Seller counters above list price?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I disagree with this. I would definitely counter with a price lower than list at this point. You have all the leverage since the seller probably owes a commission to his/her agent by virtue of receiving an offer at list price that s/he rejected. So, if you walk, they still have to pay their agent 5 or 6%.

A few weeks ago, I saw a home I liked and offered list price with standard contingencies (e.g., the offer was subject to inspection and appraisal for mortgage approval (I am pre-approved and had a significant down-payment)). It was one of the snowy weekends, and I guess foot traffic was light. My offer was rejected allegedly due to the contingencies and without any counter offer. The sellers agent suggested, however, that the house was intentionally priced "low" and to create a bidding war, and suggested a higher bid from me. I walked away from that home, and I see that it sold for $10K more the next weekend.

Long story short, the OP has no leverage. That house will sell in the near future. The OP has shown that the market will at least support the list price. The seller is willing to wait for a higher offer, and is not worried about paying the agent.

[Anonymous]

I'm with the PP who said to focus on how much you want the house and how much would be willing to pay for it, regardless of original list price or the seller's counter.

I paid asking for a house last year that I know was objectively overpriced. I did it because it was not overpriced for me. I paid what it was worth for me to be sure that we got the house of our dreams, to avoid losing out due to contingencies, etc., and to get it done quickly. We had very specific needs/wants out of a house and this was the first and only one that met those. It was worth it to us. (We are talking about a home under 600K, for reference).

But, if your original offer was what you were willing to pay, stick to your guns.

The rest is distraction.

[Anonymous]

Possibly so, but it doesn't really sound from her posts that she cares if she has leverage or not. She cares about not paying $30k more for a house she and her husband don't even love. Who knows, maybe the sellers will end up with the price they want from someone else, but it sounds like at least in the OP's case, they overestimated her interest. So it goes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Please, not with the buying milk analogy. We all (should) know it's not the same thing as house market value.

Then please give us the analogy where it's appropriate for the seller to set a price, receive that price and then reject it by asking for a lot more money?

They did not actually get the listing price. They got the listing price with a bunch of conditions attached. For your analogy to work, the buyer would have had to come with a cash offer and no inspection, appraisal contingency, etc.

[Anonymous]

I would act as if I am walking away, see if they accept the existing offer. No concessions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What % is $30k more? Are we talking a 4% increase on a $750k house? Or are we talking a 1.5% increase on a $2m house? I think that makes a difference.

House is listed for less than 750.

Ah, could it be http://www.mcenearney.com/property/28792404/1108-CROSS-DR-ALEXANDRIA-VA-22302

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think many people here are getting hung up on the morality of the situation and want you to "teach a lesson" to the seller by walking away. IMHO, that's short-sighted because it's negotiating from a position of spite. It's also a very easy viewpoint for them to take when it's not them trying to buy a house. Focus on what you want to accomplish and what gets you there.

As that paragon of business negotiation Dr. Phil says: "Would you rather be right, or rather be happy?"

In this case, walking away would be both "right" and satisfying, don't you think? It's not like this is the only house available for purchase. If you saw a price on a gallon of milk and were told at the register that it was actually $1 more, which price would you expect to be honored?

Perhaps satisfying in the sense that it's satisfying to give the gouging seller a big FU. But "satisfying" is not the question Dr. Phil asked. He's asking what will really make OP happiest? OP apparently wanted the house at the asking price, so much so that she was willing to offer hundreds of thousands of dollars for it. If she gets the house at the asking price, will that make her happiest in the long run? Only OP can answer that question. I guess it depends on how much she likes the house. My only advice it for her to keep focused on the house value, and not on some short-sighted "principle" viewpoint.

In answer to your milk hypothetical, what I'd do depends simply on what would make me happiest. If I really needed the milk right then, then paying $1 extra would be less burdensome than traveling to a different store, I'd pay the $1 surcharge. If I did not really need the milk, or perhaps could easily go to another shop right next door to pay $1 less, I'd probably do that instead. The focus is on what benefits me most, not what hurts the seller most.

[Anonymous]

OP just counter back with your original offer with a time limit to accept like another PP said. What do you have to lose since it's not your dream house? What does your agent think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think many people here are getting hung up on the morality of the situation and want you to "teach a lesson" to the seller by walking away. IMHO, that's short-sighted because it's negotiating from a position of spite. It's also a very easy viewpoint for them to take when it's not them trying to buy a house. Focus on what you want to accomplish and what gets you there.

As that paragon of business negotiation Dr. Phil says: "Would you rather be right, or rather be happy?"

In this case, walking away would be both "right" and satisfying, don't you think? It's not like this is the only house available for purchase. If you saw a price on a gallon of milk and were told at the register that it was actually $1 more, which price would you expect to be honored?

Perhaps satisfying in the sense that it's satisfying to give the gouging seller a big FU. But "satisfying" is not the question Dr. Phil asked. He's asking what will really make OP happiest? OP apparently wanted the house at the asking price, so much so that she was willing to offer hundreds of thousands of dollars for it. If she gets the house at the asking price, will that make her happiest in the long run? Only OP can answer that question. I guess it depends on how much she likes the house. My only advice it for her to keep focused on the house value, and not on some short-sighted "principle" viewpoint.

In answer to your milk hypothetical, what I'd do depends simply on what would make me happiest. If I really needed the milk right then, then paying $1 extra would be less burdensome than traveling to a different store, I'd pay the $1 surcharge. If I did not really need the milk, or perhaps could easily go to another shop right next door to pay $1 less, I'd probably do that instead. The focus is on what benefits me most, not what hurts the seller most.

Is this actually true? Are you really a person who's willing to pay more money to anyone who tries to extort you and take advantage of you, from home sellers to hypothetical grocery clerks? Wow. Either you're really rich, really spineless, or … I think…. really trying to convince the OP to pay more to an unprincipled seller who's trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.

[Anonymous]

Is this actually true? Are you really a person who's willing to pay more money to anyone who tries to extort you and take advantage of you, from home sellers to hypothetical grocery clerks? Wow. Either you're really rich, really spineless, or … I think…. really trying to convince the OP to pay more to an unprincipled seller who's trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.

Or maybe just someone who responds to supply and demand? Someone who does not get distracted by emotions about what is "fair" when thinking logically about how much I want/need something and therefore how valuable it is to me?

[Anonymous]

I'd love to know what the seller's agent thought as s/he was writing the couteroffer with a $30K increase over list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this actually true? Are you really a person who's willing to pay more money to anyone who tries to extort you and take advantage of you, from home sellers to hypothetical grocery clerks? Wow. Either you're really rich, really spineless, or … I think…. really trying to convince the OP to pay more to an unprincipled seller who's trying to change the rules in the middle of the game.

10:31 here. I don't consider it extortion; it's simply negotiation. If the seller (be it a home seller or a store clerk) wants to jack up the price on me, I'll calculate what end result benefits me most and make my decision accordingly. By the same token, if I see an opportunity to demand a concession from the seller, I'll take it. For example, if I'm buying a gallon of milk and notice that it's only 1-2 days from it's "sell by" date, maybe I'll tell the clerk I want a $1 discount! In neither situation will I allow emotion or spite to control my strategy. I am neither spineless, nor rich. I'm frugal and logical.

Your repeated suggestion that all of us who disagree with you must be pawns of the seller here is laughable. It seems you realize your viewpoint is in the minority, and so you want to discredit the many people who disagree with you. That attitude exhibits the excess emotion you're allowing to control your thinking.

[Anonymous]

Until a contract is singed there is 1 rule for accepting an offer and the asking price, NO RULES!

[Anonymous]

wtf. These sellers need to list at the price they want. This isn't ebay.

[Anonymous]

That's funny, I feel the same way about your perspective. To wit: OP and her husband don't love the house and already offered the price that the house was worth to them. Seller then jacked the price. OP, not sufficiently interested in the house for the new price, is planning to walk. I agree with her decision. She sounds entirely reasonable and clear-headed about it. The house was worth it at Price A, but not at Price B. YOU are the one who's encouraging her to pay more since you're assuming she "loves" the house and desires it more than she has repeatedly stated she actually does. So YOU are the one trying to say she should act on (nonexistent) emotion and pay more. Nice try being all condescending, though.