Offering 3% below asking on a country home in Milan — sensible or too aggressive at €460,000

O

otis_saves

Property investor
The agent’s suggestion that another buyer may drop the inspection protection has made me less willing to stretch, not more. The property is a country home in Milan listed at €460,000, has been on the market for 14 days and requires updating. Current listings nearby support the asking level, but completed sales evidence is thin.

I’m thinking of offering €446,200, which is 3% below asking, with financing in place and flexibility over completion. Is that a reasonable opening, and how briefly should I justify it? My main concern is keeping inspection protection while also limiting the risk of a low appraisal or an exposed deposit.
 
Three percent is not an insulting opening, particularly if the updating is real rather than cosmetic. I would keep the explanation brief: the offer reflects the property’s condition and the limited evidence from completed sales, while your financing and timing reduce uncertainty for the seller. Don’t turn it into a long list of everything wrong with the house.
 
What do you know about the seller’s motivation? A flexible completion date only has value if it solves their problem. I would ask the agent whether the seller prioritises speed, certainty or price, and whether there is actually another written offer. “Somebody else will waive it” is too vague to justify taking on unknown repair risk.
 
Starting at €446,200 may be rejected, while moving closer to €460,000 could mean paying extra merely because the agent created urgency. Neither option is especially comfortable.

I agree that 3% is defensible, but 14 days does not prove the seller lacks other choices; a country home may simply take longer to find its buyer. Submit the lower figure with strong terms and a clear response deadline, then decide in advance whether improved evidence about seller motivation would justify increasing it. Pressure to remove inspection protection should not be the reason you move on price.
 
I disagree slightly on focusing on completed comparables in the explanation. They matter to your decision, but telling the seller that you lack evidence can make the figure sound arbitrary. Base the written rationale on visible updating costs and the strength of your terms. Keep your comparable research for deciding how far you are prepared to move.
 
The contingencies need more attention than the 3% discount. I would not waive satisfactory inspection or financing where the purchase depends on a loan. The wording should also address what happens if the lender’s valuation is below the agreed price and when the deposit becomes exposed. Those details can vary by transaction and jurisdiction, so have the proposed terms reviewed locally before signing anything.
 
Good point about valuation. The buyer should decide the maximum appraisal gap they could fund before making the offer, even if that amount is not volunteered to the seller. Otherwise a modest negotiation over €13,800 could lead to a much larger cash problem later.

For defects, I’d preserve the right to withdraw but signal willingness to discuss a repair credit rather than demanding that every item be fixed.
 
Repair credits can be useful, but don’t count them twice. If €446,200 already reflects obvious updating, asking for another reduction for the same dated kitchen or finishes will look like retrading. Credits should be reserved for significant issues uncovered after the offer, not work you could see during the viewing.
 
I’d submit €446,200 with financing evidence, the completion flexibility expressed clearly, a short but reasonable response deadline, and only essential protections. No emotional defence of the number and no argument with the agent about hypothetical competing buyers. If the seller counters, compare that figure with your ceiling and likely repair costs rather than negotiating automatically toward €460,000.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top