Offer tactics?

Riggster

Or in that case, knock on the vendor's door or stick a note through their door. Explain you feel messed about by the Estate Agent, and that you are formally offering your maximum of £215k and here are the details of your solicitor. Bosh!

kilby_007

Riggster wrote: »

Or in that case, knock on the vendor's door or stick a note through their door. Explain you feel messed about by the Estate Agent, and that you are formally offering your maximum of £215k and here are the details of your solicitor. Bosh!

Unfortunately the vendor doesn't live at the property. They have moved into a different property already.

We're putting the offer in tomorrow. Anybody else any last thoughts? I'm thinking as a few people have said , 115k final offer, being firm that there will be no further negotiations.

Dexters_Indignation

Chill, Wait a few days.

They might be paying two mortgage's.

If thats the case they will be losing money every month its empty.

Let them do the maths for a week or so.

Give them time for there bills to arrive.

As the people next door if they have seen the agent taking people around the house? Do you know of any rival buyers? Glance at any paper work at your next viewing (Of a different house), does it suggest any interest in either.

Let the agent think you are blaise about any offer. If you must do theatrics go good cop bad cop.

At least then the agent will think there is a sale at your current price, they will then work on the seller to accept.

Remember the agent only gets paid for a sale. He is more desperate to sell than anyone.

This excerpt is very important...

It is the quintessential blend of commerce and camaraderie: you hire a real-estate agent to sell your home. She sizes up its charms, snaps some pictures, sets the price, writes a seductive ad, shows the house aggressively, negotiates the offers, and sets the deal through to its end. Sure, it's a lot of work, but she's getting a nice cut. On the sale of a $300,000 house, a typical 6 percent agent fee yields $18,000. Eighteen thousand dollars, you say to yourself: that's a lot of money. But you also tell yourself that you could never have sold the house for $300,000 on your own. The agent knew how to ---what's the phrase she used?---"maximize the house's value." She got you top dollar, right? Right? A real-estate agent is a different breed of expert than a criminologist, but she is every bit the expert. That is, she knows her field far better than the layman on whose behalf she is acting. She is better informed about the house's value, the state of the housing market, even the buyer's frame of mind. You depend on her for this information. That, in fact, is why you hired an expert. As the world has grown more specialized, countless such experts have made themselves similarly indispensable. Doctors, lawyers, contractors, stockbrokers, auto mechanics, mortgage brokers, financial planners: they all enjoy a gigantic informational advantage. And they use that advantage to help you, the person who hired them, get exactly what you want for the best price. Right? It would be lovely to think so. But experts are human, and humans respond to incentives. How any given expert treats you, therefore, will depend on how that expert's incentives are set up. Sometimes his incentives may work in your favor. For instance: a study of California auto mechanics found they often passed up a small repair bill by letting failing cars pass emissions inspections---the reason being that lenient mechanics are rewarded with repeat business. But in a different case, an expert's incentives may work against you. In a medical study, it turned out that obstetricians in areas with declining birth rates are much more likely to perform cesarean-section deliveries than obstetricians in growing areas---suggesting that, when business is tough, doctors try to ring up more expensive procedures. It is one thing to muse about experts' abusing their position and another to prove it. The best way to do so would be to measure how an expert treats you versus how he performs the same service for himself. Unfortunately a surgeon doesn't operate on himself. Nor is his medical file a matter of public record; neither is an auto mechanic's repair log for his own car. Real-estate sales, however, are a matter of public record. And real-estate agents often do sell their own homes. A recent set of data covering the sale of nearly 100,000 houses in suburban Chicago shows that more than 3,000 of those houses were owned by the agents themselves. Before plunging into the data, it helps to ask a question: what is the real-estate agent's incentive when she is selling her own home? Simple: to make the best deal possible. Presumably this is also your incentive when you are selling your home. And so your incentive and the real-estate agent's incentive would seem to be nicely aligned. Her commission, after all, is based on the sale price. But as incentives go, commissions are tricky. First of all, a 6 percent real-estate commission is typically split between the seller's agent and the buyer's. Each agent then kicks back roughly half of her take to the agency. Which means that only 1.5 percent of the purchase price goes directly into your agent's pocket. So on the sale of your $300,000 house, her personal take of $18,000 of commission os $4,500. Still not bad, you say. But what if the house was actually worth more than $300,000? What if, with a little more effort and patience and a few more newspaper ads, she could have sold it for $310,000? After the commission, that puts an additional $9,400 while she earns only $150, maybe your incentives aren't aligned after all. (Especially when she's the one paying for the ads and doing all the work.) Is the agent willing to put out all the extra time, money, and energy for just $150? There's only one way to find out: measure the difference between the sales data for houses that belong to real-estate agents themselves and the houses they sold on behalf of clients. Using the data from the sales of those 100,000 Chicago homes, and controlling for any number of variables---location, age and quality of the house, aesthetics, whether or not the property was an investment, and so on---it turns out that a real-estate agent keeps her own home on the market an average of ten days longer and sells it for an extra 3-plus percent, or $10,000 on a $300,000 house. When she sells her own house, an agent holds out for the best offer; when she sells yours, she encourages you to take the first decent offer that comes along. Like a stockbroker churning commissions, she wants to make deals and make them fast. Why not? Her share of a better offer---$150---is too puny an incentive to encourage her to do otherwise.

Freakonomics was written by Steven D. Levitt & Stephen J. Dubner. It's a really good book.

Watch this link too or if your lazy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jO_w6f8Ck

Dexters_Indignation

Watch the follow link if you are to lazy to read all the above.

Click me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jO_w6f8Ck

kilby_007

Thanks for that. Unfortunately we were in a difficult position and desperate to get an offer agreed so we went in with 215k on Saturday. They came down to 220k and we met them in the middle at 217.5k which we were happy with. They accepted our offer today and we're already underway! Thanks everyone for your help!