Before the week is over, you’ll give an opinion on something, and someone will counter your opinion based on something they experienced once or something that they have not experienced once. Maybe you’ve had this conversation.
Given a choice, when all else is equal, a home seller is likely to prefer an offer that does not include a radon testing contingency. Someone replies: Oh, I’m afraid I have to disagree. I’ve never seen anyone decide one offer over another based on a radon test. In fact, I had a seller say they were glad the buyer wanted to test for radon.
Contrairians might argue that 6 out of 10 people prefer an offer with more risk than less risk. Knowing what you know about contingencies and radon test results, what do you think is the logical position? Will at least 6 out of 10 home sellers prefer offers with more risk over less risk?
One experience is enough to suggest something may or may not be. Still, it’s not a big enough sample to make a reliable conclusion. When it is possible to gather evidence to prove a point, it’s worth taking the time.
“No showings until 1:00 PM Sunday at the Open house. All offers will be presented at 5:00 PM on Tuesday.” has become a common practice even though it’s unsupported by evidence of any value to the Seller. I am sure more than one person saw this strategy used and believe it worked in favor of a seller once. Without analyzing the facts of each scenario, do we really know if the plan produced a better result? No. Not unless we have the same transaction exposed to the show and present promptly plan.
It may be possible to gather evidence to make an informed opinion that the no show and hold offers approach is better. It hasn’t been done. There is an outcome we can easily track. The MLS data can show whether listing firms and listing agents sell more of their listings under the no show and hold strategy. What do you think the results would indicate?