Are 90-day San Francisco listings becoming negotiable?

[SmallEmber]

I’m deciding whether to start making below-ask offers or keep waiting. The San Francisco listings I saved are not moving together at all: detached homes around $1,140,000–$1,710,000 are reaching roughly 90 days on market, while properties with a clear answer on service charges seem to behave differently.

Is 90 days producing real negotiating room, or am I overlooking relisted or withdrawn stock? Recent completed sales would be especially helpful, including cases where the final price differed from the visible asking history.

 

[bridge.prime]

Ninety days can create leverage, but it is not a discount formula. I would compare each home with nearby completed sales of similar condition, then count withdrawals and relistings separately. A seller holding firm for 90 days is a different situation from one making repeated price cuts.

 

[clear_lane]

Which neighbourhoods are in your saved list? Pooling detached homes across San Francisco could easily create the split you’re seeing. Also, by “service charges,” do you mean HOA dues or some other recurring property expense? That distinction may explain part of the different behaviour.

 

[frame.grand]

The public asking history may not tell the whole story. A withdrawn property can return looking newer, and an earlier asking price may have been deliberately ambitious. I’d focus on completed sales near each listing rather than treating the displayed 90 days as proof that the seller must negotiate.

 

[AdaBrooks]

If you do offer, make the amount respond to something specific: condition, comparable sales, unclear recurring costs, or work that needs doing. “It has been sitting for 90 days” is useful context, but probably weaker than a short list of concrete differences between that home and recently sold alternatives.

 

[sol_compares]

The practical constraint is how many acceptable homes remain available while you wait. A listing at 90 days may look vulnerable, but that matters less if comparable properties are disappearing rather than being replaced.

For example, several suitable new listings arriving in the same week could give you leverage with an older seller. If stale homes are instead being withdrawn and fresh supply is thin, delaying may reduce your choices without lowering prices. Track new entries, withdrawals and relistings alongside completed sales before deciding whether the market is genuinely moving toward buyers.

 

[RealHorizon]

Buyer financing can make two nominally similar offers very different to a seller. Before choosing a discount, decide what terms you can actually support and how much uncertainty the property creates for the lender. Price is only one negotiating point, especially if condition or recurring charges are unresolved.

 

[EsmeAsh]

I’d put the saved homes in a simple table: original ask, current ask, first-list date, any gaps in marketing, condition, recurring costs, neighbourhood, and nearest completed comparisons. Add a column for what changed after each price cut. That should reveal whether 90 days is meaningful or just a coincidence across unlike properties.

 

[anika_vale]

Ellak’s neighbourhood question is the big one. Even adjoining areas should not automatically be combined, and broad map searches can blur boundaries. Start with the smallest sensible area around each property, then expand only if there are too few genuinely comparable completed sales.

 

[PracticalSignal]

Seller motivation is the missing variable that no listing history fully captures. A quick cut after limited interest may suggest responsiveness; months at the same price may mean the seller is willing to wait. Neither guarantees the next offer will be accepted, so I would avoid assuming all 90-day listings have equal flexibility.

 

[HonestHorizon]

One more caution on completed examples: the recorded final price may not show every concession or credit involved in the deal. It is still more useful than asking history, but it may not provide a perfect like-for-like comparison. Property condition at the time of sale also needs to be matched as closely as possible.

 

[sol_compares]

I’m still unclear about the “clear answer” on service charges. Is the issue whether there are recurring charges at all, or whether the amount and coverage are uncertain? If uncertainty is causing buyers to hesitate, resolving it could change demand without the seller changing the asking price.

 

[EsmeAsh]

That is worth separating, Bruno. A known recurring amount can be included in the buyer’s monthly-cost comparison; an unclear obligation is harder to price and may cause people to step away. I would not translate the charge dollar-for-dollar into a lower offer, but I would keep it beside financing costs when comparing homes.

 

[HonestHorizon]

Misreading a relisting as 90 continuous days could lead to an offer based on the wrong signal. Split the saved homes into those still at their original ask and those with reductions, then check for gaps or changes in the marketing history.

The result becomes more useful when each home is paired with the closest completed sale in similar condition. A price cut sounds encouraging, but the comparison changes if the sold property needed less work or carried clearer recurring costs. Those details, rather than the headline time on market, should determine how aggressive an offer can be.

 

[clear_lane]

Until the neighbourhood boundaries and meaning of service charges are narrowed down, specific completed examples may mislead more than help. The pattern described does support negotiating selectively, but not a market-wide assumption that every San Francisco detached home at 90 days is ready for the same reduction.