To offer less than asking price even though it's offers in excess of?

[jnfrrss]

This is in England, it was on at 460k, reduced to 440k but now says offers in excess of that. Seems funny to say excess if it's been up for sale for 8 months and not sold so reduced.

I want to offer 395k as thats what I think it's worth

Why do peopel assume greedy sellers but not greedy buyers when the amount of money involved is the same.

My house is currently on at a low price and the offers I have had have been ridiculous. Why? Weather, time of year, price, availability etc. Doesn't mean my house is only worth £x just because that's the only offer I have had so far.

That logic assumes that if you get no offers in the first weeks then the house is worth zero doesn't it?

It will sell sonner or later. It is a nice house in a good area. I just have to decide whether to sell to (greedy??) people who hope to get 4 beds for the price of 2 or to wait for someone who loves it.

By all means make your offer OP -nothing to lose - and they may welcome it.

People assume greedy sellers rather than greedy Buyers because of the climate of the past 15 years. Because experience tells them that's more likely. Because there's an assumption made far too often that it's a god given right to make money on a house. Especially in the sort of place where houses go on for 450k: I doubt OP is in a depressed area where houses are cheaper than a decade ago.

The agent who said "the ones languishing on the market are the "dregs" " was just telling you what you wanted to hear.

Markets are far more complicated than that.

A 1-bed newbuild flat in a city centre near a station will have loads of people able and willing to buy it. One sells every ten minutes! A 16 bed castle in the middle of nowhere - even if it is priced at a pittance - will not have a very large pool of people able to take it on. Doesn't mean it is the dregs.

How many Big Macs get sold a day compared to ounces of caviar I wonder.

But surely the greedy seller is then a greedy buyer as they negotiate down the price of their next home.

Those same people who like to think they have got one over on the buyer and negotiated top dollar for their poky home are not suddenly going to turn into saints when they try to outsmart the sellers of the house they want. They are exactly the buyers who bank on it being a probabte or divorce sale, who pick up things in the survey to haggle over and who drop their offer at a late stage in the hope of a bagging a bargain to boast of.

We offered £190k on a house that was advertised for £210k and had been for sale for a long time. So 10% under the asking price. The vendors said no because they needed at least £200k to afford the house they wanted to move to. They eventually sold for £203k. I don't see why it was cheeky to offer what we could afford on the offchance they were keen to sell and in a position to be able to accept less?

We later bought our current house for £195k (cheap for the location because of the poor condition). It needed work but we had £100k inheritance to fix it up. So we now couldn't sell for less than about £300k without making a huge loss. Anyone offering based on the previous sold price would be disappointed. But I wouldn't be offended - would just say no!

This assumes they're buying again painted. Not necessarily so, especially not in a probate sale like here.

Of course not neccessarily - just as not all buyers are also selling - but some most definitely are.

Probate sales though are actually very often used to fund house purchases of the the next generation. I bought a probate sale house and the daughter was using the inheritance money for her own new home. Quite common.

I'm not sure I assume greed on either side, but accept it could very well be a factor in both.

If a house has been on the market for several months I'd assume the seller is unrealistic, they have got caught up in an estate agents valuation as the actual worth then bought into a fantasy of what this money then will mean to them and not be willing to let that fantasy go, possibly they have went looking at houses they can only afford if they sell for this level, even though they logically know their house is languishing on the market so isn't worth that..,,everyone knows when a property doesn't sell its nearly always the price. exc castles clearly

I assume a buyer offering under is simply offering in thr corridor of what they can afford or think it's worth. Some of course may be trying to pull a fast one.As a seller you can easily say no. It's hardly a big deal and takes five mins. Neither side would I be personally offended by.

However in the ops shoes, I would be reticent to get involved. I'd have to be totally in love with it. Probate sales can be notoriously tricky as all parties need to agree on the sellers side, and then you factor in the fact the house hasn't sold for the best part of a year, and the price reduction is very Minor at this stage, it would indicate to me some issues on the sellers side that I would rather not deal with. It's a stressful enough process without factoring in sellers out to get more than it's worth and possible disagreements between themselves.

Essentially it is peopel who are greedy and they tend to be so wheterh thye are buying or selling. Emotional non - greedy peopel will sell their "lovely family home" to people they like and in turn buy a house that "looks as though it has had a lot of love in it"

Sorry - my typing is terrible today!

Bluntness - agree

Probate sales are used to fund all manner of things.

Ultimately though, property in the UK is grossly over priced. To the detriment of our economy and society. Most properties are selling for more in real terms than what was initially paid. This is where the greed part comes from. People don't think that because they've invented it. Like it or not.

With four vendors it only takes one to be awkward and hold out for a higher figure

A very relevant point ... and after 8 months and a price reduction, there could be arguments breaking out already as some begin to wonder "if they'll ever get the money". They're fully entitled to refuse any offer of course, but might have to accept they'll be sitting on an overpriced house for much longer, with all the maintenance issues an empty house can bring

Offer whatever you think it's worth, OP; you never know your luck, and in what's basically a business transaction it sometimes pays to keep a cool head and keep "feelings" out of it

I really don't think it is fair to talk about sellers being 'greedy' when their home is usually the largest asset they own.

Of course everyone would like to get the best price they can for the market conditions - it's only natural.

If they want to hold on in case market conditions change in their favour, and are able to do so, that's entirely their prerogative. Much will depend on whether they are trading up or down or across.

In this instance I have reported this. As it happens no I do not have additional needs but you could cause great offence by this sort of statement and on something like this thread there really is no need to personally abuse people for the simole reason they don't agree with you. I was tempted to let it stand as it says more about you than me, but due to its potential for offence I've asked the mods to remove.

And you couldn’t wait to come here and share your big decision with the world, could you? If you really gave a damn about ‘potential to offend’, you wouldn’t have reposted the comment to make sure even more people saw it. You just wanted to claim some fictitious moral high ground.

Perhaps you should re-read some of your own posts on this thread and others. Bluntness is no excuse for rudeness.

Doesn't look like op is coming back. Hopefully she took my advice from this morning.

@HollowTalk I know but it's not gone through yet... I keep checking (it's a bit tragic really)

Thabks WhatAmIMissing, I also think this "cheeky offer" culture is pretty bad. Sellers are never called cheeky for overpricing something.

I think it's ridiculous that people always try to get the peak value for their house and struggle to accept less than that. It's a market it goes up and down, seeing as it's risen so much it could fall more now things are stalling.

I some posters here psychic, with knowing the offer will get rejected.

Will offer tomorrow, somewhere between 395 and 402.5, that is my very max and the most I would pay for it

I think it's ridiculous that people always try to get the peak value for their house

Are you a first time buyer then OP? Have you never sold a property?

Would you deliberately sell your largest asset for less than it's true value?

Yes, markets go up and down, and it is a bit of a skill in reading that correctly. We offered full asking price on the first house we bought because there was a strong bull market, and we loved it. By the time we'd completed, the rest of the market had caught up.

Don't offer your max straight away! Psychologically it's better for them to negotiate you up an extra 5k or something so expect for first offer to be rejected then come up a bit.
We did a lot of research that said most houses sell for on average 9% under list price so I don't think your offer is bad, especially as it's obviously not had a lot of interest.
Good luck!

A peak price isn't something true value now. I've owned multiple homes.

I sold some shares a few months ago, it was a good 5% off the peak value they were last year but their value had fallen since then.

People seem to think they home is always worth the peak amount rather than the market value and have a hard time accepting it has fallen. Even if they bought it for 50k, knowing it was worth say 250k a year ago I find many would want to sell it for 230k now even though that's it's true value. As an example.

Would you deliberately sell your largest asset for less than it's true value?

How is “true value” determined? Lots of sellers seem to choose the figure that they need to move to their next house - is that then true value? Is it what some estate agent eager to have another house on the books says? Is it what similar houses nearby have sold for in an overheated market?

People always harp on about what they need for their next home as an indicator of value, or whether an offer is cheeky. Of course that may impact what they are prepared to accept, but that is nothing to do with the value of the property.

Labelling either side 'greedy' is unnecessary and makes the transaction more emotional than it needs to be.

It stands to reason that both sides want to get good value. In the process of this, the seller may overcook the asking price, which might limit offers. Equally, the buyer might underbid, which could scupper their chances.

There aren't hard and fast rules here, the eventual outcome will depend on who is most motivated to do a deal.

It doesn't sound like the OP is particularly bothered, which puts her in a strong position - unlikely to be persuaded to bid more than she wants to.

I would have no hesitation in offering that and I wouldn't be offended as a seller, I'd just refuse if it wasn't something I was willing to consider (someone did once offer us 1/3 off and we declined)

If you want it to be accepted however you need to go in explaining your low offer (others in the area sold for this and are equivalent, needs new kitchen, bathroom, roof etc) and why you are a good buyer (no chain, cash buyer etc)

Worth downloading property bee as it will show you what changes they have made previously to the listing and also other sellers and how long it took to sell etc and give you a better idea of the nature of the sellers