People ask:

Why don't we just start high and see what happens?

Nobody wants to leave money on the table. If someone falls in love with the house, maybe they might be willing to pay the higher price. And if not, the seller can always reduce later.

Simple. But the data shows the opposite: In a buyer's market, where there are more homes available than buyers willing to act, starting high often works against the seller. Listing at the proper price is rewarded, and homes that sit tend to lose leverage.

It does not mean sellers should underprice their homes. It does not mean sellers should give their house away. But it does mean overpricing is not free money. In many cases, it leads to more time on market, more price reductions, and a lower chance of getting the property sold at all.

To explore this, I created a dataset of Stratford listing data from January 2025 to early May 2026. The dataset included homes that sold, homes that were still active, and homes that expired, terminated, suspended, or otherwise did not sell during that listing attempt.

I then built a directional regression model to estimate market value using property factors such as property type, size, number of bedrooms, number of bathrooms, garage, year built, and market period. Then I compared each property's original list price to that estimate. In English, what some fancy math says is that a property with similar features would tend to be worth more than what it actually sold for. By no means an appraisal. (Keep in mind the model does not factor in things like renovations, which, if it could, would likely heighten the trends you see)

So, what happens when you aim high?

The biggest takeaway I found is that overpricing does not just risk a weaker sale price. It also lowers the odds of getting a successful sale outcome in the first place. Even if you don't need to sell your house for a new job, life event, or other reasons that compel people to move, listing your house is a lot of work. So, most people who list their house and want to sell it

Listings priced reasonably close to the model-estimated market value were much more likely to sell than listings priced aggressively above it, duh, demonstrating how proper pricing improves sale success.

Completed listing attempts: the more ambitious the starting price, the lower the share that sold.

While starting high can feel protective, if buyers do not agree with the price, they will just move on. There are more houses than buyers.

So, the high price does not protect anything. It just moves the listing into the category buyers ignore, wait on, or use as leverage later.

Then the seller often ends up negotiating from a weaker position later, while days on market drag on.

The same pattern appeared when I compared the original list price and the model-estimated market value. Listings priced aggressively above the model did not just sell less often; they also sold for lower prices. They also tended to sit longer across all outcomes.

In some situations, aiming high can make sense. If a seller does not need to sell, has a rare property, faces almost no competition, or is willing to wait for one very specific buyer, then a higher price might be defensible.

But for normal listings with clear comparable sales, aiming high and holding is risky.

The market also gives a clear signal through days on market. In this dataset, sold listings had a median of 23 days on market. Active listings were already sitting longer, at 30 days. Inactive listings - the ones that expired, terminated, suspended, or failed to close - had a median of 70.5 days on market.

That does not mean every slower listing is bad. Some properties are unique. Some have thinner buyer pools. Some need the right buyer. But as a general rule, time on market changes the conversation.

Being on the market for too long can make a property become 'Stigmatized'; people wonder if there is something wrong with it. Indicators of staleness include extended days on market beyond the median, lack of showings, or no offers after a certain period, signalling the need to reassess pricing.

Sellers often say:

Let's try the higher price first. If it doesn't work, we can reduce.

Technically, yes. You can reduce later. But the data suggests that price reductions often show up after the listing has already lost momentum.

Price changes were more common in active and inactive inventory than in sold inventory. That matters because a price cut may make the price better, but it does not make the listing new again. Further, last year in a market where prices are falling year over year, you can end up chasing the market down, whereas if priced more reasonably from the start, you’d have actually realized more returns.

Buyers see the old price. They see the days on market. They know the seller has already adjusted. That is the hidden cost of overpricing. It is not just the price cut. It is the loss of leverage.

Among the homes that sold, early momentum was among the strongest patterns.

One important caveat: these numbers are market-wide patterns, not a report card for any individual sale. A home can sell quickly and still sell below asking price (as many do), especially if showings are limited. In a market where not every house is selling, a quick sale below asking is still often a good result if it finds the right buyer quickly and avoids the stale-listing cycle. Often, the first offer you get can be the best, since it comes from the existing buyer pool rather than waiting for new potential buyers to enter it, who will have longer days on market as leverage.

Homes that sold quickly tended to achieve better sale-to-original-list price results and were much more likely to sell over asking price. Once a listing moved past 30 days, over-ask outcomes became rare. In the past 60 days, they disappeared from the sold dataset.

Days on market Average sale/original list Sold over original ask

The point is not that every successful sale needs to go over asking. The point is that early momentum usually gives sellers their best chance at a strong result.

The data does not say sellers should blindly underprice their homes.

Pricing too low can cause problems if it does not create competition. If only one serious buyer shows up, the low list price can become the anchor. That is not a great strategy either.

The goal is not simply to price low. The goal is to price sharply.

A sharp price is close enough to market value to protect the seller, but compelling enough that buyers feel they need to act. It is not reckless underpricing. It is positioning.

The best price is not always the lowest price. It is the price that creates the right buyer behaviour.

Detached homes can create emotional urgency. If a buyer walks in, pictures the kids in the yard, imagines Christmas in the living room, and coffee on the porch, they may move quickly if the price feels compelling.

Condos and multi-unit properties are different. A condo buyer may be comparing several similar units at once. An investor buying a duplex or triplex is usually doing math on rent, expenses, financing, repairs, and cap rate.

Pricing strategy isn't a one-size-fits-all. A detached home in a competitive price range may benefit from a sharper price designed to create urgency.

A condo or multi-unit property may need a more precise, evidence-based price from day one.

For sellers, the lesson is not: price low. The lesson is: don't become the listing buyers decide to wait on.

A good pricing strategy should answer three questions:

That third question is the one people miss.

Sellers often focus on what they want. Buyers focus on what else they can buy. If your home is not compelling compared with the alternatives, buyers do not need to argue with you. They can move on.

This same data matters for buyers, too.

A lower offer is not only about wanting a deal. It is about leverage.

A lower offer is usually more defensible when a listing has been sitting, has already had a price reduction, is priced above comparable sales, or has issues limiting the buyer pool.

Fresh, well-priced listings are different. In the first week or two, the seller may still have strong leverage. But when a listing is stale, reduced, and still sitting, the buyer can usually make a more evidence-based argument for a lower price.

The better question is not: how low can we go? It is: what does the market evidence say this house is worth, and how much leverage do we have?

Starting too high risks waiting longer, weakening your negotiating position, increasing the likelihood of price cuts, and reducing the chances of a successful sale at your target price.

Starting too low when there isn’t enough buyer demand may anchor your home below its value. Pricing should be strategic, not just a number.

Price close enough to market value that buyers see an opportunity, but not so low that the seller depends entirely on a bidding war.

The goal is not to be cheap or price below what you're willing to accept. The goal is to stay sharp and avoid staleness.

Till next time,

Maklane

Want to chat about real estate, know what your house is worth, or thinking of buying?

Call/text: 519-301-2214

Email: [email protected]

Our Listings:

Sold:

Source: cleaned Stratford listing data, Jan. 2025 to early May 2026, including sold, active, expired, terminated, suspended, and failed-to-close listings. Metrics include the original list price, current/final list price, sold price (where applicable), days on market, property type, and a regression-estimated value model, where noted.