Skip to main content

Showcase Showdown (Posted October 17, 2016)

The game show “The Price is Right” – the show where 95% of what they give away is total garbage (fireproof bathmats in the shape of Ecuador, really?) – is probably each child’s first exercise in trying to guess how much something costs.  Admit it, you sat glued to the TV set either screaming at the screen so the contestant could hear you or you were sending out vibes telepathically – either way, you KNEW you were the BEST price guesser in the world . . .  until the very moment the model would reveal the real price of $732 for a set of salad tongs made of Lucite and cubic zirconia (your bid was $17, and you thought THAT was probably a little high).  But that didn’t stop you because here comes that toaster oven that doubles as a brief case – how could anyone put a price on THAT?

A recent study published in the Journal of Housing Research (just let the sheer coolness of that name wash over you for a few moments) concerning pricing was interesting.  The researchers in the study (who, you have to think, are absolute party animals) concluded that “buyers are more drawn to a house priced ‘just below’ at, say, $199,000 than to a house priced at a rounded number like $200,000.”  They provided further nuggets of wisdom by adding that their study suggested that by using this “just below” strategy, sellers can price their homes slightly higher without driving away potential buyers.  Compared to a “rounded” pricing strategy (that means the number has been rounded up from $199K to $200K and not something involving the feeding of high-calorie foods to fatten it up), the authors of this study say the “just below” strategy yields a selling price that is between 2.5 and 3 percent higher. This is solid science, right?  I mean, these guys obviously stayed at the office late crunching numbers and missing their kids’ soccer games to bring us this stuff, so it must be dead on. 

Oddly enough, in their very next breath, they say that “rounded” priced homes usually have a shorter time on the market and a lower discount relative to the listing price.  Huh?  Didn’t they just say the “just below” pricing strategy yielded a selling price 2.5-3% higher than a home being marketed with a “rounded” pricing strategy?  So, if the “rounded” priced homes usually have a shorter time on the market and a lower discount relative to the listing price, how much higher are the “just below” folks bumping up their list price so they can turn around and negotiate downward and leave the house on the market LONGER?  That sounds like a lot of work, hassle, and worry.  Wouldn’t it just make more sense to price the home correctly in the first place?  Okay, now I’m just talking crazy, I know.


At the end of the article, there were lots of comments about the “just below v. rounded” debate – not to be confused with the Kitchen Debate between Krushchev and Nixon which resulted in the creation of nachos – and many had good points.  However, if I start listing them here, my head (and possibly yours) might explode.  In the interest of keeping my cerebral cortex attached to the rest of my body, let me just say this: do yourself and favor and don’t overthink it.  There are SO MANY factors that play into the ultimate sale price of a home that have NOTHING to do with the first number that went up on the board: demand, timing, what you (the buyer) may have had for lunch and is threatening to make a reappearance, etc.  Focus your attention on “the deal” (this goes for both sides of the transaction) and lean on your agent’s expertise to guide you through this.  Some agents may yell at you to make sure you hear them correctly, and others will just try to send you a vibe telepathically.  Whatever their method of guiding you through this exciting time may be, try to make sure they get the other party to throw in the fireproof bathmats in the shape of Ecuador.  You’ll never know when you might need them. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Definition of Insanity (in Real Estate)

More than a couple of years ago, I witnessed something that makes me laugh and cringe at the same time.  Having lunch at a local restaurant, I spied a real estate agent and a loan originator having what I would characterize as a “first date”. I couldn’t help but overhear little snippets of their conversation, and as far as I could tell, things were going relatively well . . . at least until the agent asked the LO this question: “So, do you like to sit at open houses with agents?”  I immediately looked to the LO’s face awaiting the response.  I didn’t need to hear another single word coming out of the LO’s mouth because his face said everything:  you would have thought the agent had asked him if he enjoyed bobbing for apples in a pool of acid judging by the look on his face.  While his face was communicating complete revulsion, his lips said, “Yes, of course.”  And that’s when I looked over at the agent’s face to see, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Time for a New York-Style Housing Fix

Previously, I’ve written about a man who works in our office who lived in New York City back in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s – let me assure you that while that does seem like a very long time ago, it’s not nearly as far bac k as when the wheel was invented and humankind learned to harness the power of fire. If you’ve been to New York City recently and blissfully walked around Harlem to get chicken and waffles at Sylvia’s on Malcolm X Boulevard between 126 th and 127 th Streets or stopped in at Keybar on 13 th Street between First Avenue and Avenue A to wedge yourself into a cozy corner next to their notable fireplace, you wouldn’t get a sense that these areas were once . . . not as welcoming and glitzy as you now see them. Our office mate has told some fairly interesting stories of living in those and other areas of New York City that give a much different sense.   In the late ‘80s/early ‘90s, no matter how many great things you heard about Sylvia’s food, 127 th Str...
Post a Comment
Read more

Change: the Only Sure Thing

Which headline is better for grabbing your attention and prompting you to read the article to which it’s attached: “Credit Reports to Exclude Certain Negative Information, But Read on to See if This Even Applies to You” or “ Credit Reports to Exclude Certain Negative Information, Boosting FICO Scores”?   Obviously, the former is less than tantalizing while the latter makes you say, “Tell me more!”   I was in the “tell me more” camp, and the folks at The Wall Street Journal sucked me into their vortex. The development, set to go into practice on July 1 st , is certainly a departure from how the Big Three (Experian, TransUnion , and Equifax) have done things in the past, but it’s not going to wave a magic wand and make bankruptcies, foreclosures, short sales, etc., go away.   It’s sort of a bittersweet development.   Let me explain: Many tax liens and civil judgments will be removed from people’s credit reports if they don’t include a complete list of a...
Post a Comment
Read more