In my travels, I have run across a number of home sellers who price their home based on sentiment. Market activity, comparable sales and competing listings don’t influence their price as much as “their number.”
“Their number” is not justified by empirical fact, market data, or realism, and they believe that their buyer will be that one special person who loves the place the way they do. The challenge is that their bias is borne of years-sometimes decades- of living in the home, and buyers come in cold. One such client a few years ago were the original owners, so they always lived in what was a newer kitchen to their sensibilities. The only problem was that 23 years later, it wasn’t a new kitchen anymore.
Still, they hold out a belief that they’ll catch lightning in a bottle. Someone will come along who is that one special buyer and pay a premium for their home.
The problem is, this person doesn’t exist most of the time, and when they do, their lender won’t agree to the price either.
That one special buyer is not a business plan. It isn’t a marketing strategy. It is hope packaged in a dream. Depending on that one special buyer to buy rather than having a sensible marketing plan that takes the reality on the ground into consideration is like having your retirement plan be a winning lottery ticket. It depends on odds-defying luck, and that is no way to do business.
For some people, it is hard to admit to bias or to divorce themselves from sentiment. But bias and sentiment are personal; they aren’t business. This is as price-sensitive a market as we have seen since the depression. Westchester County buyers are self interested and skeptical, and typically avoid listings that don’t appear to have a motivated seller. They are also savvy and well informed. Moreover, sellers today are competing with foreclosures and short sales, which suppresses prices and offers a huge inventory to choose from.
A smart marketing plan can’t rely on chance, nor can it hope for unlikely events. A smart marketing plan is based on facts and real events, and the sooner a biased seller understands this the sooner they can start packing. Smart marketing is objective. Catching lightning in a bottle is great for finding a spouse, but in real estate it is a slow death.



I’ve never taken a staging class. I know little about staging and think it best left to the stagers by and large. But there are a few basics that it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out.
There have been several 
QRM, Skin in the Game, and the Abdication of Conventional Wisdom
I have read quite a few pieces of commentary in support of government initiatives to marginalize FHA and other high LTV (which is to say low down payment) mortgages, because the of the defective notion that if people don’t have “skin in the game” that they’ll be less likely to pay their mortgage.
Let’s be clear. The vast majority of people who aren’t paying their mortgage are in hardship. They may have no equity, low downpayment or not, but that is an effect, not a cause of their position. Of my residential 44 listings, almost 20 are “short sales” where I’m going to have my clients walk away from the closing without a penny for the privilege of avoiding a foreclosure and leaving their home with dignity in the hopes of a fresh start down the road. Many of them had 20% or more equity at one time, and the downturn erased it. But their reason for selling is the loss of a job or loss of income, not their equity.
The argument for supporting QRM (qualified residential mortgages) is a poor one. I have 70 years of sustained prosperity in American housing, the backbone of which has always been the FHA and its 3.5% downpayment, to support that statement. Mandating that more mortgages have a 20% or more downpayment is fixing what isn’t broken. The housing crash turned our world upside down, but it ought not cause us to burn our axe handle to generate some heat.
Among the arguments against lower downpayment loans is that the day a person closes, they have little or no equity.
So what. Even when real estate was appreciating in a consistent way (which is to say, the last 70 years prior to 2007), conventional wisdom was that if you sold your home less than 5 years after purchasing that you’d most likely lose or break even, because of closing costs and brokerage fees. Even if you had equity and proceeds, you’d lose. So what changed?
As I type this, almost 40% of all residential properties with a mortgage in the USA are under water. With rare exception, the only people who are not paying their mortgages are the people who can’t. People want to stay in their homes as long as they can afford them. If they can’t afford them, they have to sell whether they have equity or not.
As long as we continue to fall on our spear with ill-conceived government “fixes” that do nothing but perpetuate misery, the fool’s gold “solution” of raising down payment requirements rings as true as “let them eat cake.” Sensible, responsibly underwritten, full documentation mortgages with low down payments are part of the solution and always have been. Millions of them brought about sustained and stable prosperity from the onset of the FHA in the 1930s through the growth post World War II America.
It is a slippery slope to marginalize lower downpayment loans. If we do, FHA and other backbones of the economy are next. And this is too important to politicize.