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.
Whoa! I don't know these people and I imagine you don't either. Calling them greedy is a huge leap based on the limited, second hand facts available here.
All we know is they rejected the OP's offer of 95% of asking. If the facts are that the list price is already $10K less than what they owe on the mortgage and they have to bring $10K to the closing table, are they still greedy *****? Clearly, this seller is unrealistic about what their house is worth. However, calling them greedy is not something anyone here has the facts to do.
If the OP had offer 50% of asking, then I would have understood their rejection. But they're obviously infatuated with the idea that they'll find a sucker to sell at a higher price.
Whoa! I don't know these people and I imagine you don't either. Calling them greedy is a huge leap based on the limited, second hand facts available here.
All we know is they rejected the OP's offer of 95% of asking. If the facts are that the list price is already $10K less than what they owe on the mortgage and they have to bring $10K to the closing table, are they still greedy *****? Clearly, this seller is unrealistic about what their house is worth. However, calling them greedy is not something anyone here has the facts to do.
You sell at what someone will buy. What do the comps say? Why should anyone pay extra because you don't have money to close? how is that the buyers fault?
This buyer offered 95%, that is really fair to me.
to OP when you own a home and are ready to sell will you be happy breaking even? or getting what you paid for it?
a home is an asset. it is not a car that loses value as soon as you drive it off of the lot. people buy houses and invest a lot of money in them over the years and in most cases add value to that home. people refinance or take out 2nd mortgages because a home has value and allows someone to do that. a home is an investment and should pay out. i don't know anyone who sells a house for what they paid or less unless it is bank owned.
I know folks that sold at 60% UNDER what they paid for.
This should serve as lesson that those "merry go happy" times of 2004, 2005, and 2006 when people paid insane amounts for homes not worth half those prices are over, and should stay over. This idea that you buy a house and hope that it appreciates by $400k+ within 5 years+ is unrealistic.
Some neighborhoods depreciate in value due to lack of maintenance, too many renters, the schools can go to the pooper, damage of any sort, etc. That expectation should stop as it it not realistic. Not all homeowners are into remodels. Only those in the higher income brackets might be.
A home shouldn't be an asset. It costs so much more to own it, that there is no way I could call it an asset. Money stashed in a bank is an asset...a home that can be destroyed by a natural event, or an unnatural event, that could spike your insurance through the roof is not an asset. In no way I could ever consider a home an asset. Sorry.
True enough. And yes I know its all business, but we all also know that a house does carry an emotional component if you intend to live there.
My frustration is that that I didn't offer 70%, or 85%. I offered near asking. When a seller can't negotiate it says to me that are either A) stupid or B) don't really wish to sell.
I believe it's case B. Which isn't fair to me, my realtor or their agent.
It's a bit like selling to the folks that don't have a loans yet. None of us would do that, but we allow folks to list homes where buyers don't get a good faith from seller.
Or C,
We actually mean what we list for. We don't negotiate Tijuana style.
It is absolutely fair. I ask a price, you offer less than what I want and I decline. Straightforward.
Don't get a good faith from the seller? Good faith from the seller is the price the seller agrees upon. It is not being required to sell for less than the price asked simply because some believe they should always ask for less than the listed price and the owner should entertain the offers simply because that is the way you do things.
its none of your business ifhtey make money and if so how much just the same that it doesn't matter to you what a buyer bought the home for what matters to you is what the market dictates and what your willing to pay for it. also you dont know the buyers situation maybe they aren't in a rush to sell, maybe they are just seeing whats out there, etc.
You sell at what someone will buy. What do the comps say? Why should anyone pay extra because you don't have money to close? how is that the buyers fault?
This buyer offered 95%, that is really fair to me.
95% is fair based on? You have nothing to base this on except the OP's statement that it has been on the market 200 days which in and of itself is not enough to determine if 95% is a fair price.
A home shouldn't be an asset. It costs so much more to own it, that there is no way I could call it an asset. Money stashed in a bank is an asset...a home that can be destroyed by a natural event, or an unnatural event, that could spike your insurance through the roof is not an asset. In no way I could ever consider a home an asset. Sorry.
You have no idea what the definition of an asset is then.
I know folks that sold at 60% UNDER what they paid for.
This should serve as lesson that those "merry go happy" times of 2004, 2005, and 2006 when people paid insane amounts for homes not worth half those prices are over, and should stay over. This idea that you buy a house and hope that it appreciates by $400k+ within 5 years+ is unrealistic.
Some neighborhoods depreciate in value due to lack of maintenance, too many renters, the schools can go to the pooper, damage of any sort, etc. That expectation should stop as it it not realistic. Not all homeowners are into remodels. Only those in the higher income brackets might be.
A home shouldn't be an asset. It costs so much more to own it, that there is no way I could call it an asset. Money stashed in a bank is an asset...a home that can be destroyed by a natural event, or an unnatural event, that could spike your insurance through the roof is not an asset. In no way I could ever consider a home an asset. Sorry.
Oh my.. money stashed in a bank is an asset? What is your bank paying you in return for using your money? Money stash in a bank without decent return is no better then putting it all under your pillow. A home you live in is not an investment but it is an asset. However, not every home is an asset because it may be above you mean.
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.
