U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-10-2018, 07:46 PM
 
775 posts, read 315,623 times
Reputation: 1878

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ahawes View Post
On our latest purchase we found a house that had been on the market for almost 90 days with multiple price reductions, we offered asking price which was what the house was worth to us. We had a second house that was a bit more expensive that we liked as a contingency plan. Sure enough, seller's agent came back and said they magically received another offer the same day after 90 days on the market and wanted highest and best. We replied that we already gave our highest and best and that we'd wait 24 hours before pulling the offer and offering on the backup house. Magically, the other offer disappeared and our offer was accepted with haste.

Offer what it's worth to you and be ready to walk away if the seller thinks it's worth more.
Thatís so scummy. Iím glad you stared them down and won
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-10-2018, 09:18 PM
 
1,528 posts, read 618,436 times
Reputation: 2062
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish View Post
Buyers should ALWAYS assume that a seller will interpret every offer as "Highest and Best."
And, buyers should always assume that the seller does not owe them a second chance.

At that, expectations are met if the seller accepts a better offer without a response or solicitation for a second chance.

Either as a consumer or an agent, I owe no one a second chance just because they didn't step up to the plate and offer their best the first time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBromhal View Post
I haven't read the entire thread, but are there agents that have said ALWAYS go in with your highest and best, regardless of the individual market strength and house considerations (time on market, etc)?
I'm not trying to be rude but this thread is not that long. Why not read it if you wish to respond rather than ask us to provide a synopsis of it for you. We're busy people and don't have time to provide Cliff Notes.

Mike's post is very clear that his approach with clients is to advise offering highest and best with the first offer. It should be obvious to everyone that the seller does not owe anyone a chance to revise the bid. We all get that and agree. It's about the strategy that the buyer uses. Since we often have comprehension problems, I'll say that I think offering highest and best with the first offer is sometimes a good strategy but it's not the best strategy for every case. I would expect an agent to have a keen understanding of their client's risk appetite in terms of the balance in risk between losing a house and risk of overpaying and decide a strategy accordingly. The agent should also have a keen understanding of the home and possibly some view of the seller or type of seller (divorce, estate, etc) and based on their experience use that as input to deciding the strategy too. I think that's one of the reasons you have an agent...not for someone to just tell every client the same thing - offer highest and best with your first offer.

Just my opinion. Negotiation strategy is an art - but I thought at least most would agree that there's not one universal 'best' strategy for all people and all cases.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2018, 12:39 PM
 
Location: Athol, Idaho
2,177 posts, read 964,731 times
Reputation: 3152
Quote:
Originally Posted by just_because View Post
I'm not trying to be rude but this thread is not that long. Why not read it if you wish to respond rather than ask us to provide a synopsis of it for you. We're busy people and don't have time to provide Cliff Notes.

Mike's post is very clear that his approach with clients is to advise offering highest and best with the first offer. It should be obvious to everyone that the seller does not owe anyone a chance to revise the bid. We all get that and agree. It's about the strategy that the buyer uses. Since we often have comprehension problems, I'll say that I think offering highest and best with the first offer is sometimes a good strategy but it's not the best strategy for every case. I would expect an agent to have a keen understanding of their client's risk appetite in terms of the balance in risk between losing a house and risk of overpaying and decide a strategy accordingly. The agent should also have a keen understanding of the home and possibly some view of the seller or type of seller (divorce, estate, etc) and based on their experience use that as input to deciding the strategy too. I think that's one of the reasons you have an agent...not for someone to just tell every client the same thing - offer highest and best with your first offer.

Just my opinion. Negotiation strategy is an art - but I thought at least most would agree that there's not one universal 'best' strategy for all people and all cases.
When I'm a buyer and asked to do this I feel ridiculous outbidding myself or it seems to me against myself. I stay with my original offer. The seller didn't offer a counter just asked me to bid higher? However a buyer I represent will sometimes go along with it and come in with something higher. We criticize this all day long, but it isn't breaking any laws and can work in the sellers favor if they want to do it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2018, 03:22 PM
 
1,528 posts, read 618,436 times
Reputation: 2062
Quote:
Originally Posted by I love boots. View Post
When I'm a buyer and asked to do this I feel ridiculous outbidding myself or it seems to me against myself. I stay with my original offer. The seller didn't offer a counter just asked me to bid higher? However a buyer I represent will sometimes go along with it and come in with something higher. We criticize this all day long, but it isn't breaking any laws and can work in the sellers favor if they want to do it.
If you feel 'ridiculous' negotiating except when you use the strategy of giving it all away on the first offer, then perhaps you're in the wrong line of work. An agent should be able to successfully use a variety of strategies depending on the situation.

You say that a buyer rejecting an offer that is actually within his acceptable price range (hoping to get more money out of the buyer) sometimes can work in the seller's favor. So why would you not think that making offers lower than your highest and best sometimes would work in the buyer's favor. Odd logic.
Buyers and sellers both have a lot at stake and obviously market conditions dictate the balance of power.

Everyone seems to be operating under the assumption that a buyer losing a house is always a disaster. It might be for some buyers but certainly not for all. Perhaps from an agent's perspective it is very undesirable because it delays commission payment and creates more work. But many buyers can live with losing a house, especially if they are aiming to get the best deal possible. While I'm not always aiming to get the best deal possible, I've lost loads of houses over the years. Some you look back on thinking "what if I..." but most...well...life goes on. You find something else. Often it's better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2018, 03:31 PM
 
Location: Rochester, WA
3,128 posts, read 1,572,342 times
Reputation: 8274
Quote:
Originally Posted by just_because View Post

Everyone seems to be operating under the assumption that a buyer losing a house is always a disaster.
Everyone? Who?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2018, 03:45 PM
 
Location: Rochester, WA
3,128 posts, read 1,572,342 times
Reputation: 8274
Quote:
Originally Posted by just_because View Post
If you feel 'ridiculous' negotiating except when you use the strategy of giving it all away on the first offer, then perhaps you're in the wrong line of work. An agent should be able to successfully use a variety of strategies depending on the situation.
This is a straw man argument. That isn't really what 'boots' said. In fact, 'boots' said their strategy can and has varied, depending on who is making the offer and their feelings on the matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2018, 03:52 PM
 
1,528 posts, read 618,436 times
Reputation: 2062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Holbrook View Post
Everyone? Who?
Sorry. I should not have said everyone. I meant those who say to just offer your highest and best with your first offer. Which I think does happen to be everyone who took a position but perhaps not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2018, 03:57 PM
 
1,528 posts, read 618,436 times
Reputation: 2062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Holbrook View Post
This is a straw man argument. That isn't really what 'boots' said. In fact, 'boots' said their strategy can and has varied, depending on who is making the offer and their feelings on the matter.
Well maybe I misunderstood. It's not really a clear post. She said that for herself, she feels 'ridiculous' and when her clients do it (it's not really clear what 'it' is - offering more than their highest and best? going in with an offer less than h &b and then raising up to h&b) - they 'criticize' this.

Doesn't sound like openness and comfort with strategies other than just going in with H&B with first offer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2018, 04:16 PM
 
Location: Rochester, WA
3,128 posts, read 1,572,342 times
Reputation: 8274
Problem is trying to put too fine a point on general statements. A bad habit of yours, j-b.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-11-2018, 04:20 PM
 
Location: Rochester, WA
3,128 posts, read 1,572,342 times
Reputation: 8274
Quote:
Originally Posted by just_because View Post
Sorry. I should not have said everyone. I meant those who say to just offer your highest and best with your first offer. Which I think does happen to be everyone who took a position but perhaps not.
I'm pretty sure no one else thinks that advice to "offer your highest and best with your first offer" means "OMG it's a disaster if you lose the house!".

What it means is: Don't expect a counter offer. What it means is, offer the amount that, if you do lose the house, you won't feel bad that you didn't bid higher. You might not get another bite at it.

Employed that reasoning to help clients decide on many many offers that did not get signed. And most felt at peace with it... That they'd given it all they wanted to, and if it's not accepted then it wasn't meant to be.

Sometimes they were countered, and they sometimes they still said, no.... that was my highest and best.

Last edited by Diana Holbrook; 02-11-2018 at 04:44 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top