but a discipline of rigour: here is how our methodical reading revealed major gaps.
−0%
CASE 01 / 03
Income building
€2,000,000 gap demonstrated
The valuation said €6 million. The file said €4 million.
An income building was presented at €6,000,000 on the strength of an external valuation. Our line-by-line examination of the report (capitalisation rate applied, comparables cited, floor-area weightings, stated income) tested every parameter against genuine market references.
Corrected using the file's own references, the value stood at €4,000,000. The €2,000,000 gap, or 33%, was documented point by point and prevailed in the discussion without any further valuation.
The correction prevailed without any further valuation.
A similar case? Let's talkThe correction, in figures
Summary of the engagement
Context
External valuation at €6M
Action
Line-by-line audit of the parameters applied
Outcome
True value demonstrated at €4M
−0%
CASE 02 / 03
Head office
€600,000 gap demonstrated
We applied the seller's own file. Without changing a single line.
The seller's valuation file exceeded €2,200,000. Rather than oppose it with a counter-estimate, we rigorously applied the references and parameters selected by the seller himself, without altering a single one.
The market value emerging from their own analysis stood at €1,600,000. The buyer transacted on that basis: a €600,000 gap, or 27%, obtained through nothing more than a methodical reading of the file.
The buyer transacted on the basis of the seller's own file.
A similar case? Let's talkThe correction, in figures
Summary of the engagement
Context
Seller's file at €2.2M
Action
Strict application of the seller's own references
Outcome
Final value at €1.6M
−0%
CASE 03 / 03
Estate & dispute
€350,000 gap demonstrated
Even the court-appointed expert revised his findings.
In a contested inheritance, a house requiring complete renovation in the south of France was valued at €800,000 by a court-appointed expert. For our clients based abroad, we took the case apart piece by piece: the property's actual condition, the scale of the works, comparable market references.
Our analysis established the value at €450,000. The work was presented at a meeting with the court-appointed expert and the parties; the expert revised his report and the value finally retained came in below €500,000: more than €300,000 demonstrated, or 38%.
Faced with the demonstration, the court-appointed expert revised his report.
A similar case? Let's talkThe correction, in figures
Summary of the engagement
Context
Inheritance, property to renovate
Valuation
Court-appointed valuation at €800K
Procedure
Technical confrontation with the expert
Outcome
Value brought down to €450K
What these cases have in common
In all three cases, the gap was obtained by taking the expert's work more seriously, at times, than those who had commissioned it. When the correction emerges from the file's own references, the discussion changes in nature: there is a gap, demonstrated, that stands beyond argument.
“The gap is not an opinion,
it is a demonstration.”
For confidentiality reasons, details identifying the properties and the parties have been altered.
Does your file deserve a second reading?
Contact us for a preliminary, fully confidential analysis of your case.