On a recent post one of our regular readers was lamenting about a Calgary real estate agent who reduced their listing by $100.00. He added that real estate agents will do all kinds of tricks to get clients. In fairness, I don’t know anything about the situation or the agent but of course I’ve got my 2 cents to throw in.
First of all I don’t know whether the $100 it was client directed or something the agent came up with. Having a lot of clients I can tell you they don’t all think the same or have the same strategies - the diversity in personalites is immense. I have had clients list their properties at $301,000 - a huge mistake in this day and age of internet search - but ultimately the decision is theirs. I too have had clients request weird amounts for price reductions (and even stranger amounts for counter offers, but that's a whole other topic). However, when you think about what the seller and agent did by reducing their price by $100.00, while annoying it is actually a little savvy depending on what they are trying to do.
For example, MLXchange (the REALTOR® interface with MLS® data in Edmonton and Calgary) will automatically email that property out to buyers who have searches set up by their agents (if the agents have selected the option to inform their clients of properties that are reduced in price). This is one of several options that agents have available to them when setting up their clients searches.
So if the property in question was getting lots of looks and activity but its starting to slow down (we track all the online activity of our properties on REALTOR.ca, www.EdmontonRealEstate.pro and countless othersites) then they may have wanted people to take another look who have recently seen the property. If on the other hand there is little to no activity on the property, and they want to get an offer on it, then they are probably pissing into the wind so to speak if their intention is to actually sell the property.
I do know that it's my job to do what I can for my clients, and that sometimes means thinking outside of the box. As long as its allowed, it I don’t see the problem with it, although in this case it's probably not what I would've recommended.