Good morning, NREB readers!
Welcome to a special bonus edition of NREB Premium!
Normally, our Premium briefings arrive every Saturday, but this week, we're bringing you an extra edition.
Don't worry—our regular free editions will continue as scheduled, and this Saturday's Premium briefing is still on the way.
Let's get into today's bonus briefing.
The listing has been sitting. Showing activity has slowed, the seller isn't interested in another price reduction, and now comes the familiar suggestion:
“Maybe we should take it off the market and try again in the spring.”
That isn't necessarily a bad idea. But it also isn't a strategy simply because spring is a busier season.
In Realtor.com's 2026 Spring Seller Survey, sellers were almost evenly split on what they would do if their home didn't sell within their desired timeline: 35% said they would reduce the price, 34% would wait out the market, and 29% would pull the listing. Those are preferences, not evidence that any one response produces a better result.
The question has become especially relevant as sellers approach winter. Realtor.com's October housing report found that 20.5% of listings had experienced a price reduction and the delisting rate stood at 4.4%. Meanwhile, Redfin reported on November 5 that new listings had slowed but buyers still had more homes to choose from than a year earlier.
None of those national figures can tell your seller what their property will bring next April. That's where the actual decision begins.
The spring-price trap
A seller often frames the choice as two numbers: “I could get $475,000 now, or maybe $490,000 in spring.”
But a higher price five months later is not automatically a better financial outcome. The seller may have another five months of mortgage payments, taxes, insurance, utilities, maintenance, or vacant-home expenses. They may need to spend money preparing for a relaunch. And a spring buyer could ask for concessions that aren't in today's comparison.
There is one complication agents shouldn't ignore: a mortgage payment isn't entirely a cost of waiting. Some of it reduces the loan balance, so a later sale may have a smaller payoff. Subtracting the full payments and ignoring that principal reduction exaggerates the penalty for waiting. The reverse mistake—counting principal reduction as a benefit without accounting for the cash payments—makes waiting look too attractive.
The comparison has to put both choices on the same future date.
Consider two homeowners:
Seller A has already moved and is carrying an empty property at about $3,100 per month. They believe spring could bring a higher offer.
Seller B has a much lower carrying expense, flexibility about when to close, and a modest improvement project that could change how the home competes when buyers return.
Both may be right that spring will give them a different pool of buyers. That alone doesn't tell us whether they should wait. The numbers can point in opposite directions, even using the same five-month calendar.
Inside today's Premium briefing: two complete seller comparisons, the spring sale price each one needs just to break even, a sensitivity test for concessions and weaker offers, and a client-ready framework for deciding whether to reduce, hold, or relaunch.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Already a member? Sign in to NREB.news |