CO Real Estate study materials
CO Real Estate study resources

The Listing That Outruns the Comps and the Cash

CO Real Estate · Put your knowledge to work in context.

All case studies

The Listing That Outruns the Comps and the Cash

You represent buyers who are preapproved for a purchase price up to $475,000 with 10% down. They have $60,000 in cash, and you estimate closing costs and prepaids at 3% of the purchase price. A listing they like is priced at $489,000 after 90 days on the market. Your adjusted comparables, all closed within six months and within a half mile: Comp A sold for $465,000 with a +$8,000 adjustment for a missing garage; Comp B sold for $480,000 with a −$15,000 adjustment for a remodeled kitchen and larger lot; Comp C sold for $450,000 with a +$12,000 adjustment for inferior condition and location.

1. Reconcile the three comparables and judge whether the $489,000 list price is supported.

Read the worked answer

Conclusion: Supported value is roughly $462,000–$473,000, with a point estimate in the high $460,000s. The list price is not supported.

Reasoning:

  1. Adjusted values: A = $465,000 + $8,000 = $473,000; B = $480,000 − $15,000 = $465,000; C = $450,000 + $12,000 = $462,000.
  2. The adjustments move the comparable toward the subject. A sold without a garage, so the subject is worth more: add. B was superior, so subtract. C was inferior, so add. Direction errors here are the most common source of a wrong conclusion.
  3. Range is $462,000 to $473,000; the clustering of two of three comps at $465,000–$473,000 supports a reconciled value near $466,000–$468,000.
  4. The list price of $489,000 sits roughly 3.5%–6% above the top of the adjusted range - beyond what a normal negotiation band explains.
  5. Ninety days on market is itself evidence: the market has already tested this price and not accepted it.

2. Given the buyers' cash and financing, what is the highest price they can actually pay? Which constraint binds?

Read the worked answer

Conclusion: About $461,500 is the ceiling, and cash is the binding constraint.

Reasoning:

  1. Cash required at closing = 10% down payment + 3% costs = 13% of price.
  2. $60,000 ÷ 0.13 = $461,538, so the practical ceiling is roughly $461,500.
  3. Test the loan approval: at $461,538 the loan is $415,384 (90% LTV). Their approval allows a loan of $427,500 ($475,000 × 90%), so the loan is not the limit.
  4. Test the market: adjusted comps support $462,000–$473,000, so the buyers' purchasing power falls just below market value - the appraisal is not the limit either.
  5. Three constraints compete, and only one binds. Naming the binding constraint is the point: telling the buyers 'you're approved to $475,000' would send them into a contract they cannot close.

3. What do you advise the buyers to do, and what risk must the contract address?

Read the worked answer

Conclusion: Offer near the cash ceiling with protections, or restructure the cash - and price in a probable low appraisal.

Reasoning:

  1. At $489,000 an appraisal is likely to land near $467,000. If the contract price exceeds the appraised value, the buyers must cover the gap in cash, which they cannot do. The appraisal objection/termination right is therefore the critical contract term, not boilerplate.
  2. A seller concession toward closing costs reduces the buyers' cash need: if the seller paid their 3%, their cash covers the 10% down payment alone, and the loan ceiling of $427,500 caps price at $475,000. Concessions are limited by the lender and cannot exceed actual costs, and a low appraisal still caps the loan.
  3. Reducing the down payment below 10% raises cash-in-hand but pushes LTV past the approved level and adds mortgage insurance - confirm with the lender before writing.
  4. Offer strategy: price near $461,000–$462,000 with an appraisal contingency, a loan contingency, and a seller-concession request; be prepared to walk, since the seller has already spent 90 days defending an unsupported price.
  5. Never advise the buyers to waive the appraisal contingency to 'win' - that converts an affordability problem into a lost earnest money deposit.