Omg I’m not arguing that no one ever sells for a loss. And I’m not giving advice like waiting. I’m saying - at this exact junction, interest rates are not favorable to selling so obviously, as the OP has stated, at this point, the owner would be selling at a loss.

And someone said that was the sunk cost fallacy. BUT THAT IS INCORRECT.

THERE IS STILL THE POTENTIAL- THE POTENTIAL, NOT A GUARANTEE - AT SOME FUTURE POINT - for there to be a gain. Which means it is not a sunk cost because a sunk cost would only happen AFTER HE SELLS.

I’m not fucking concerned with whether this man sells or not, I’m simply saying there is no action to which the sunk cost fallacy applies because the purchase of the house was not a sunk cost. You cant change the purchase price of a house but you CAN let your future decisions dictate whether or not you sell for a gain or loss. WHICH MEANS IT ISNT SUNK. SUNK WOULD BE AN UNCHANGEABLE OUTCOME.

and yeah maybe instead I’ll continue to do my job correctly and explain things seven times to someone who doesn’t want to understand.