Offering 2% below asking on a Lima apartment after 75 days

S

sailsAndWall

Homeowner
Established
The apartment has now been advertised for 75 days, which raises a new question: does that indicate negotiating room, or does the PEN 3,600,000 price already account for the updating?

I am considering an opening offer of PEN 3,528,000, a 2% reduction. I can provide evidence of financing and offer some flexibility on completion, but completed-sale information is too limited for me to present the number as a precise market valuation.

Would you ask about the seller’s motivation before submitting, or make the modest offer and let the response reveal it? I also want to separate cosmetic work from defects found during inspection and keep sensible financing, appraisal and deposit protections rather than trading away a large downside for a small discount.
 
Two percent is not aggressive in this situation. Keep the rationale short: time on market, updating costs and limited evidence from completed sales. Attach proof that the financing is credible and offer the seller a completion window. I would not weaken inspection or financing protection merely to soften a modest price reduction.
 
Before choosing contingencies, do you know whether the asking price already reflects the needed work? “Updating” could mean finishes you dislike or defects that affect cost and risk. Also ask why the seller is moving and whether the 75 days included any failed negotiation. Motivation may matter more than the listing age alone.
 
I’d avoid presenting a detailed list of cosmetic faults with the initial offer. Sellers often hear that as an attack on their home. State that the price accounts for the apartment’s current condition, then let an inspection identify anything material. A clear number, financing proof and reasonable response deadline should be enough.
 
I disagree slightly: with so few completed comparables, some cost basis is useful. Not a complaint about every old cabinet, but a brief estimate of the major updates that informed the PEN 3,528,000 figure. Otherwise 2% can look arbitrary even though it is modest.
 
The response deadline needs care. Too short and the flexibility elsewhere looks performative; too long and the offer can be used to attract another buyer. Ask how quickly the seller can realistically decide, then put that agreed period in writing rather than choosing an artificial pressure tactic.
 
The appraisal gap is the bigger unresolved issue. “Clean financing” does not mean the lender will accept PEN 3,528,000 as value. Decide in advance whether you would add cash if the appraisal is low, renegotiate, or walk away. The contract language and deposit consequences should match that decision.
 
And do not casually increase the deposit just to demonstrate seriousness. The relevant question is when it becomes exposed and under which failed conditions it is returned. Those details depend on the transaction documents and local practice in Peru, so have the exact wording checked before signing.
 
That connects to my earlier question about the work. Inspection protection should cover genuine condition problems, while desired modernisation belongs in the original price. If the inspection uncovers something significant, ask for either a repair credit or a price adjustment—not both—so the request remains credible.
 
One more missing fact: is the seller prioritising price, certainty or timing? Flexible completion has value only if it solves their problem. The agent may not disclose everything, but a neutral question about the seller’s preferred schedule could reveal whether that term is actually useful.
 
Good point. I’d structure the written offer in three parts: PEN 3,528,000; evidence that financing is in place, subject to the stated financing and appraisal terms; and two possible completion dates. Then include inspection and deposit protections plainly, without burying them in a long justification.
 
Be careful with the phrase “financing is in place.” Unless the lender’s remaining conditions are understood, it may promise more certainty than exists. Proof of available financing can accompany the offer, but the buyer should not imply that appraisal or final approval no longer matters.
 
Agreed. I’d say the buyer can provide financing evidence, not call the purchase unconditional. The seller gets useful reassurance while the offer remains honest about lender approval. That distinction also makes it harder for anyone to argue later that the financing protection was merely decorative.
 
Would anyone lead at exactly 2%, though? Since PEN 72,000 is small relative to the asking price, the seller may simply counter at full price. If PEN 3,528,000 is the buyer’s preferred outcome rather than an opening position, there is little room left to negotiate.
 
That depends on the walk-away number. I would not manufacture a larger discount merely to create theatre. If completed sales are unavailable, the buyer should set a maximum from affordability, likely updating costs and appraisal risk. Offer below that only if prepared to lose the apartment over the difference.
 
So the practical sequence is: clarify the seller’s timing, define the maximum price and appraisal-gap limit, submit PEN 3,528,000 with financing evidence, and keep inspection, financing, appraisal and deposit-return terms explicit. If the seller counters, negotiate price or credits after inspection rather than surrendering protections upfront.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top