Purpose This study aims to examine how buyer income and prior market experience shape relative negotiation advantage in an opaque housing market, and whether these advantages persist or shift when pricing signals become ambiguous. Design/methodology/approach Using 430 completed home purchases in Ho Chi Minh City collected through direct post-closing buyer interviews, the authors estimate a hedonic benchmark of market-implied value and construct PriceGap – the logarithmic deviation between predicted value and the final transaction price – as a proxy for relative negotiation advantage (not bargaining surplus). Ambiguous listings are identified via a Flagged indicator based on asking-price thresholds relative to predicted value, with 0.95 selected by AIC/BIC as the baseline operational definition; robustness to alternative thresholds is assessed in sensitivity checks. Findings Experience is the stronger correlate of relative negotiation advantage when pricing signals are more interpretable, operating primarily as a comparative premium over first-time buyers. Under suspicious pricing, income-based advantages intensify while experience-based gains do not amplify. Ambiguity does not compress heterogeneity; it reallocates advantage toward buyers with greater liquidity. Research limitations/implications This study focuses on buyer-side outcomes and cannot observe seller reservation values, urgency or within-transaction concession sequences, so “negotiation advantage” is inferred relative to a hedonic benchmark rather than true surplus. Unobserved buyer traits (e.g. networks, risk tolerance, due-diligence capacity) may still contribute. Future research could incorporate seller-side data, institutional disclosure reforms or richer verification measures to test whether improved verifiability dampens liquidity-driven advantages under ambiguity. Practical implications Improving disclosure standards, strengthening valuation transparency and reducing verification costs can limit ambiguity-driven inequalities in transaction outcomes and protect vulnerable parties when list-price credibility weakens. Social implications In opaque markets, ambiguous price signals can widen outcome disparities by disproportionately benefiting financially stronger buyers. Equity in housing access depends not only on credit expansion but also on informational infrastructure – verifiable records, clearer disclosure norms and more consistent pricing information – so outcomes are less sensitive to liquidity differences when signals become suspicious. Originality/value This study provides rare micro-level evidence from a transitional housing market showing that ambiguous price signals do not erase heterogeneity; they systematically restructure relative negotiation advantage by increasing the salience of liquidity while limiting the scalability of experience-based advantages.
Truong et al. (Mon,) studied this question.