Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]Selling houses needs the agent and sellers to have a certain kind of experience. It is a fact that houses cannot always be sold on the spur of the moment. It needs proper planning and there is always a cohesive way to go about it. one of the other hassles that those who need to sell their house need to go through are the legal and technical formalities that form such an important part of the whole process.[/SIZE][/FONT]
I like to think there are many things that can keep a house from selling but most of them can be overcome with honesty and rationality. After all, in resale, that house appealed to somebody before in order for it to have to be sold now. I mean the seller thought enough about it to buy it and I'm sure there are others like them. It takes an objective view of it and to realize that it is now a product for sale and no longer the sellers home once it is listed. Sometimes that is very difficult. Once you can do that then you just look at the market facts, price it in a range that suits your needs ie. sell quickly, have time to wait for best price, etc., and have a qualified agent with a strong marketing plan. Above all, I feel, it takes a meeting of the minds between agent and seller and the agent must put his/her motivations aside and ultimately help the seller make good decisions. In my opinion.
But it's exacerbated by the fact that in many markets, a buyer can look up your property online in a minute and see what you originally paid for it. The shell game is over. If a buyer knows what it cost you, they know what it should cost them.
But it's exacerbated by the fact that in many markets, a buyer can look up your property online in a minute and see what you originally paid for it. The shell game is over. If a buyer knows what it cost you, they know what it should cost them.
What the seller paid for the property is completely irrelevant.
What the seller paid for the property is completely irrelevant.
As a buyer, I disagree. If a seller paid X in 2006 and the local market has gone down 10% since then, I'm not paying X or X+Y unless there are significant improvements to the property.
Everything I read says 3% a year is fair appreciation, unless inflation is wacky. Unless the property or neighborhood has substantially changed in the elapsing time since the seller purchased the home, 3% is what I'll use to calculate a sustainable price. I might consider paying a "love" premium if the house really knocks my socks off, but I'm not a sucker and I'm not going to finance a seller's retirement at the expense of my own.
cohdane, I'm trying to understand how this works. So, let's say I paid $400,000 for my house in Jan. 2001. What would you consider paying for the house now (assuming it has been well maintained)?
cohdane, I'm trying to understand how this works. So, let's say I paid $400,000 for my house in Jan. 2001. What would you consider paying for the house now (assuming it has been well maintained)?
I have no idea what your home is worth, but if you figured 4% annual appreciation, it would be about $525,000. Tossing out the number of $525k makes tons of assumptions that probably aren't all true - the biggest assumption being that you didn't overpay for the house.
Maybe it is just coincidence, but most of the homes in my area that are competitively priced were last sold prior to 2000. I get the impression that people who bought in 2003-2006, especially, bought in at prices that the market is now rejecting.
Case in point - two houses I've looked at, several lots away from one another, in the past two weeks. Assuming these homes were equal (disregarding sqft, they basically are) would you buy:
House A) $189,900 3/1 ranch, 970 square feet, last sold in 2007 for $198,000
House B) $187,500 3/2 ranch, 1650 square feet, last sold in 1989 for $61,000
I'm sure it's different in every city, every neighborhood, perhaps with every house - but in my neck of the woods we've crossed a threshold where certain sellers "can't come down any more", and so they can't compete with sellers who paid more reasonable prices, years ago.
I agree that what someone paid for a home is irrelevant as well. What if someone negotiated their butts off, played hardball or whatever, and scored a really great deal on a home 5 years ago. Should you then reap the rewards from the great deal that they worked their butt off to score? In this market, you probably would, but in more balanced times, would that be fair? Current market value has nothing to do with what someone paid initially. How many times have BUYERS on this board told sellers that it's irrelevant??????
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
