Offering 11% below asking on a mixed-use building in Rome — sensible or too aggressive? (3 bed)

F

FriendlyJournal

Homeowner
Established
We have one night to decide on a three-bedroom mixed-use building in Rome. Asking price is €713,000, it has been available for 96 days, and it needs updating. Asking-price comparables look close, but we cannot find enough completed sales to establish the real clearing price.

We are considering opening 11% below asking, backed by financing proof and flexibility on completion. How would you explain that without antagonising the seller? We also do not want the deadline to push us into waiving inspection, financing or other essential protections.
 
An 11% opening is not automatically insulting. Keep the explanation short: limited completed-sale evidence, condition, and the certainty you can offer on financing and timing. Do not present a long list of every dated feature; that can sound like you are attacking the building rather than pricing risk.
 
What does “mixed-use” mean here? The value could depend heavily on how much is residential, how the other space is used, whether anything is occupied, and whether the recorded use matches what you expect to do. Those details matter more than the three-bedroom label.
 
Also, a one-night response deadline is a reason to define your limits, not abandon them. Decide tonight on your maximum price, essential conditions and maximum deposit exposure. Then the seller can accept, reject or counter without forcing you to improvise.
 
At 11% below, the offer is €634,570. Pair the number with current financing evidence if available, but redact unnecessary personal information. A credible offer package may carry more weight than a higher figure supported only by vague assurances.
 
Do you know why the seller is moving and whether there have been previous offers? Ninety-six days tells you the listing has lingered, but not whether the owner is motivated. They may need speed, a particular completion date, or simply a price near asking.
 
I would not waive an inspection or equivalent technical due diligence on a building needing updates, especially with mixed use. The visible work may be cosmetic; the expensive uncertainty is what you cannot assess during a viewing. Have the offer wording reviewed locally because Italian transaction procedures and consequences matter.
 
Caveat: 96 days is weak evidence by itself. The building could have an unusual buyer pool, a seller unwilling to negotiate, or marketing that has not reached the right people. Offer €634,570 if that reflects your value, not merely because a listing counter says 96.
 
Agreed. Condition should support the price, but avoid assigning invented costs overnight. If you have no contractor figures, say the offer reflects the present condition and uncertainty around updating. Specific repair credits can be discussed later if an inspection identifies specific defects.
 
How would you handle an appraisal gap? If the lender values a mixed-use property below the agreed figure, financing proof today may not solve the shortfall. I would decide now whether you can cover any gap and, if so, the absolute maximum—not leave that open-ended.
 
Deposit exposure deserves its own line in your decision sheet. The amount, when it becomes committed and what happens if financing or technical checks fail can depend on the documents and jurisdiction. Do not rely on an informal description from either side; get the exact proposed wording explained before signing.
 
One tactical point: avoid making the seller swallow a low price, a long list of minor demands and a tiny timing window simultaneously. Lead with the price and the two or three protections that genuinely matter. Flexibility on completion is your concession, so make it visible.
 
Separate “updating” from actual defects. Old finishes are already reflected in what you are willing to pay; they do not necessarily justify a later credit. Unknown structural, building-services or use-related problems are different and should remain subject to investigation.
 
Since completed comparables are missing, ask whoever is advising you to show the closest verifiable transactions they can access and explain the adjustments. If none are available tonight, record your assumptions rather than pretending nearby asking prices are sales evidence.
 
I would phrase the offer roughly as: price based on current condition and limited evidence from comparable completed transactions; financing evidence available; completion timing flexible; subject to satisfactory technical and financing review. Neutral, factual, and no commentary about the seller's original pricing.
 
I disagree slightly with calling it “clean financing” if the purchase still depends on lender approval or valuation. That phrase could create the wrong expectation. Say exactly what has been obtained and exactly what remains outstanding.
 
That is fair. “Credible financing” is safer language than “clean” unless there truly is no financing condition. The strength is evidence and preparedness, not pretending the lender has removed every uncertainty.
 
Put an expiry time on the offer that gives a clear response window, but do not make it theatrically short. Your one-night decision deadline does not have to become the seller's emergency unless there is a genuine competing timetable.
 
Yes. There are two clocks here: the time available to submit and the time allowed for acceptance. People often merge them and grant concessions just to feel finished. Submit on time, but choose a response period you can actually manage.
 
For the mixed-use part, is there income attached to any portion or is the whole building being delivered for your use? If income is part of the value, requesting the relevant occupancy and payment information is more useful than comparing it only with three-bedroom homes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top