Bengaluru 4-bed condo at ₹40.5m: adjusting one sale and three asks

K

KitWren

Landlord
Only one of the four comparables I found is a completed transaction; the other three are current asking prices. That makes me reluctant to derive a neat price-per-m² figure for the property I am reviewing.

It is a 145 m², four-bedroom Bengaluru condo in average condition, offered at ₹40,500,000. Good light and location support the price, while dated finishes and possible insurance expense work against it. I am also unsure whether all four properties report area on the same basis.

Would you start with the completed sale and use renovation costs to grade the condition difference, rather than applying a general percentage adjustment? I am particularly interested in which missing detail could overturn the comparison: exact micro-location, parking, outdoor space, recurring service charges or another building-specific issue. A local appraisal will follow before I rely on the result.
 
I would anchor the analysis to the completed sale and use the three listings mainly to show what sellers are currently attempting. First confirm that every area figure uses the same measurement basis; otherwise a price-per-m² adjustment will be misleading.

For condition, I’d compare three scenarios: as-is, modest updating and substantial updating, using estimated work costs rather than an arbitrary percentage. The most important missing fact is whether the completed sale is genuinely comparable at building and micro-location level.
 
Does the 145 m² include balconies, shared-area allocation or only the apartment itself? That could matter more than choosing the “right” floor-area rate. I’d also want to know whether parking is included in both the subject and the completed comparable, plus the level of recurring service charges. A nominally similar 4-bed can carry a very different total cost.
 
I’m less convinced that floor area should be adjusted mechanically here. Larger units do not always scale linearly by the square metre, and a well-planned 4-bed may be worth more than a slightly larger but awkward layout. Floor, outlook, noise and the precise street or development could outweigh a modest size difference. I’d grade those features before applying any area adjustment.
 
That’s fair. I’d make a simple comparison table with separate columns for transaction versus asking price, measurement basis, layout, floor/light, condition, parking, outdoor space and service charges. Keep the adjustments visible rather than combining everything into one percentage.

For the three active listings, I would test discounts from their asking prices as scenarios, not assume any one discount is correct. If those scenarios still cluster around the completed sale after feature adjustments, the evidence becomes more persuasive.
 
The possible insurance cost needs to be made specific before treating it as a valuation deduction. Is it an unusually high building-level charge, an expected future expense, or just a general concern? Those are different issues. I’d also clarify the tenure or remaining lease length, if applicable, with someone familiar with the property’s local documentation; a problem there could overwhelm fine adjustments for finishes.
 
The raw asking rate is about ₹279,000 per m², but that number is only useful if the 145 m² and the comparable areas are measured consistently. I’d set a provisional range from the completed sale after adjusting for parking, outdoor space, floor/light and layout, then subtract a realistic condition allowance. If ₹40,500,000 sits above that range, the seller should be able to justify the premium with a feature the completed comparable lacked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top