Have subject in older subdiv. that is 19 yrs. old but has recently renovated exterior.Have made adj. to homes in s/d and have comp sales in subdiv. that backs up to this one that is 5-7 yrs. old which I feel is good Eff.Age for subj. now. They support the estimated value. Problem is I've used Building Cost.com and M&S and value comes in short on what I've est. value to be. Should I not include this in report due to not being reliable because of age of subj.??? If UW comes back and asks for it (which they probably will because it is a sale) go ahead and include it with statement that it was incl. at request of UW and was given no weight in est. of value because it is unreliable?????? What do you normally do in this situation????

What about the land value, could you be low? I include the statement that it is unreliable and cannot be utilized by a third-party, i.e. insurance companies, because of its inaccuracy, blah, blah...
not once has a uw come back requesting it. If they do, add the statement that it was requested by the client etc.

Add profit until it reaches market value.

My cost approach often comes in below the sales comparison approach. I can only report what is calculated. If your client doesn't like it, ask them if they would prefer you just made the numbers up.

Dan!

Since you already have an idea that the UW will kick it back, go ahead and include the cost approach with an explanation. The descrepency is most likely in the amount of depreciation. Be sure and make a comment concerning the most weight applied to sales. I'm quite sure you would have anyway. Probably already have. Probably already sent it.
Good Luck