Worth More or Less?

Glenmore Analysis

2009-04-23T08:15:00.001-07:00

A reader asked me to evaluate in general the Glenmore neighborhood over the last 5 years.

Here is what is happening in regards to sales prices since 2004:

As you can see the average house price has hovered around $700K. There are only 7 sales in 2009 in Glenmore so it is not much of a distribution to draw any conclusions from.

If we look at the difference between the 2009 assessed value and the last sale price we see the following:

There has only been 7 properties that have sold in 2009 for Glenmore, and the average price paid is $12.5K LOWER than assessed prices. Bear in mind that I am using 2009 assessments to compare to sales in previous years, that is why 2006, 2007, and 2008 show negative differences because at that time the market was higher than it was now, and I am not using the corresponding years assessment data to compare it to.

What does this all tell me? Glenmore on average has held values around $700K and probably will continue to do so, however with more focus being paid on assessed value property owners will probably be thankful for higher assessments.

What do you think?

Worth a look: $729K - 3310 Petal Lane

2009-04-14T09:24:00.000-07:00

$729K - 3310 Petal Lane, Charlottesville, VA, 22903

I thought I would highlight a house on the higher end that I think is worth a look.

Disclosure:

I have not and I am not actively pursuing this property;
I have no relationship with the builder or listing agent;
The listing agent is also the wife of the builder of the house, so you can expect that they have baked in at least a 4% transaction cost into the price.

The house is a beautiful farm house on 3.125 acres in Rosemont.

According to the listing it has 4,059 sq ft finished and 1,359 sq ft unfinished. The county records show 3,399 sq ft finished and 1,673 sq ft unfinished. It is in the best performing schools Murray, Henley, Western Albemarle.

The lot was purchased in 2003 for $225K. That was pre-bubble pricing so I am going to leave it valued as is.

The house was built in 2003 by Skyline Home Builders. I have seen the quality of their construction and attention to detail, and I am impressed by their work. I am going to assess their construction at $110/sq ft for finished and $35/sq ft for unfinished and I am going to use the county measurements for finished and unfinished sq ft.

Improvements Value: $110*(3,399) + $35*(1,673) = $373,890 + $58,555 = $432,445

Depreciation for the last 6 years = (6/30) * $432,445 = $86,489

Current Value of Improvements = $432,445 - $86,489 = $345,956

Value of Land = $225,000

Total Property Value = $570,956

Given that there is a discrepancy of the sq ft I would value this house between $571K - $633K.

Working off the high end of my valuation $633K with 20% down ($126K) and at 6% the loan would cost around $3,036 a month not including insurance or property taxes. Qualifying income would be starting at $110K.

It is a beautiful home with easy access to 64 or 250. This could be an excellent purchase for a professional couple, or a corporate transplant.

I came up with a new metric called the "Gotta have it Premium" which shows the range of the premium that I think the buyer is paying when purchasing it at list price in order to live in that house in that neighborhood. This range is calculated by subtracting my valuation from the listing price.

I am sure this new metric will create some good discussion! :)

Pershing Valuation: $571K - $633K

Gotta Have it Premium: $158K - $96K

What do you think?

Summary Information

Parcel Information
Total Acres		3.1250
Primary Prop. Address		3310 PETAL LN
Other Address		N/A
Property Card(s)		1
Lot		1
Property Name		N/A
Subdivision		Rosemont

Notes		L-1 S-1 ROSEMONT / / / /

Owner Information
Owner		BOWEN, CHRISTOPHER M OR LISA A
Address		P O BOX 48 IVY VA, 22945-0048

Owner as of Jan 1st		BOWEN, CHRISTOPHER M OR LISA A

Most Recent Assessment Information
Year		2009
Assessment Date		01/01/2009
Assessment Reason		Reassessment
Land Value		$213,800
Land Use Value		$0
Improvements Value		$525,300
Total Value		$739,100

Most Recent Sales History
Previous Owner		SKYLINE HOME BUILDERS LLC
Owner		BOWEN, CHRISTOPHER M OR LISA A
Sale Date		11/18/2004
Sale Price		$0
Deed Book/Page		2876/032
Validity of Sale		Invalid Sale

Other Tax Information as of Jan 1st
State Code		Single Fam Res up to 5 acres

Tax Type		Reg. Taxable

Parcel Level Use Code		Single Family

Primary Zoning Designation		Rural Areas

Appraiser		JSD

Improvements - Card 1

Improvements (Card Level Data)

Card Type		Residential

Infrastructure Improvements

		Garden Tub

		Paved Driveway.....1 TOTAL VALUE

		Well / Septic

		No Service - Jurisdictional Area Designation

Primary Building Additions
		Garage, Attached Frame.....552 sq ft

		Patio, Bluestone.....240 sq ft

		Porch, Wood Floor.....252 sq ft

		Porch, Wood Floor.....91 sq ft

		Deck, Mahogany.....200 sq ft

Primary Building Details
Comm. Section		N/A
Card Level Use Code		Single Family
Year Built		2003
Year Remodeled		N/A
Condition		Good
Grade		A2
Number of Stories		2
Story Height (ft)		N/A
House Type		2 Story
Finished Sq. Ft.		3,399
Basement Type		Full : Walkout
Basement Garage Doors		0
Bsmt Fin. Sq. Ft.		0
Bsmt Tot. Sq. Ft.		1,673
Attic Type		N/A
Attic Tot. Sq. Ft.		0
Roof Material		Dimensional
Heating		Heat Pump
Cooling		Central Air
Fireplace(s)		1
Fireplace Type		Gas Fireplace
Wall Framing		N/A
Exterior Covering		Hardiplank
Bedrooms		5
Dining Rooms		1
Family Rooms		1
Full Baths		4
Half Baths		0
Total Room Count		9 (Every unit assumed to have kitchen and living room. Bathrooms are not included in total room count.)

Land Value Information

Land Use		Homesite 1
Acres		2.0000
Sq. Ft.		87120.0000
Rate		$200,000.00
Adj Rate		$200,000.00
Base Value		$200,000.00
Adj Amount		($20,000.00)
Value		$180,000.00

Land Use		Residual 1
Acres		1.1250
Sq. Ft.		49005.0000
Rate		$30,000.00
Adj Rate		$30,000.00
Base Value		$33,750.00
Adj Amount		$0.00
Value		$33,750.00

Assessments

Year		2009
Assessment Date		01/01/2009
Assessment Reason		Reassessment
Land Value		$213,800
Land Use Value		$0
Improvements Value		$525,300
Total Value		$739,100

Year		2008
Assessment Date		01/01/2008
Assessment Reason		Reassessment
Land Value		$236,300
Land Use Value		$0
Improvements Value		$623,700
Total Value		$860,000

Year		2007
Assessment Date		01/01/2007
Assessment Reason		Reassessment
Land Value		$233,800
Land Use Value		$0
Improvements Value		$683,800
Total Value		$917,600

Year		2006
Assessment Date		01/01/2006
Assessment Reason		End-of-year Rollover
Land Value		$226,900
Land Use Value		$0
Improvements Value		$681,600
Total Value		$908,500

Year		2005
Assessment Date		01/01/2005
Assessment Reason		Reassessment
Land Value		$226,900
Land Use Value		$0
Improvements Value		$681,600
Total Value		$908,500

Year		2004
Assessment Date		01/01/2004
Assessment Reason		End-of-year Rollover
Land Value		$120,900
Land Use Value		$0
Improvements Value		$592,500
Total Value		$713,400

Year		2003
Assessment Date		12/31/2003
Assessment Reason		New Construction-2nd Cycle
Land Value		$120,900
Land Use Value		$0
Improvements Value		$592,500
Total Value		$713,400

Year		2003
Assessment Date		01/01/2003
Assessment Reason		Reassessment
Land Value		$120,900
Land Use Value		$0
Improvements Value		$0
Total Value		$120,900

Year		2002
Assessment Date		01/01/2002
Assessment Reason		End-of-year Rollover
Land Value		$85,400
Land Use Value		$0
Improvements Value		$0
Total Value		$85,400

Year		2001
Assessment Date		01/01/2001
Assessment Reason		Reassessment
Land Value		$85,400
Land Use Value		$0
Improvements Value		$0
Total Value		$85,400

Year		2001
Assessment Date		01/01/2001
Assessment Reason		End-of-year Rollover
Land Value		$85,400
Land Use Value		$0
Improvements Value		$0
Total Value		$85,400

Year		2000
Assessment Date		01/01/2000
Assessment Reason		End-of-year Rollover
Land Value		$69,000
Land Use Value		$0
Improvements Value		$0
Total Value		$69,000

Year		1999
Assessment Date		01/01/1999
Assessment Reason		Reassessment
Land Value		$69,000
Land Use Value		$0
Improvements Value		$0
Total Value		$69,000

Year		1998
Assessment Date		01/01/1998
Assessment Reason		N/A
Land Value		$75,100
Land Use Value		$0
Improvements Value		$0
Total Value		$75,100

Year		1997
Assessment Date		01/01/1997
Assessment Reason		N/A
Land Value		$75,100
Land Use Value		$0
Improvements Value		$0
Total Value		$75,100

Year		1996
Assessment Date		01/01/1996
Assessment Reason		N/A
Land Value		$75,100
Land Use Value		$0
Improvements Value		$0
Total Value		$75,100

Transfer History

Previous Owner		SKYLINE HOME BUILDERS LLC
Owner		BOWEN, CHRISTOPHER M OR LISA A
Sale Date		11/18/2004
Sale Price		$0
Deed Book/Page		2876/032
Validity of Sale		Invalid Sale

Previous Owner		DAHL, THOMAS P OR KRISTIN F
Owner		SKYLINE HOME BUILDERS LLC
Sale Date		05/15/2003
Sale Price		$225,000
Deed Book/Page		2460/001
Validity of Sale		Valid Sale

Previous Owner		HALEY, CHISHOLM & MORRIS INC
Owner		DAHL, THOMAS P OR KRISTIN F
Sale Date		12/21/1999
Sale Price		$85,000
Deed Book/Page		1882/089
Validity of Sale		Valid Land

Previous Owner		N/A
Owner		N/A
Sale Date		06/24/1988
Sale Price		$0
Deed Book/Page		999/378
Validity of Sale		Deed of Gift

Previous Owner		N/A
Owner		HALEY, CHISHOLM & MORRIS INC
Sale Date		06/24/1988
Sale Price		$0
Deed Book/Page		999/378
Validity of Sale		Deed of Gift

Other Parcel Characteristics

School Districts
Elementary School District		Murray
Middle School District		Henley
High School District		Western Albemarle

Magisterial District & Voting Precinct Information
Magisterial District		Samuel Miller
Voting Precint		Red Hill

Census Information
Census Block Group		2
Census Tract		112

Zoning Information
Primary		Rural Areas
Secondary		Unassigned
Minor		Unassigned
Other		Unassigned
Proffered?		No

Natural Resource Extraction Overlay?		No
Flood Hazard Overlay?		No
Airport Impact Area?		No
Scenic Stream Overlay?		No
Entrance Corridor?		No

Comprehensive Plan Information
Comp Plan Area		Rural Area 3
Comp Plan Land Use - Primary		Rural Area
Comp Plan Land Use - Secondary		Unassigned
Comp Plan Land Use - Minor		Unassigned
Comp Plan Land Use - Other		Unassigned

Land Use Survey Information
Land Use - Primary		Residential -- Single-family (incl. modular homes)
Number of Structures - Primary		1
Number of Dwelling Units - Primary		1

Land Use - Secondary		Agricultural
Number of Structures - Secondary		0
Number of Dwelling Units - Secondary		0

Land Use - Minor		Open
Number of Structures - Minor		0
Number of Dwelling Units - Minor		0

Other Information
Subdivision		Rosemont
MPO/CHART Area?		Yes
Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)		221
Jurisdictional Area Designation		No Service
Watershed		Ivy Creek
Water Supply Protection Area?		Yes
Development Area?		No
Other Rural Land?		No
Ag/Forest District		N/A
Conservation Easement?		No

How prices compound - 1352 Courtyard Drive, Charlottesville, VA

2009-04-03T13:39:00.000-07:00

How prices compound - $359,000

A reader asked me to review this house.

At least for this house, we can thank the realtor for providing 27 photos of the property. It is MLS #459549.

The builder bought the land (0.15 acres) for $59.9K in 2005. It was a multi-transaction deal for 2 properties so I split the cost in two. From the photos I estimate the construction cost with builder profit to be about $70/sq ft. 2,116 sq ft would be $148,120. Total cost all in with profit to the builder would be $208.2K.

Here is how the prices compound:

When the builder bought the land it was over-valued. $59.9K for 0.15 acres is close to $400K/acre! Especially when right nearby you have Highway 64 and a train line in the background. I would have only valued the land for $15K.
The first buyer bought the house for $304K in 2006. That put an extra $100K into the builders pocket.
The second buyer bought the house for $335K in 2008. At that price the seller was just trying to cover their costs of the home and the realtors cost.
They now have it on the market for $359K. At that price the seller is just trying to cover their loan and the realtors cost.

It is assessed for $315K.

If you took out the realtor costs for both of the transactions and the extra $100K that the builder put in his pocket, and the over purchase of the land you would be back down to about $163K.

I think it is worth somewhere between $163K to $220K.

Before everyone gets in an uproar about how much lower that is than what the assessed values are, I want you to look at how each time a pricing error is made, it gets passed down to the next buyer, and the next buyer, and the next.

Eventually you get to a tipping point that the mistakes cost too much, and the price has to be significantly driven down again. Is it fair for current buyers to pay for the mistakes of previous buyers?

What do you think?

Summary Information

Parcel Information
Total Acres		0.1500
Primary Prop. Address		1353 COURTYARD DR
Other Address		N/A
Property Card(s)		1
Lot		77 PHASE 4B
Property Name		N/A
Subdivision		Redfields

Notes		06/16/2005 $119,810 FOR 2 LOTS TM 76R1-04-69 & 77 Subdivide Information Deed Book, Page (1981 , 244 ) Conveyance ( ) Date of Sale (01/03/2001) Transaction, Date (200500366 08/21/2003)

Owner Information
Owner		KALUPNIEKS, ANDRIS
Address		1353 COURTYARD DR CHARLOTTESVILLE VA, 22903

Owner as of Jan 1st		KALUPNIEKS, ANDRIS

Most Recent Assessment Information
Year		2009
Assessment Date		01/01/2009
Assessment Reason		Reassessment
Land Value		$95,000
Land Use Value		$0
Improvements Value		$220,800
Total Value		$315,800

Most Recent Sales History
Previous Owner		SLAWSKI, DESIREE
Owner		KALUPNIEKS, ANDRIS
Sale Date		01/28/2008
Sale Price		$335,000
Deed Book/Page		3543/684
Validity of Sale		Valid Sale

Other Tax Information as of Jan 1st
State Code		Single Family Resid (Urban)

Tax Type		Reg. Taxable

Parcel Level Use Code		Single Family

Primary Zoning Designation		Planned Residential Develop

Appraiser		CRB

Improvements - Card 1

Improvements (Card Level Data)

Card Type		Residential

Infrastructure Improvements

		Public Water /Sewer

		Whirlpool w/ Separate Shower

		Water & Sewer - Jurisdictional Area Designation

Primary Building Additions
		Garage, Attached Frame.....260 sq ft

		Patio, Aggregate.....336 sq ft

		Porch, Aggregate Floor.....30 sq ft

Primary Building Details
Comm. Section		N/A
Card Level Use Code		Single Family
Year Built		2006
Year Remodeled		N/A
Condition		Good
Grade		B---
Number of Stories		2
Story Height (ft)		N/A
House Type		2 Sty Transitional
Finished Sq. Ft.		2,116
Basement Type		None
Basement Garage Doors		0
Bsmt Fin. Sq. Ft.		0
Bsmt Tot. Sq. Ft.		0
Attic Type		N/A
Attic Tot. Sq. Ft.		0
Roof Material		Dimensional
Heating		Heat Pump
Cooling		Central Air
Fireplace(s)		1
Fireplace Type		Gas Fireplace
Wall Framing		N/A
Exterior Covering		Vinyl Siding
Bedrooms		3
Dining Rooms		1
Family Rooms		1
Full Baths		2
Half Baths		2
Total Room Count		7 (Every unit assumed to have kitchen and living room. Bathrooms are not included in total room count.)

Land Value Information

Land Use		Homesite 1
Acres		0.1500
Sq. Ft.		6534.0000
Rate		$95,000.00
Adj Rate		$95,000.00
Base Value		$95,000.00
Adj Amount		$0.00
Value		$95,000.00

Assessments

Year		2009
Assessment Date		01/01/2009
Assessment Reason		Reassessment
Land Value		$95,000
Land Use Value		$0
Improvements Value		$220,800
Total Value		$315,800

Year		2008
Assessment Date		01/01/2008
Assessment Reason		Reassessment
Land Value		$95,000
Land Use Value		$0
Improvements Value		$253,100
Total Value		$348,100

Year		2007
Assessment Date		01/01/2007
Assessment Reason		Reassessment
Land Value		$95,000
Land Use Value		$0
Improvements Value		$244,700
Total Value		$339,700

Year		2006
Assessment Date		06/14/2006
Assessment Reason		New Construction-2nd Cycle
Land Value		$60,000
Land Use Value		$0
Improvements Value		$204,200
Total Value		$264,200

Year		2006
Assessment Date		01/01/2006
Assessment Reason		End-of-year Rollover
Land Value		$60,000
Land Use Value		$0
Improvements Value		$0
Total Value		$60,000

Year		2005
Assessment Date		01/01/2005
Assessment Reason		Reassessment
Land Value		$60,000
Land Use Value		$0
Improvements Value		$0
Total Value		$60,000

Year		2004
Assessment Date		03/22/2004
Assessment Reason		Division of Property
Land Value		$45,000
Land Use Value		$0
Improvements Value		$0
Total Value		$45,000

Year		2004
Assessment Date		N/A
Assessment Reason		End-of-year Rollover
Land Value		$0
Land Use Value		$0
Improvements Value		$0
Total Value		$0

Transfer History

Previous Owner		SLAWSKI, DESIREE
Owner		KALUPNIEKS, ANDRIS
Sale Date		01/28/2008
Sale Price		$335,000
Deed Book/Page		3543/684
Validity of Sale		Valid Sale

Previous Owner		CRAIG ENTERPRISES INC
Owner		SLAWSKI, DESIREE
Sale Date		05/18/2006
Sale Price		$304,236
Deed Book/Page		3212/662
Validity of Sale		Valid Sale

Previous Owner		REDFIELDS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Owner		CRAIG ENTERPRISES INC
Sale Date		06/16/2005
Sale Price		$119,810
Deed Book/Page		3002/254
Validity of Sale		Multi-Trans

Other Parcel Characteristics

School Districts
Elementary School District		Cale
Middle School District		Walton
High School District		Monticello

Magisterial District & Voting Precinct Information
Magisterial District		Samuel Miller
Voting Precint		Country Green

Census Information
Census Block Group		1
Census Tract		112

Zoning Information
Primary		Planned Residential Development
Secondary		Unassigned
Minor		Unassigned
Other		Unassigned
Proffered?		Yes

Natural Resource Extraction Overlay?		No
Flood Hazard Overlay?		No
Airport Impact Area?		Yes
Scenic Stream Overlay?		No
Entrance Corridor?		Yes

Comprehensive Plan Information
Comp Plan Area		Urban Area 5
Comp Plan Land Use - Primary		Neighborhood Density
Comp Plan Land Use - Secondary		Unassigned
Comp Plan Land Use - Minor		Unassigned
Comp Plan Land Use - Other		Unassigned

Land Use Survey Information
Land Use - Primary		Residential -- Single-family (incl. modular homes)
Number of Structures - Primary		1
Number of Dwelling Units - Primary		1

Land Use - Secondary		Unassigned
Number of Structures - Secondary		0
Number of Dwelling Units - Secondary		0

Land Use - Minor		Unassigned
Number of Structures - Minor		0
Number of Dwelling Units - Minor		0

Other Information
Subdivision		Redfields
MPO/CHART Area?		Yes
Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ)		171
Jurisdictional Area Designation		Water & Sewer
Watershed		Moores Creek
Water Supply Protection Area?		No
Development Area?		Yes
Other Rural Land?		No
Ag/Forest District		N/A
Conservation Easement?		No

How accurate are the 2009 Albemarle County Assessments

2009-04-01T12:29:00.000-07:00

There has been some heated discussion on the relevance of the county assessments to actual sales pricing. I decided to take a look at all the properties that have sold within the last 3 months and create a linear regression of the sales versus the 2009 assessment price.

To the non-data geeks out there a regression is a means of looking at past data and creating a simple formula that would allow you to predict what future sales may be like based upon past data.

The reason I put MAY in bold is that the past is never a great predictor of the future, the stock market is a great example of that. How many people were thinking that their 401Ks that had been growing steadily would drop 50% in one year? Not me!

After looking at the total sales, I eliminated the following types of transactions from the sales data:

Related party transactions (family member selling to family member)
Foreclosures
Commercial Property
Properties valued over $1 million
Dumb Buyers (People paying over $200/sq ft for new construction this year)

From that I was left with 155 properties to build the regression. I wanted to build a formula so that I could predict the Sales price based upon the 2009 Assessment.

The statistics of the properties are as follows:

Median sales price was $248,900
Standard Deviation is $170,413

I created a data field that I called assessment error. All this is is the Last Sale Price minus the 2009 Assessment. For example if a house sold in March of 2009 for $500,000K and the 2009 Assessment was $600K, the assessment error would be -$100K.

Creating a histogram of the data you can see the distribution:

A histogram is just a fancy way of saying we want to graph the number of times (the frequency) the assessment error was within a certain value range. You can see that the total number of properties that have apssessment errors that are $5K more than the selling price or $5K less than the selling price is about 30.

On the side of the graph you will see the following variables:

mean -4,578

That tells us that the average assessment is $4,578 higher than what the house actually sold for.

standard deviation 30,861

In statistics the assumption is for a bell shaped distribution 68% of the data is captured within 1 standard deviation ($30,861) from the mean. 95% of the data will be captured within 2 standard deviations from the mean ($61,772).

That tells us that most properties (95%) will sell with an assessment error between -$66,300 and $57,144. Remember a negative assessment error means that the property is assessed at more than it will sell for, and a positive assessment error means that the property is assessed less than it will sell for.

N 155

Tells us that this data is being built off of 155 different properties.

From the bell shape of the data we can assume that the assessment error approximates a normal distribution.

So we want to look at all the previous assessment prices and figure out a formula that looks like this:

Sales Price = Fixed Constant + Assessment_Coefficient * 2009 Assessment

What this does is if we have a property we can plug in the 2009 Assessment value and the Fixed Constant and Assessment_Coefficients to get the price. Thankfully we have computers that can take that raw data and figure out the coefficients for us.

The linear regression looks like this:

The blue line is what the computer has generated based upon the current data points. It tries to draw a straight line so that if you were to enter a 2009 assessment value you could calculate what the likely sales price would be. The red dots indicate where the sale actually occurred and the distance between that red dot and the blue line is the error of the prediction.

The R-sq value on the graph shows how well does this line fit the data. It fits the data about 96.7%. Not a perfect fit, but as the phrase goes good enough for government work!

So the formula looks like this:

Sales Price = -$6,650 + 1.007 * Assessment

What that tells us if you take a property and use the 2009 assessment and increase it by .7% and then subtract $6,650 dollars you should have the likely selling price.

Lets check it against some of the data we have:

503 Jester Lane, Charlottesville, VA

It was assessed at $142,000 in 2009. Using the formula we can expect the sales price to be:

Sales Price = -$6,650 + 1.007 * $142,000
= $136,344

It actually sold for $136,700 so it was only off by $357.

Don't be so surprised that the model can be this accurate, because we built the model based upon this data. If you look at the data most of the sample data is for sales within $200K - $400K.

Lets look at another two which will demonstrate the extremes.

145 Ivy Ridge Rd, Charlottesville, VA

It was assessed at $721,700 in 2009. Using the formula we can expect the sales price to be:

Sales Price = -$6,650 + 1.007 * $721,700
= $720,102

It actually sold for $780,000 so the model was lower by $59,898.

This should not comes as a surprise since there are fewer sample points to build the regression model from in the $700K or greater valuation price.

1225 Old Garth Rd, Charlottesville, VA

It was assessed at $469,600 in 2009. Using the formula we can expect the sales price to be:

Sales Price = -$6,650 + 1.007 * $469,600
= $466,237

It actually sold for $405,000 so the model was higher by $61,237.

So what does all of this tell us?

With the regression model showing only a 0.7% increase to the 2009 assessed value and then subtracting off $6,650 before getting to the sales price tells me that most buyers are paying very close attention to the 2009 assessed values.

Bear in mind IT IS ONLY A FORMULA. And since it is based upon the past, so to be accurate this formula needs to be updated. I plan on tracking this on a monthly basis and seeing how the market is changing.

I would be interested in people's feedback on what they think of the current pricing formula. Feel free to leave a comment.