[Ruffian]

wim, on 28 January 2012 - 09:23 PM, said:

I agree although I'd like to see it go further with a requirement to show a single price. No ranges, no price on application, no reverse auctions. Just like when I walk into a supermarket I should be able to walk into a real estate agency and know the price.

Yes - juts like in the old days.

But unlike a supermarket, in the past the purchaser generally tended to negotiate downward from the advertised price.
I can vividly remember transactions family members made in the 70s, where the buyers sought out (or invented) flaws to enable them to knock a few k's off the price of a property, and sellers spent evenings developing counter-arguments to prevent this happening.
And the whole process took months.

[wim]

Ruffian, on 28 January 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

Yes - juts like in the old days.

But unlike a supermarket, in the past the purchaser generally tended to negotiate downward from the advertised price.
I can vividly remember transactions family members made in the 70s, where the buyers sought out (or invented) flaws to enable them to knock a few k's off the price of a property, and sellers spent evenings developing counter-arguments to prevent this happening.
And the whole process took months.

Exactly - the price advertised would be the maximum price. If you want it now then pay that price otherwise feel free to negotiate. It would also provide a level of transparency to even casual observers that is currently unavailable due to the government hiding the raw data.

[Ruffian]

wim, on 28 January 2012 - 10:58 PM, said:

It would also provide a level of transparency to even casual observers that is currently unavailable due to the government hiding the raw data.

Excellent point. I hadn't connected the dots on that one.