Price Counselling CMA
Use: Sebastiaan sits with owners whose property is NOT converting and counsels them on revising the asking price DOWN. The report's job: show the owners from evidence that price — not exposure — is the blocker, and leave the meeting with a number and a plan.
Inputs (Sebastiaan typically attaches)
- Lightstone Property Report for the unit.
- Lightstone Sectional Scheme Report (+ Owners-in-Scheme) when the property is in a scheme/complex.
- Sebastiaan's own listing-performance report (days on market, portal views, leads, offers, promotions — this often already carries his recommended price).
- The portal listing (P24 and/or Private Property).
Evidence chain (strongest first)
-
Registered transfers INSIDE the same sectional scheme (Lightstone scheme report) — unit-by-unit table (unit, size m², reg date, sales price, R/m²). Highlight the owners' own purchase row (yellow band). State scheme median/highest/lowest and recent-N average. Same-complex sales beat suburb comparables every time.
-
Suburb sectional-title comparables — from the Lightstone comparable schedule. Transcribe verbatim including the report's own R/m² column. Note set-average price + average R/m².
-
Marketing-performance reality table — days on market, portal views, leads, offers received = none, promotions running (Featured/boost dates, costs). Frame: "the price, not the exposure, is the blocker."
-
Positioning table — quantify the asking against EVERY benchmark:
- Price per m² (asking ÷ unit size) vs suburb avg R/m²
- Price per m² vs complex record R/m²
- Price per m² vs scheme median transfer
- Subject vs highest scheme sale
- Subject vs municipal valuation
- Subject vs owner's own purchase price
- Each as a percentage over.
This is the heart of the case (worked example: R3.2m ÷ 240 m² = R13,333/m² → +27% vs suburb avg R10,524/m², +14% vs complex record R11,646/m², +36% vs scheme median, +49% vs municipal R2.15m).
- "What the same money buys today" — current portal context. Above the proposed price band, what competition exists (often full-title HOUSES, not units). Capture honestly from the unfiltered P24 suburb page.
Content template
- H1 + price block: address; CURRENT ASKING PRICE and the RECOMMENDED REVISED ASKING PRICE side by side.
- Property overview table: Lightstone subject facts — owners, purchase price + date, municipal valuation, levies/rates, unit size.
- Same-scheme transfers: unit-by-unit table with R/m² column, owners' row highlighted.
- Suburb sectional comparables: verbatim Lightstone schedule.
- Marketing reality: DOM, views, leads, offers, promotions.
- Positioning table: the heart of the case — every benchmark quantified.
- "What the same money buys today": portal context with honest capture.
- Recommendation block — navy full-width box:
- Yellow label "RECOMMENDED REVISED ASKING PRICE"
- Big white price
- Amount in words + % reduction
- "still above every registered sale in the complex" (so it doesn't read as a fire sale)
- Why bullets: 3-4 points from the evidence
- Realistic sales band: with the market-movement assumption stated (±2–4% since last registrations)
- Fallback trigger: "if no offer within 2 weeks we step down to R…"
- Numbered next steps: relaunch price on both portals, refresh copy/photos, keep boosts running, follow up every lead, review date.
- Consistency rule: the counselling recommendation MUST match Sebastiaan's own listing-performance recommendation. If data suggests something materially different, flag it to Sebastiaan separately before printing.
- Disclaimer + prepared-by panel (navy). No Signature/Date lines.
Worked example
Unit 21, SS Cliffendale Villas, 464 Wisteria Avenue, Faerie Glen (Louis & Christelle Weitz):
- Listed R3,200,000 | 27 days | ±1,504 views | 7 leads | 0 offers
- Recommended: R3,000,000 (6.25% reduction)
- Key evidence: +27% vs suburb avg R/m², +14% vs complex record R/m², +36% vs scheme median, +49% vs MV
- PDF: /opt/data/workspace/Price-Counselling-21-Cliffendale-Villas-Faerie-Glen.pdf