We'd push back on the framing, because a seller can ask any number they want. A price only exists once a buyer agrees to pay it. A home's value is whatever a willing buyer and a willing seller agree to in an open market where both sides have full information. A seller can list high, but they can't force a price nobody will pay. If a beat-up house genuinely sells for a big figure, a buyer chose to pay it. Competition is the clearest proof. The Wall Street Journal ran a story about a run-down teardown in San Jose that sold for around $750,000 after drawing 14 offers. When more than a dozen buyers line up and bid a price above asking, the market itself is setting the value, driven by scarcity and location. The land, the school district, and the sheer lack of anything else available are what buyers compete for, and the tired condition of the structure barely matters when demand runs that fierce. The flip side proves the same point. A home that really is overpriced relative to what buyers will pay doesn't magically fetch that number. It sits, goes stale, and eventually sells for less. Markets correct greedy pricing on their own. So a shocking price on a modest house usually says more about how little supply exists in that area than about a seller's attitude. If the number feels absurd, the honest culprit is almost always scarcity.