Sale price reported

11 Simmons Lane

11 Simmons Lane

11 Simmons Lane, $3.2 million. Lovely older home, and $3.2’s a good price. Surely it would have sold far sooner and possibly for several hundred thousand more had it not been priced at $4.250 originally. Get it right the first time’s my advice.

Listed and sold by Ogilvy.

26 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

26 responses to “Sale price reported

  1. Anonymous

    So why don’t people list their 3m Homes at 2m and then let market forces take over….ie multiple bids? Can you list a riv/og property too low in the current market?

  2. Anonymous

    CF, so you’re saying that if I have a 3m property and list it at 500k I’ll get close to or more than 3m?

    • come on.Although on reflection, yes, possibly. If your house is worth $3, in this market, where there are multiple buyers, there’d be no reason that it couldn’t be bid up to its real price. The alternative, pricing it at $9.5 million, would have the opposite effect: it would eliminate all buyers.
      So my point: better to under value than overvalue, is true, and if you really have a $3 million house, let’s list it at $500,000 and see what happens. Plenty of bids, I can promise you that.

  3. with the right promotion and exposure, listing below value basically sets up an auction. some sellers have had real success with auction; virtually none have had success overpricing the property.

  4. Anonymous

    When Christies sells a Rothko for 35m the opening bid is usually around 3m. Same should hold true for Greenwich real estate……it should be an auction like process. That is, if you really want to sell in the most efficient way.

  5. pulled up in OG

    That Russian start work on Simmons Lane yet? The one where the original plans entailed 5,000 truckloads of fill.

  6. Anonymous

    So give us some examples where this strategy has been successfully employed in the last year or so.

    • Joey

      22 Stanwich Lane. I think it was listed for 1.475 or so and it sold for 1.55 in a bidding war last spring. If done correctly I think CF is correct. It certainly has to be better than listing your house for 50% (sometimes over 100%) over market value. You won’t see many examples of this because most sellers are still living in 2007. Strangely almost every house on the market is listed for at least 30% over the value. Perhaps they do it with the idea, “I can always lower the price.” What they don’t realize is that the longer the house sits the more potential buyers think……….”There must be something wrong with the house.” You can’t always be thinking that a dumb NYC guy is going over pay your house and offer you cash. This just isn’t happening much these days.

      • Anonymous

        Most prime areas are back to to peak levels. Riverside is well above. You are living in 2011.

      • GreenITCH

        Agree with anonymous at 9.44 prices are through highs in many cases in Riverside and OG …and I believe as many say .. you can always lower your price to find a buyer not raise it ? That said to what extent does the current market psychology have to do with correct pricing . given that this market has not turned small seller market I could probably price below market value and find multiple buyers .. but back in 2007–09 most anyone was coming in with a low offer and seeing if sellers would bite . Tend to think a seller is not served in either case ( setting price to high or too low ) I think it would be rare if you had a house for $2m and priced at say $1,75m to lure in multiple buyers that you get the $ 2m buyers will be leery of overpaying . I suppose that why I have low opinion of RE agents ..

    • Jonathan

      I did this last Spring. I under priced my home, listing it for 5% less than what I paid in 2005, but had invested at least ~15% of the 2005 price in renovations since then. I received 5 bids, 4 all cash. Nothing puts pressure on buyers to increase their bids than knowing there is another bidder. Of the 582 home sales in my city/town in the prior 12 months, my home ended up selling for a price that was #10 in sales price per SQFT. This strategy works.

      • pulled up in OG

        Fuzzy.

        Was #10 ≥ 115% of ’05 . . . or not?

        • Jonathan

          Sadly, no. I sold it for about 7% more than 2005, but less than what I had into it with renovations. Without renovations, the house lost ~15% of value from 2005-2013. So I got un-renovated value plus my renovation costs back.

          There’s only a few markets where you could sell in 2013 for more than 2005, Old Greenwich and Riverside perhaps among them, My house was not in Old Greenwich or Riverside.

  7. JJM

    Good discussion. As Martha questioned, if you listed a 3MM house for 500K, would you have to accept if the bids only went to 1MM?

    • Absolutely not – you have the right to reject any and all offers, including full asking price or above – long ago, agents used to be able to claim a commission in that situation because they had procured a buyer who was “ready, willing and able” but that is no longer the law; quite the contrary.
      A contract requires both offer and acceptance t be enforceable. You, the seller, retain full control over your decision whether to accept or not. (JRH can lead you through the complexities of offer, counter-offer and the shifting rights of the partis but this will do for now).

      • JJM

        Understood, I suppose my error was confusing the sellers listing (offer) as an actual legal offer.
        Makes more sense if the legal offer is the buyers first bid.
        And thanks for clearing up the broker comish legality as well. I think if more people knew that they could just attempt a bidding war with zero risk to them (seller) they would do it.

  8. Anon

    If Old Greenwich is so hot, how do you explain 31 Tomac Avenue? It’s been on and off the market for 2 years with little to no price reduction. It must be overpriced… right, CF? I guess this illustrates your point about getting the price right the first time. I bet they get significantly less than the asking price.