Zurich warehouse: is 11% below CHF 774,400 too aggressive after 92 days?

O

otis.cove

Buyer
Established
I’m torn between two approaches: price the required updating into my first offer, or start higher and reserve the right to seek repair credits after inspection.

The Zurich warehouse is listed at CHF 774,400 and has been on the market for 92 days. There are comparable listings nearby, but very little completed-sale evidence. Would 11% under asking be a reasonable starting point if I attach proof of financing? I can accommodate the seller’s timing if that matters to them, but I do not want to weaken the inspection, appraisal, financing or deposit protections just to make the offer look cleaner.
 
Eleven percent below is defensible as an opening, not an accusation about the property’s worth. Keep the explanation short: limited completed-sale evidence, updating costs and the certainty offered by your financing. Don’t send an itemised attack on every defect. That usually invites an argument instead of a counteroffer.
 
Before choosing the number, ask why it has been sitting for 92 days. Has the seller already rejected offers, or is timing more important than price? A flexible completion only has value if it solves their particular problem.
 
I would not waive inspection protection on a warehouse merely to make a low offer look stronger. The updating you can see may not be the expensive part. Define a proper inspection period and retain a way out if the condition differs materially from what you understood.
 
I’m less convinced that 92 days gives the buyer much leverage by itself. A specialised property can take longer to find the right buyer. If comparable asking prices cluster near CHF 774,400, the seller may view 11% below as fishing unless the repair allowance is reasonably supported.
 
That is fair, but asking prices only show seller expectations. They do not establish what buyers paid. I’d present the offer as the price you can support under the available evidence, then invite the seller to share completed comparables that justify a different figure.
 
Also separate ordinary updating from inspection discoveries. Price the visible work into the initial offer. If inspection later reveals something genuinely unexpected, seek a repair credit or renegotiate under the agreed terms. Counting the same work twice would damage credibility.
 
Give the offer a clear but reasonable response deadline. An open-ended offer lets the seller hold your terms while waiting for another buyer; an unnecessarily short fuse undercuts the cooperative tone. The exact timing should fit the local transaction process and how quickly the seller can realistically respond.
 
What does “clean financing” mean here? A general indication from a lender is weaker than property-specific confidence, especially for a warehouse. Before making the offer, clarify whether the lender’s valuation could come in below the agreed price and how much of any appraisal gap you are actually willing to fund.
 
Yes, the appraisal gap matters more than polishing the letter. If financing depends on valuation, preserve that condition or cap your additional cash exposure explicitly. Otherwise a successful negotiation at 11% below could still leave you committed to finding more cash than planned.
 
Deposit wording deserves the same attention. Don’t assume an inspection or financing issue automatically means the deposit comes back; that depends on the signed terms and Swiss practice applicable to the deal. Have the release events and deadlines written clearly before transferring funds.
 
My offer package would be simple: the price, evidence that financing is organised, preferred and alternative completion dates, inspection and financing conditions, deposit terms, and an expiry time. Put updating estimates in an attachment if they are solid. Avoid a long emotional justification.
 
One caveat: a low opening plus several broad escape clauses may not read as “clean” to the seller. Keep essential protections, but make them precise. A defined inspection window and an identifiable financing condition are stronger than language allowing withdrawal for almost any dissatisfaction.
 
Has anyone addressed permitted use and the buyer’s intended use? With a warehouse, physical condition is only half the question. The offer should not assume the building suits the plan if that has not been verified. I would make any necessary due diligence specific rather than relying on a generic inspection clause.
 
To clarify, I’m not suggesting adding every imaginable contingency. I mean identifying the deal-breakers before signing: suitability for the intended use, material building condition, financing and valuation. Everything else can be reflected in the price or accepted as ordinary commercial risk.
 
So 11% below does not strike me as inherently antagonistic. The presentation and exposure matter more: one supported number, credible financing proof, flexibility the seller can use, a sensible deadline, and narrowly drafted protections. If the seller counters, compare the increase with your updating budget and appraisal-gap limit rather than negotiating from the asking price alone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top