Stanford’s public housing sales report makes it possible to examine real reported transactions, but the records still need careful grouping. A standard ground-lease condominium is not the same interest as an unrestricted nearby home, and standard leases can have different term provisions. A pooled price statistic can therefore describe the composition of a sample without answering what a particular home is worth. Define the rights and property type before using the numbers.
This article presents a small, reproducible exercise using five publicly reported condominium closings from July through September 2026. They were manually selected from the first report page returned on October 26, 2026. The entries were not independently checked against deeds, escrow files or MLS, and the sample is not claimed to be exhaustive. No broker adjustment or property valuation is supplied. Use it with the Stanford guide, county guide and selling process.
Disclose the selection before reading the prices
The source is Stanford’s public Housing Sales report, linked by Faculty and Staff Housing as historical sales information. The manual rules for this exercise were: a reported closing between July 1 and September 30, 2026; property type Condo; lease type Standard; and a Stanford postal address. Five visible rows met those rules. The exercise reproduces limited factual fields from that public source, not a private MLS export or a claim of access to confidential transaction terms.
Restricted lease entries, single-family homes, Ryan Court townhomes and entries outside the period were excluded from this group. Those exclusions matter even when another property has a similar bedroom count. The report mixes several property types and on- and off-campus locations. Its asking-price column is also separate from its sale-price column. This exercise uses the reported sale figures only; it does not turn an asking amount, a current offering or a University selection opportunity into a verified closing.
Original Stanford reported-sale sample
| Reported address | Closing date | BR / BA | Approximate area | Reported sale price |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 73 Peter Coutts Circle | September 18, 2026 | 3 / 3 | 1,634 sq ft | $1,250,000 |
| 22 Pearce Mitchell Place | September 9, 2026 | 3 / 2 | 1,242 sq ft | $702,000 |
| 40 Pearce Mitchell Place | August 18, 2026 | 2 / 2 | 1,031 sq ft | $540,000 |
| 38 Peter Coutts Circle | July 30, 2026 | 3 / 2 | 1,814 sq ft | $1,210,000 |
| 69 Pearce Mitchell Place | July 23, 2026 | 2 / 2 | 1,100 sq ft | $540,000 |
| Group | Observed count | Median of reported prices | Limit |
|---|---|---|---|
| All selected rows | 5 | $702,000 | Mixed communities, layouts and unverified condition |
| Peter Coutts rows | 2 | $1,230,000 | Average of two middle values, not a robust market estimate |
| Pearce Mitchell rows | 3 | $540,000 | Small selected sample; no matched-condition conclusion |
Source: Stanford public report. No numerical adjustment, trend inference or subject value follows from these medians. Saved sample data and calculation checks accompany the draft.
Explain what the pooled median conceals
The five selected prices, in ascending order, are $540,000, $540,000, $702,000, $1,210,000 and $1,250,000. Their middle value is $702,000. That calculation is correct, but it does not describe a typical Stanford condominium independent of the selected mix. Two rows come from Peter Coutts and three from Pearce Mitchell. The pooled result depends on which communities and units entered the exercise; changing the selection could change the statistic even without any change in market conditions.
The subgroup results are also limited. The Peter Coutts midpoint is $1,230,000 from only two observations, while the Pearce Mitchell middle observation is $540,000 from three. The groups differ in reported areas and bedroom mixes, and their condition, improvements and transaction terms have not been examined. The figures therefore do not establish a community premium, a discount or a price adjustment. They show why the next stage should investigate matched properties and rights instead of reporting the difference as a causal finding.
Read standard lease terms beyond the label
Stanford’s May 1, 2026 standard-lease brochure distinguishes the maximum term for new leaseholders of single-family houses and Pearce Mitchell condominiums from a stated August 31, 2070 maximum termination date for new Peter Coutts leaseholders. It also says extensions are considered individually and are not guaranteed. Those published policies are reasons to obtain the actual lease and assignment documents. They do not independently establish the specific term conveyed in each reported sale.
For a real subject, identify the offered interest, remaining term, applicable assignment or restatement and any material provisions affecting financing or transfer. A Standard label in a table is not a complete summary of those rights. A nearby fee-simple sale involves a different land interest and should not be used interchangeably without supported analysis. Likewise, a restricted ground-lease price cannot be treated as an ordinary discount to standard lease value merely because the physical homes resemble each other.
Compare recurring obligations on the same basis
The current FSH charge page identifies bundled HOA, ground rent, water, sewer and maintenance for the referenced campus condominium communities. Its effective periods differ. A pricing analyst should obtain the actual charges and disclosures applicable at each transaction date rather than attach today’s newly posted schedule to an earlier closing. Those costs can be relevant to a comparison, but their existence alone does not produce a market-supported dollar adjustment.
Read the governing allocation, reserve information, insurance and planned-project disclosures for the subject and useful sale candidates. A payment that covers more services is not directly comparable with a dues-only figure. An actual special assessment or material common-building project should be documented and dated. This exercise has no private association files and cannot say whether such matters affected any selected price. Keep those unknowns beside the sample rather than implying that public sale data includes the full ownership story.
Verify area, improvements and condition
The report labels its area field approximate. Do not present those figures as measurements certified for appraisal or assume every space was approved for the use shown in marketing. Obtain a consistent area source and the relevant improvement records for the actual comparison. Separate a proposed addition, garage, storage area and accessory space from completed living area as appropriate. A misleading denominator can distort a price-per-square-foot comparison before any adjustment is considered, which is why this exercise does not calculate that metric.
For upgrades, identify the work, date, permit and present-condition evidence instead of using a broad renovated category. A recent finish does not establish concealed system work, and an older finish does not establish structural failure. Give any qualified reviewer the actual scope and limitations of the available inspection reports. No selected property was visited for this article, so the price differences cannot be attributed to condition, outlook, privacy or another unobserved feature.
Add transaction evidence before adjusting prices
Fannie Mae’s comparable-selection guidance provides a framework for choosing physically and legally relevant sales and explaining the market area. The public rows are candidates for further investigation, not automatically comparables for every Stanford home. Define the subject and why its prospective buyers would consider each sale. An unusual lease or ownership arrangement can make a nearby transaction a weak match and require a more carefully explained search.
The related adjustment guidance calls for support for the treatment of differences. Verify available contract dates, concessions, included property and unusual sale conditions before using a closing price numerically. A contractor quote can inform repair cost without proving the market’s response to that work. No paired-sale study or dollar adjustment is performed here, and the selected closing-date sample cannot establish a quarterly trend without an appropriate comparison period and consistent evidence.
Use the exercise as a starting file
A seller can use this sample to identify the next documents needed: the subject’s actual lease terms, verified configuration and condition, current association information and transaction evidence for plausible matches. Preserve the source date and selection rules so a later reviewer can reproduce or revise the exercise. If additional reported entries become available or a row is corrected, apply the same rules rather than selecting only figures that support a preferred outcome.
The useful result is a transparent distinction between observed public data, original arithmetic and unverified valuation assumptions. Five reported closings support a small descriptive exercise; they do not certify a market value or a professional pricing recommendation. Obtain named broker or qualified valuation review for the intended decision, with the actual lease and property evidence included. That is how the public Stanford report becomes a foundation for defensible analysis rather than an unexplained average.
