How we turn scattered property data into usable evidence.
Greek property data does not come from one source, and different sources answer different questions. Our methodology is built around a simple rule: do not make a dataset say more than it actually says. We separate transaction evidence, asking-price context, tax values, market trends and risk indicators so the buyer can see what each source means, how much weight it deserves and where the limitations are.
Separate facts, proxies and context.
Every report follows the same analytical principles. The purpose is not to manufacture one definitive number. It is to make the available evidence easier to interpret correctly.
Evidence before opinion.
Show the underlying data before drawing a conclusion.
Keep data types separate.
Recorded transactions, asking prices, tax values and market indices are not interchangeable.
Specific beats vague.
Whenever possible, show the actual number, range, date, location and source.
Weak evidence stays weak.
If the available data is limited, the report becomes more cautious — not more creative.
Context is not certainty.
A nearby transaction can be useful without proving what another property is worth.
Limitations are evidence too.
Uncertainty should be visible, not hidden behind stronger language.
Not every source carries the same weight.
Judge the source by the question it can actually answer.
Different sources can support different types of conclusions. There is no single ranking that makes one dataset “better” for every question. Recorded transfer data can provide direct transaction evidence. Asking-price data can show current seller expectations. Market indices can show broader movement over time. Tax values can explain parts of the tax and transaction system. Risk sources can indicate issues that may require professional follow-up.
We do not use a weaker proxy when a more direct form of evidence is available for the same question.
Different numbers answer different buyer questions.
Recorded transfers are the core transaction evidence.
Recorded property transfers are the most important source when the question is: what have buyers actually paid? A nearby transfer is evidence — not an automatic valuation. Location, timing, category and available property characteristics all matter.
Trend context, not transaction evidence.
Broader residential property indices can help explain whether the wider market has been rising, falling or relatively stable. They do not show what one specific property sold for.
Current seller expectations, not completed deals.
Listings show what sellers are asking. That makes them useful. It does not make them transactions, and they should never be blended into one unlabeled average with recorded sales.
Tax basis, not market value.
The Greek Objective Value system is relevant to taxes and transaction calculations. It should not be interpreted as a professional valuation or as proof that an asking price is high or low.
Flags for follow-up, not legal certification.
Risk indicators help identify areas that may require lawyer, engineer, tax or other professional review. A clean-looking result is not proof that no issue exists.
Show every assumption behind the cost summary.
Taxes, rates, professional fees, fixed items, variable items and conditional items should be visible. An estimate should look like an estimate, not a guaranteed final bill.
Flags for follow-up, not legal certification.
The risk section is designed to help the buyer understand which areas may require further professional review. Depending on the available information and scope of the report, this may include ownership, liens or encumbrances, cadastral consistency, building permits and legality, forest, archaeological or coastal restrictions, tax and transaction readiness, and power of attorney or representation issues.
A risk snapshot is not a legal opinion. It is not a title guarantee. It is not an engineering inspection. A clean-looking result should not be interpreted as proof that no issue exists. Where professional verification is required, the report should say so.
Show every assumption behind the purchase-cost summary.
Purchase costs depend on the property, buyer, transaction structure and professionals involved. For that reason, cost estimates should never appear as unexplained totals.
Where costs are shown, the report should make clear which taxes are included, which rates or assumptions are being used, which professional fees are estimated, which costs are fixed and which are variable, which items depend on the specific buyer or transaction, and which rules may change over time. Conditional items should be labelled as conditional. An estimate should look like an estimate, not like a guaranteed final bill.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Sometimes the most important methodological result is that the available data is not strong enough.
Only two relevant recorded transactions were identified nearby.
They provide useful context, but the sample is too limited to establish a reliable local price range. Uncertainty should be visible in the report.
If no relevant transaction is found, that does not mean no transaction has ever occurred. If no risk flag appears in the available source, that does not prove no risk exists. If an area has sparse data, we do not fill the gap with stronger language. Instead, we explain what was searched, what was found, what was not found and how that affects the strength of the conclusion.
Every time-sensitive input carries a date.
Property markets move. Listings change. Regulations change. Tax rules change. Market indices are updated. Freshness is part of interpretation.
Put the caveats and source references in plain sight.
Methodology should not live behind marketing language. Important sources, assumptions and limitations should be visible enough for the buyer to inspect them. Reports should distinguish between source data, calculated figures, interpretation, estimates, assumptions, missing information and professional checks still required.
Where practical, source references should sit close to the claim they support. We do not treat limitations as fine print. They are part of the evidence.
The objective is simple.
Show the buyer what is known, show where it came from, show what it means, and be equally clear about what the available data cannot establish.
See the methodology applied to a real report.
The structure should make the evidence easier to inspect — not harder to question.