Seems like bait-and-switch if sellers wouldn’t actually sell for the lowest price (not that underpricing by 20%, then letting people bid up the price was much more honest), but I suppose if it worked, it worked.

More on point, my advice would be to not let a value range dissuade you if you only see value below the range. About half of the offers we see are of this variety, and we almost always encourage the sellers to at least counter. It never ceases to amaze us how the bottom lines of sellers and the most buyers are willing to pay often morph dramatically once earnest negotiations commence.

Congratulations on surviving with your daughter through high school, and I hope you enjoy(ed) the ceremony. We went to one for our oldest son last Thursday. The compressed air horns were obnoxious, but otherwise it made me very proud (and feel very old) to watch him cross the stage.

Regarding the topic, my view as a buyer is that the list price is telling me the seller’s expectations. If (IMO) it is too high, I would not bother to even look at the property, since my assumption is that the seller will not consider coming down to what I think is reasonable, so it would be wasting everyone’s time.

With VR pricing, if the bottom figure is not a “no brainer low ball less than competing FC listing prices”, then I would pass on the property for the same reason, since I would assume the seller sees the low number of their range as their absolute low number, and again would be a waste of time to proceed.

So, I could see VR pricing being effective if the low end of the range is “too good to be true”, but only in that case.

You guys are in the day-to-day business of selling houses to buyers, whereas I am only an occasional buyer. You know much better than I do how to sell houses.

(Phil, my spam word is “cheers”. I am cooperating with a Bridgeport IPA)

Briefly, though, value ranges used to work marvelously – They opened more options for the buyers and maximized the sale price for the sellers. Today, they are more often than not a little goofy, as you all pointed out.

An aside to Sven: I do not believe that is correct. (I inserted the obligatory qualifyer because “they” make me.) No one is every going to make a seller actually sell if they don’t want to just because the home is listed. A commission might be owed at full price, but there is always the caveat of “acceptable terms.” What does that mean? Well, if the seller gets a full price offer and doesn’t want to sell, I suppose it could mean a three-hour escrow with a 48 month rent-back provision. Value ranges are a pricing strategy intended to shorten market time and maximize sale price period. Studies have shown that VR pricing has been historically successful in accomplishing both of these goals.

Off to hear Pomp and Circumstance.

Not sure how factual this information is. I heard it from two different sources on real estate forums.

On a side note, we just had the worst May in Southern California in more than 20 years for real estate sales volume. (with the ever useless/meaningless Median price falling 27% year over year). I’m waiting to see the Shiller graph for May.

Sash