How aggressive should a first offer be on this Santiago flat?

[AlbaSnow]

I’m considering a new-build flat in Santiago listed at CLP 1,246,000,000. It has been available for 23 days, needs some updating, and one previous deal has already collapsed, although the seller apparently is not desperate. Asking prices for comparable flats are close, but I cannot find enough completed sales to establish the real clearing price.

Would an opening offer 9% below asking be sensible if I provide financing proof and allow flexibility on completion? I want to explain the figure without antagonising the seller. I’m also unsure which protections should remain non-negotiable, particularly inspection, valuation, financing and deposit exposure.

 

[lila_trades]

Nine percent below is defensible as an opening, but 23 days is not long enough to imply that the seller must accept it. Keep the rationale factual: limited completed-sale evidence, required updates and uncertainty following the failed transaction. Pair the offer with financing proof and flexible timing rather than comments about what the flat is “really worth.” I would not waive inspection or financing protection merely to make the number more attractive.

 

[liv.ash]

What does “needs some updating” mean in a new-build? If it is just finishes you dislike, the seller may see that as your preference rather than a defect. If there are incomplete items or work that affects condition, obtain costs and ask either for correction or a credit. Also find out why the earlier deal collapsed; financing trouble and an inspection problem would point in very different directions.

 

[liv.ash]

One more point: asking-price comparables are weak support for a precise 9% reduction because they only show what other sellers hope to receive. I would present the offer as a complete package, with a short but reasonable response deadline, rather than sending a long argument built on listings. Too much justification can sound like an invitation to debate every assumption.

 

[lila_tools]

I disagree slightly with treating 9% as automatically safe just because the terms are clean. At this price, the gap is substantial, and after only 23 days the seller may counter minimally or decline. Decide your actual ceiling before offering. Otherwise the seller’s response can pull you upward without any new evidence. A failed deal gives you leverage only if its cause remains relevant.

 

[rhea_dove]

The clean structure matters more than making the offer sound persuasive. State the price, show credible financing readiness, offer the completion flexibility that genuinely works for you, and specify a response deadline. Keep inspection, financing and satisfactory valuation conditions clear. If updates are measurable, request either repair credits or a lower price—not both—so the seller can compare the net proposal easily.

 

[rhea_dove]

There is also the appraisal-gap question. Even if you can finance the purchase in principle, a lender valuation below the agreed price could leave you funding a larger difference. Before increasing any counteroffer, decide how much of that gap you could and would cover. The deposit terms should also be checked carefully so a failed financing, valuation or inspection condition does not expose more money than expected under the actual agreement.

 

[bench.far]

A very short deadline could undermine the friendly approach. The seller may need time to consider the price and confirm whether flexible completion is useful. Give enough time for a real decision, but not an open-ended offer that can be held while other buyers are approached. If possible, ask which matters more to the seller—timing, certainty or headline price—without assuming the collapsed deal proves motivation.

 

[rhea_dove]

Putting the earlier points together, I’d open at 9% below only if you are comfortable losing the flat and have a planned counteroffer range. Support it with the few objective items available, not a claim that completed sales prove the discount. Keep inspection, financing and valuation protections, clarify deposit consequences with someone familiar with the Chilean transaction documents, and separate genuine condition issues from optional upgrades. That is firm without being antagonistic.