Offering 13% below asking on a Chicago studio after 112 days

O

OrlaIves

Buyer
Established
Thirteen percent below $1,260,000 is a meaningful opening position, but 112 days on the market gives it some context. The Chicago studio needs updating, while nearby listings support the seller’s ask more clearly than the limited completed-sale evidence does.

I can provide strong financing proof and accommodate the seller on closing timing. Would you submit the lower figure with a short explanation based on condition, marketing time and the best completed comparables, or reduce the discount until better evidence is available?

My decision rule is to stay flexible on reversible points such as timing and minor cosmetic items, but retain protection against losses I cannot comfortably absorb. That means keeping inspection, financing and appraisal safeguards unless the numbers show I could cover the relevant shortfall and deposit risk. How long would you leave the offer open, and would you state in advance that any repair-credit request will be limited to major defects?
 
Thirteen percent below is not inherently insulting if you can support it. Keep the explanation short: time on market, updating required and the limited evidence from completed comparables. Don’t criticise every finish.

Strong financing proof helps, but “clean” should not mean accepting unlimited risk. I would retain inspection, financing and appraisal protection unless you are genuinely prepared to cover a valuation shortfall and lose the deposit in the relevant circumstances.
 
Is it a condominium, and if so, have you examined the building-level costs and any planned major work? At this price, the expensive unknown may not be inside the studio. The completed comparables also need to be genuinely similar in building, condition and associated costs; nearby asking prices tell you what sellers hope to receive, not what buyers accepted.
 
The danger is reading 112 days as bargaining leverage when it may actually show that the seller is prepared to wait. Overpricing is one explanation, but rejected offers or a low need to sell could produce the same pattern.

Before choosing the deadline or changing contingencies, ask the seller’s side which term matters most: price, proof of funds, closing date or certainty. If possible, also request the best completed comparables and any information they will share about earlier negotiations. Then submit the 13%-below figure calmly, supported by financing evidence and a concise rationale. Timing flexibility only strengthens the offer if timing is genuinely valuable to this seller.
 
Also decide how you will handle inspection findings before offering. Since the opening price is already low, returning with a list of minor repair credits may damage the negotiation. Limit requests to major defects or expensive systems, while preserving the ability to withdraw if an unacceptable issue appears. That matches your stated aim without waiving inspection entirely.
 
This helps. I was using “clean financing” too loosely; I mean solid proof and an uncomplicated timetable, not automatically waiving financing or appraisal protection. I also don’t know the seller’s motivation yet.

I’ll ask for the best available completed comparables and whether timing has value, then keep the written rationale brief. On inspection, I’ll focus on material unknowns rather than cosmetic updating or a second round of routine bargaining.
 
Before signing, make sure the deposit terms match that plan. Inspection, financing and appraisal protections are useful only if their deadlines and refund conditions are understood and followed. A local attorney or other appropriate Chicago adviser can explain the contract language and your exposure.

You should also choose in advance what happens after a low appraisal: walk away, renegotiate, or contribute a limited extra amount. Leaving that decision until you are emotionally committed is how an apparent bargain can become much more expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top