Is 2% below asking reasonable for this Osaka apartment?

L

lena.voss

First-time buyer
Established
The seller has now given us until tomorrow morning, which turns a modest pricing question into a much bigger decision. The Osaka apartment is listed at ¥181,300,000, has been on the market for 46 days and requires some updating. Similar nearby listings exist, but evidence of agreed sale prices is limited.

We are thinking of offering ¥177,674,000, or 2% under the list price, with financing evidence and flexibility over completion. Is it better to justify the figure briefly by referring to condition, or simply present the price and our stronger terms? The part I am least willing to compromise on is protection for inspection, financing, the deposit and any shortfall between the lender’s valuation and the purchase price.
 
A 2% opening reduction is not inherently aggressive, especially when the apartment needs work. Keep the explanation short: the offer reflects the condition and the limited evidence from completed comparables, while your financing and completion flexibility reduce uncertainty for the seller. I would not present a long list of faults; that can feel more antagonistic than the number itself.
 
Before deciding, ask what the 46 days actually mean. Has the seller rejected other offers, reduced the price, or simply had little interest? Those are very different situations. Also, what updating is required—cosmetic finishes, or items that an inspection could reveal as more substantial? That affects whether 2% is enough protection.
 
One more point: establish your walk-away figure before submitting anything. If ¥177,674,000 is merely an opening position but you would readily pay the full price, decide now how you will respond to a counteroffer. The overnight pressure is more dangerous when the next step has not been agreed in advance.
 
The remaining uncertainty is whether the lender’s valuation is still a condition. If it is, describing the offer as fully clean could give the seller the wrong impression, because approval of the borrower does not remove the risk of an appraisal gap at this price.

I would present the offer in two parts: evidence that the available funds and borrowing are credible, followed by clear wording for any finance or valuation condition that still applies. That gives the seller useful certainty without asking the buyer to absorb an unknown shortfall.
 
I disagree slightly with focusing heavily on the 46 days. That is useful context, but not proof that the apartment is overpriced; the seller may have no urgency. Your stronger argument is certainty: a clear price, financing evidence, a realistic completion window and limited—but not absent—conditions.

I would also avoid asking for both a 2% reduction and an undefined repair credit. Inspect first, then deal with a specific defect if the contract permits it.
 
Given the one-night deadline, send a compact offer rather than trying to solve every unknown tonight: purchase price, financing evidence, acceptable completion dates, inspection rights, financing/valuation wording, deposit amount and the circumstances in which it is refundable. Contract practice and wording in Japan matter, so have the local representative explain the consequences before you sign or transfer money.
 
That last point about the deposit is important. A flexible completion date helps the seller, but it should not mean an open-ended commitment for the buyer. I would ask for actual date ranges and clear deadlines for financing and inspection. Flexibility is valuable only when both sides know its boundaries.
 
Could the agent obtain even one or two genuinely completed comparables before the response deadline, rather than more active listings? If not, ask what evidence supports ¥181,300,000. The absence of completed-sale information does not automatically justify 2% off, but it does justify refusing to waive valuation protection merely to look competitive.
 
If the needed updates are already visible, price them into your offer rather than treating them as future surprises. Inspection protection should remain for defects you could not reasonably assess. I would be especially reluctant to waive it when you have had only one night to decide; a fast decision is not the same thing as informed acceptance of unknown condition.
 
Putting the replies together, ¥177,674,000 sounds like a defensible opening, not an insult. Submit it without an essay: condition and limited completed-sale evidence explain the price; financing proof and completion flexibility strengthen it. Preserve inspection, valuation/financing protection and clear deposit-release terms. If the seller counters, compare the extra cost with your pre-set ceiling rather than negotiating simply because the deadline created momentum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top