Are Hong Kong buyers negotiating more after 35 days on market?

K

kite.fresh

First-time buyer
I’m tracking detached homes in Hong Kong asking roughly HK$4,774,000–HK$7,160,000. Around 35 days on market seems common, but the market feels split: homes with a clear answer on property tax move differently from those with unresolved questions.

Does 35 days now give buyers meaningful negotiating room? I’m particularly interested in recent completed sales where the final price can be compared with the full public asking history, including cuts or relisting.
 
Thirty-five days by itself doesn’t establish buyer leverage. A correctly priced home could complete near asking after that period, while an overpriced one might be withdrawn without ever attracting a workable offer. Completed price, original ask, each reduction date and any gap in marketing need to be read together.
 
Also, what does “clear answer on property tax” mean here: certainty over the amount, who bears it, or how the property is classified? Those are different sources of hesitation, so examples should identify the actual issue rather than putting them all in one group.
 
Neighbourhood boundaries matter too. Two homes described under the same broad Hong Kong area may not be substitutes for a buyer. I’d narrow the comparison to properties with similar access, usable space and condition before deciding that day 35 has become a negotiating threshold.
 
The withdrawn listings are probably the missing half of this. If only completed sales are counted, the sample excludes sellers who refused lower offers or paused marketing.
 
A useful format for examples would be: first visible asking price, dates of any cuts, last asking price, completed price, total days actually advertised, and whether it disappeared and returned. That would make different cases much easier to compare.
 
Condition could explain much of the split. A buyer facing uncertain repair work may seek a larger reduction even when the tax position is understood. A ready-to-occupy home at the same headline price is not necessarily evidence of a faster overall market.
 
I’d also separate cash-ready interest from offers dependent on financing. A seller may accept less from a buyer with a cleaner route to completion, so the discount alone does not show how hard the buyer negotiated.
 
I’m not convinced public asking history is reliable enough to carry that much weight. A listing can return with changed wording, boundaries or presentation and appear to be a fresh comparison. The completed figure is useful, but the supposed starting point may need confirmation.
 
That’s fair, Oscar. I wouldn’t discard the history, though; I’d mark uncertain resets instead. Even an imperfect sequence can reveal whether the seller tested HK$7,160,000 for weeks and then changed direction, provided nobody treats every portal entry as a continuous listing.
 
New-listing volume would add context. Thirty-five days means something different when buyers have several close alternatives arriving during that period than when replacement stock is thin. Without that, the number risks becoming a rule that the market does not support.
 
Seller motivation may be more decisive than elapsed time. One seller can remain firm well beyond 35 days, while another may engage early because certainty matters more than the last increment of price. I’d ask when the first cut occurred, not merely when the listing reached day 35.
 
There’s also a difference between an asking-price reduction and a negotiated discount after the reduction. If a home starts high, gets cut, then completes close to the revised figure, saying the buyer won a large discount from the original ask overstates what happened at the table.
 
Could the opening poster clarify what counts as a detached home in this comparison? The category needs to be consistent. Otherwise the HK$4,774,000–HK$7,160,000 range could contain properties that buyers evaluate very differently.
 
Sam’s question is important. I’d record the property description exactly as marketed and then note any feature that materially limits comparability. No need to force every example into one average just because it shares a label.
 
My practical test would be to compare offers before and after the first price cut. If viewings or offers only become serious after a reduction, that suggests the original ask—not 35 days—was the obstacle. We may not get offer data publicly, but sellers or agents discussing completed examples could state whether that sequence occurred.
 
The practical limitation is that the timing of private offers usually cannot be verified. I still think the previous test is useful when a seller or agent can describe a completed case, but it should sit beside the observable listing record rather than replace it.

For example, we can document that a home was reduced after 35 days and later removed; we cannot infer from that sequence alone that serious offers began after the cut. I’d record the asking history first, then label any account of the negotiations separately and look for a completed-sale record that confirms the outcome.
 
True, but removals are ambiguous too: withdrawn, completed, relisted elsewhere or simply allowed to expire can look alike. I’d keep observable listing data separate from explanations supplied by participants rather than blending them into a single conclusion.
 
At this point, the strongest answer seems to be that 35 days can justify opening a firmer conversation, but not a standard percentage reduction. The offer should respond to comparable completed prices, condition, competing stock, financing strength and signs of seller flexibility.
 
One more caveat on tax: uncertainty can affect both price and timing. If the parties resolve it before agreeing the figure, the sale may look slow but not discounted. If the uncertainty remains priced into the offer, it may look like aggressive negotiation. Examples should say when clarification happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top