Eli Beracha, Michael J. Seiler
Cited by*: 0 Downloads*: 0

In this study, we examine whether homebuyers favor homes associated with just below pricing strategies or those with rounded prices (e.g., $199,900 vs. $200,000). The inclination for just below pricing allows sellers that use just below pricing to set a higher asking price without driving away potential buyers. Rounded priced homes, on the other hand, sell significantly faster and at a smaller discount from list price compared with just below priced homes. We find that the just below pricing strategy yields the highest transaction price relative to the true underlying home value. This suggests sellers exploit buyers' preference for just below priced homes with a higher initial listing price that outweighs the lower discount and shorter time on market associated with similar round priced homes, making just below pricing the more effective pricing strategy.
Mark A. Lane, Michael J. Seiler, Vicky L Seiler
Cited by*: 0 Downloads*: 0

This study is the first to examine the widely debated merits of staging a home for sale. We find that both homeowners and real estate agents believe staging conditions (furnishings and wall color) will significantly impact homeowners' willingness to pay for a property. Our results show that homeowners rationally do not significantly differ in their valuations based on staging conditions. However, staging conditions do influence the process, as we find a neutral wall color and good furnishings do significantly influence a buyers' perceived liability and overall opinion of the home. While these are a necessary condition for purchase, staging is not enough to result in a higher selling price.
Michael J. Seiler
Cited by*: 0 Downloads*: 0

Defaulting on a mortgage is widely viewed as being immoral, but no prior study has examined the intervening roles of financial outcome and default intent. We find that the public is significantly more accepting of a defaulting borrower who earns a zero or negative return on his investment than one who earns a positive return. This moral viewpoint changes significantly when the default is strategic in nature. Defaulters are judged significantly less harshly by those who more so blame the lender for the current financial crisis, those who have previously strategically defaulted, and males. When asked to suggest a "morally appropriate" settlement offer to lenders to resolve the distressed debt, beyond the financial outcome and default intent remaining significant, we further find that those who more so blame the lender, those view their home as more of an investment rather than a consumption good, those who have previously strategically defaulted, those with lower income levels, and minorities suggest significantly lower settlement offers.
Michael J. Seiler
Cited by*: 2 Downloads*: 0

This study identifies a severe gap between the financial backlash borrowers believe awaits them after strategic mortgage default and the reality that lenders rarely pursue deficiency judgments. This coupled with the social norm finding that borrowers widely view strategic default as immoral, leads us to recommend lenders and policymakers seeking to stem the tide of defaults to pursue a policy of informational opacity. We make several recommendations for how to carry out such a policy as well as what might need to change in society before the alternative policy of informational transparency becomes ideal.
Michael J. Seiler, Eric Walden
Cited by*: 0 Downloads*: 1

Great debate is being waged between whether strategic mortgage defaulters follow a herd for social reasons or mimic others' behavior for informational gain. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), the latest neurological technology allowing for observation of brain activity during strategic mortgage default decision-making, we find that when defaulters learn of peer default behavior, they acknowledge the social component of the decision, but feel freer to make their own decisions. Alternatively, when observing the behavior of a maven (real estate expert), borrowers still consider the social aspect of the decision (although to a lesser extent), but ultimately follow the maven who presumably possesses a greater information set. Alarmingly, borrowers only significantly follow the herd when mavens advocate strategic default, not when they recommend against it.