Are 112-day Sydney small multifamily listings becoming negotiable?

A

anika_zane

First-time buyer
First post, so apologies if this is obvious. I’m deciding whether to bid materially below asking or keep waiting on Sydney small multifamily properties around A$638,400–A$957,600. I’m seeing roughly 112 days on market, but the market feels split: properties with a clear insurance position move differently. Has anyone tracked recent completed sales against their public asking history, including reductions or withdrawals?
 
At 112 days, I’d negotiate, but I wouldn’t apply one automatic discount. Long exposure can mean an unrealistic seller, poor condition or a listing that was effectively unavailable for part of that period. Start with comparable completed sales, then use days listed as leverage.
 
How tightly are you defining Sydney and “small multifamily”? Crossing a neighbourhood boundary or mixing configurations can make the comparison misleading. The price range alone is too broad to tell whether 112 days reflects the property or its submarket.
 
Also, what does a “clear answer on insurance” mean here: an available quote, current cover, known claims, or simply adequate information? Buyers may react very differently to each situation.
 
I’d separate listings into untouched asking price, reduced price and withdrawn then relisted. A nominal 112-day listing with a recent reduction is not at the same negotiation point as one whose seller has refused to move throughout.
 
Completed prices are useful, but the missing variable is condition. Two small multifamily properties that look comparable publicly can have very different near-term repair needs. I’d compare price plus obvious work, not contract price alone.
 
I partly disagree that 112 days automatically gives the buyer leverage. It gives you information, not necessarily leverage. If the seller has no urgency, a stale listing may just sit through repeated low offers.
 
Before deciding whether to bid now or keep waiting, check how many genuine alternatives have appeared since this campaign began. I would not assume that 112 days creates leverage if comparable Sydney stock is still scarce.

Several new options would support a lower offer because the seller is competing for the same buyers. If there are none, waiting carries the harder-to-reverse risk: losing a suitable property while the seller remains content to hold out.
 
Ask the agent whether the seller has rejected offers and whether the campaign has changed. Treat the response cautiously, but hesitation around price expectations can still tell you more than the headline days-on-market figure.
 
And compare the date of the first meaningful price cut with today. That often matters more than the original listing date because a seller may only recently have accepted where buyers see value.
 
Buyer financing could explain the split you’re seeing. A property may attract interest yet lose momentum if prospective buyers cannot make the numbers or lending structure work. That doesn’t necessarily mean the next offer gets a large discount.
 
Exactly. I’d want to know whether it is short on interest or repeatedly failing to convert interest into an acceptable deal. Those are different problems, and only the first clearly points toward weak demand.
 
For asking-history comparisons, record what was actually visible and when. Don’t fill gaps with assumptions. Some campaigns provide little public price information, so the apparent reduction may not represent the seller’s private expectations.
 
A practical offer can still be below asking without being arbitrary: cite the closest completed sales, adjust for condition and unresolved insurance uncertainty, then set a firm walk-away number. “It has been listed 112 days” is supporting evidence, not the whole case.
 
I’d include withdrawn stock in a separate column rather than treating it as a sale failure. Withdrawal can indicate price resistance, but it can also reflect a seller changing plans. You cannot know which from the listing history alone.
 
One caution on neighbourhood boundaries: use the buyer’s realistic substitute area, not just the official suburb name. If buyers would readily cross one street for a similar property, excluding that sale may distort your comparison.
 
Conversely, don’t stretch the search area merely to find a cheaper result. Access, street quality and local demand can change quickly. Explain why each completed sale is a substitute for the property you’re considering.
 
There’s also a timing issue. A completed sale reflects negotiations begun earlier, while a fresh listing reflects current seller expectations. Use recent completions, but compare them with what competing properties are asking now.
 
Could the OP clarify whether the 112 days is a median-like observation across several listings or just the handful currently under consideration? A few stubborn properties can make the whole segment look slower than it is.
 
Good question. I read it as the OP’s observed group, not a market statistic. If so, the next step is to map every candidate from first listing through reductions, withdrawal, relisting and final outcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top