Offering 7% below €768,200 for a Rome warehouse after 59 days

A

AdaChase

Property investor
Established
I’m considering a warehouse in Rome listed at €768,200. It has been available for 59 days, needs updating, and one previous deal has collapsed. Nearby asking prices are similar, but I cannot find enough completed sales to establish the real clearing price.

My proposed opening is €714,426, exactly 7% below asking, backed by clear financing evidence and flexibility on completion. I also need clarity on any service charges. How would you explain the discount without antagonising a seller who is not desperate? I would particularly like views on inspection protection, appraisal risk, deposit exposure and a reasonable response deadline.
 
Seven percent is not inherently aggressive here. Present it as a supported starting point rather than a verdict on the property: limited completed-sale evidence, updating costs and the uncertainty created by the failed transaction. Include financing proof and your flexible timing.

I would not waive inspection or financing protection merely to soften the price. Give enough time for a considered response; an artificially short deadline could undermine the cooperative tone.
 
Before deciding on the wording, can you establish why the earlier deal collapsed? A financing failure is different from a building issue or a disagreement uncovered during due diligence.

Also, are the service charges known, and do you have an itemised idea of the updating required? Without those two figures, 7% may be either conservative or difficult to justify.
 
It is definitely a warehouse, despite my slipping into residential language when describing it. I’m still waiting for a proper breakdown of the service charges and an explanation for the collapsed deal. The updating estimate is also preliminary rather than itemised.

That makes me inclined to keep €714,426 as the opening number but avoid pretending it is based on precise repair costs. I can instead explain that the price reflects unresolved costs and limited completed comparables.
 
That is a better rationale. Don’t request a 7% reduction for uncertain updating and then automatically seek the same amount again as repair credits after inspection. If the inspection reveals something materially different from what was visible, renegotiation may be justified; ordinary known updating should already be reflected in your offer.
 
Agreed on avoiding double counting, but I would attach the financing evidence at the outset. After one failed deal, certainty may matter more to the seller than squeezing out the last part of the price.

You could separate the terms clearly: €714,426, flexible completion, proof of funds or financing readiness, inspection protection, and a response date. Clean presentation makes a discounted offer look deliberate rather than opportunistic.
 
I’d be cautious about putting too much emphasis on a deadline. At 59 days, the seller may still believe the asking price is justified by those nearby listings. A hard, short expiry could simply invite rejection.

Have the agent test motivation first: does the seller value speed, certainty, completion flexibility, or price above everything else? That answer should shape the offer more than the number of days advertised.
 
One other issue is valuation. If financing depends on an appraisal and the appraisal comes in below the agreed price, decide now how much of that gap—if any—you could cover. Do not leave the deposit exposed to a financing or valuation problem you cannot absorb. The exact protection and deposit wording should be checked for the transaction in Italy rather than assumed from practices elsewhere.
 
And keep asking for completed comparables. Similar asking prices only show what other sellers hope to receive. Even one or two genuinely comparable completed transactions could change the argument substantially once differences in condition, size and charges are considered. If none can be verified before offering, say the uncertainty is part of your pricing rather than presenting the 7% as mathematically proven.
 
I’d proceed, but in stages: obtain the service-charge breakdown and reason for the failed deal; request whatever completed-sale evidence is available; make the €714,426 offer with financing evidence and flexible timing; retain inspection, financing and valuation protections; and use a reasonable response period rather than an ultimatum. If the seller counters, compare the extra price with the unresolved updating costs and potential appraisal gap before increasing the offer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top