Well, I guess overpricing didn’t work this time

This was the listing photo - no kidding

425 N. Maple has sold for $1.750 million, significantly below its first asking price of $3.125 million and less than what the town calculated to be 70% of its market value, $2.393. The source of that unfortunate result might be because the listing broker posted only one bad picture of the house online, but I’d attribute the dismal showing to that first price, that drove buyers away.

Look, this isn’t that complicated: people in the $3 million range are looking for more house, however you define that: better yard, better fixtures, layout, whatever, than those in the $2 range. So if you price your $2 million house at $3 you repel the high end buyers – there are better homes in that price range, and you scare off the $2 million buyers who assume you’ll never drop your price enough for them to afford it so why even bother looking? The result? No buyers in either class until you whack the bejesus out of the price. Then you attract the bottom feeders (often represented by me, sorry to say) and you get less than you would have had you priced it properly to begin with.

Try it next time.

22 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

22 responses to “Well, I guess overpricing didn’t work this time

  1. Real Estate Junkie

    Good location. Can’t tell anything else about the house from the listing, but good location.

    • Very hilly lot, a chopped up contemporary. That said, I liked the house, and the yard and, as you note, the location. At $1.750 it was a good buy. At $3.1, not so much.

  2. anon

    Whenever I look at a listing that only has one or two pictures, I assume the rest of it isn’t worth looking at. I.e. the kitchen and baths need updating and/or their are dead bodies in the basement

  3. Anonymous

    Horrible house at any price!!!

  4. Anonymous

    maybe the house isn’t great but it’s 2.6 acres in a great location isn’t it?

    • As I said, I rather liked the house – it was, for me,the price that was the turnoff. Obviously, some readers didn’t like anything about it but who says everyone has to have the same taste and preferences? Well okay, Dollar Bil and his communist cohorts, but they don’t count – yet.

  5. AJ

    I’d rather be known as a bottom feeder than a fool in search of a greater fool.

  6. Anon

    Chris, was the buyer’s agent also a Weichert agent?

  7. peeps

    Almost looks like a bit of a fisheye lens.

  8. Anonymous

    C’mon folks: whoever got this paid less than the land value. Advantage buyer!

  9. Addicted.

    Sorry to say but the original agent was hopeless, I saw that house and it could have been good but not at that price! That house had no chance of selling at that price and it missed me who might have paid a lot more that 1.7 so I am bummed that I did not go back with a lower offer….. But then again, I would have been more bummed now that I know I could have got it for 1.7. Wake up sellers and please try and learn the lessons Mr Fountain has tried to teach you for at least 3 years. Surely all you agents cannot all be so dense as to still pretend to list at high prices because that is what your client “wants”. Have you no morals? ( or brains?)

  10. anonymous

    Listing sheet said “motivated seller will remove house”–they were volunteering to tear it down?

  11. Anonymous

    needs more cowbell.

  12. Anon

    What do you expect? It is a Weichert agent after all. I never heard anything good about Weichert.

  13. Anon

    The listing agent is the same agent who also listed 56 Sumner for $3.1 million in September 2009! # 50 Sumner, next door with better land and house, sold for $1.65 million in December 2010.

    The fact is, not every agent knows how to price. It takes real experience not hot air to be able to price your client’s property.

  14. G'wich Transplant

    The listing describes the house as a 3 bedrooom. Give the nature of the lot, the price may reflect the difficulty (impossibility?) of getting a 4/5 bedroom septic plus reserve approved on this lot given the regs. A few years ago, for example, I remember a house on Cat Rock (I think it was #136) with a similar issue.

  15. Anonymous

    Anon @7:24pm – the buyer’s agent is with Greenwich Fine properties.

  16. Anonymous

    What’s with the nature of the lot? Does seem like a steal given it’s prime location.

    • I’d describe it as, if not a marginal lot, then at least “challenged”. better land would have yielded a better price, given the location. But you dance with the girl that brought you to the ball or, as Rummy says, fight the war with the army you have, not the army you’d like to have.

  17. Anonymous

    You can always move dirt around, you can’t change were it’s located.