|
|
This is one of the most frequently asked questions of us on listing appointments. The seller might have carpet that is worn or has stains. It might be roof flashing that needs attention. Maybe their son knocked a hole in the sheetrock or a window is fogging up on them. It could be one of a thousand things that can happen to any home. We understand that no seller likes spending money on a home they are trying to sell. But we also know from experience that homes in poor condition encourage poor offers. And conversely, homes in pristine condition encourage high offers. It is rare that we see any carryover between the two. I am really talking about three levels of improvements here ...
Keep in mind that many, if not most, buyers don't have the gift of visualizing what is not there. What they see (and smell) is all they have to go on. When they see stained carpet or worn paint, that is all they are going to remember about that home. It also sends a signal that the home was not well cared for. That may or may not be true, but in the buyer's way of thinking, if something that obvious was not addressed, what about the things that aren't so noticeable? The buyer, and probably their agent, will start off with some suspicions about the home and they will make their offer based on what they know about the home. That is never a good way to start negotiations. On the other hand, when a buyer walks into a home in spotless condition, that signifies to the buyer and their agent that the seller is serious about selling their home and has a pride of ownership. Most sellers would probably prefer to provide an allowance at closing for things like carpet and paint. That is perfectly understandable. The money comes out of their proceeds at closing so they don't have to make any kind of monetary investment on the front end. The problem with this scenario is they might never get to the closing unless they substantially lower the sale price. The seller will probably now get hit with a "double whammy". They had to reduce the price of the home and they can't realistically take the repair allowance off the table or the buyer is going to walk the deal. The toughest transactions for me always seemed to be the ones where the sellers wanted to offer an allowance for repairs or cosmetic issues rather than correcting the problems right off the bat. Those homes remained on the market for an extremely long time. And ironically, when the home finally sold, I believe those sellers would have done better if they had just spent the money on the front end to correct the issues. I know the homes would have sold more quickly. From our point of view, listing a home with major repair or outstanding cosmetic challenges which the seller is unwilling to address (or even acknowledge) is a no win situation. The home will probably not sell and we sure don't need the practice listing homes. We are in the business of selling homes. Those are just not the types of properties we want to align ourselves with, so we politely "pass" on those listing opportunities and let our competitors run with them. PLEASE NOTE This is going to sound totally counter to what I have just said above, but there are times I believe it is in the seller's and buyer's best interests for the seller not to do the repairs and offer a repair allowance to the buyer. Here is an easy way to differentiate ...
There is sound reasoning behind this strategy, but unfortunately, you will have to read about it in another article I wrote called "Who Pays For Repairs Once An Inspection Has Identified Issues?"
Tom Grisak Estate Homes Realtors, Inc - Texas License # 0329533 4-12-6 Your Realtors for Allentexas, Fairviewtexas, Lucastexas, McKinneytexas, Murphytexas, Parkertexas, Prospertexas |