Weighing the price of the units

[alberto]

Paging @reef-finance.

So, I reverse-engineered the PDF (on the first try: so much for precious and confidential IP, eh). Their numbers and method make sense to me.

How is the architects’ proposal doing versus our “+/- 10%” decision?

I tried and plotted the price per m2 in their proposal against the “+/- 10%” criterion decided by the plenary, and the result, in visual form, is this:

• Average casco price assumed to be 3,500 EUR per m2.
• The blue line shows prices per m2 of each unit in the Reef, starting with Obelix (10 units), then Asterix (8 units), then Idefix (6 units).
• the green and orange line show prices of 3,500 + 10% = 3,850 and 3,500 -10% = 3,150

Most units are within the range. Two units in Obelix are more expensive; One unit per each of the building are cheaper, with two more units only slightly cheaper in Asterix.

Tentative evaluation

So, at a first approximation, the proposal by the architects has several advantages:

• Criteria for pricing agreed with the group.
• Consistent with market value in case of resale.
• Quite some diversity.
• Most units in the range, even when looking at casco (see below for a discussion on finishings).

Even units that are not in the range are made mostly cheaper. The only disadvantage is that households with their eyes on the most expensive units (O8 and O10) might not have planned for the extra costs.

What about finishings?

Finishings are left out of the previous calculation. This means that – assuming equally expensive finishings – the variation on the inclusive price is going to be smaller. For example, if you imagine to add 800 EUR per m2 to all prices the result of the simulation is near-perfect (except O1 and in part O8).

In light of the above, Team Finance proposes to accept the weighing suggested by the architects, and stored here.

@Lee, I see that on the agenda this shows as “exploration”, but the way I see it we could attempt to consent to it as well.

[Lee]

My reasoning was that would be a governance issue, in that there may be a bit of a conflict with the decision we took on 26 March 2023 (by consensus) on unit pricing:

This is the text under the heading “recommendation”:

For The Reef, we recommend introducing a price differential at no less than what is currently accepted by the real estate market, and possibly more, say +/-10% around the construction price, which means the difference between the cheapest and most expensive m² prices can be max. 20%. Therefore the unit price will not only be a function of the size of the apartment and its construction price but also other factors as described in 3 above. The concrete assessment criteria would be decided on during a plenary meeting when the architects submit their projection.

But as you say, when taking into account the finishings, the results fall more or less in the +/- 10% price fork. I personally don’t believe this decision is something that can be tackled in one go, but it’s worth giving it a try.

Therefore @reef-full, proposal for a change of plan, i.e. to decide by consensus on the proposal by Team Finance above to accept the proposal from the architects without any changes.

If you can’t make it tomorrow, it would be great if you could bring your arguments in the thread below, and entrust someone with your proxy.

[ugne]

We can not unfortunately attend (already in Spain), but I agree with architects’ proposal. Manuel will ask @alberto to be our proxy.

[manuelpueyo]

@joannes

If my assumptions are correct, they should not mind one of us looking into the file, as long they can be reassured that it will not end up in the open.

yes + as curious customers we have the right to know how the numbers are calculated