Los Angeles warehouses around $170,000: are 79 days online misleading?

G

GreenBirch

Homeowner
I’m looking at Los Angeles warehouse listings this month in the $136,000–$204,000 range, centred around $170,000. The active sample suggests roughly 79 days to find a buyer.

Some outliers appear connected to rental regulation, but I’m concerned the listings still online are distorting the picture. Would recent completed sales, withdrawn stock and new-listing volume give a materially different answer?
 
Almost certainly. An active-only sample overrepresents properties that have not sold quickly. Compare it with completed deals and withdrawals from the same period; otherwise 79 days describes the remaining inventory, not necessarily the typical time needed to sell.
 
How are you drawing the Los Angeles boundary, and is 79 days a median or an average? A few very old listings could move an average sharply. Neighbourhood boundaries also matter when the sample is already limited by price.
 
I’d first revisit the rental-regulation explanation. For warehouse listings, is there another use or occupancy element attached to those outliers? If the properties are not genuinely comparable, separating them may be better than treating regulation as the reason for extra time.
 
I wouldn’t discard the active figure. Completed sales look backward and may reflect conditions from when those properties were listed. The active 79-day number can still signal current seller resistance, provided it’s presented as age of available stock rather than time to sale.
 
A cohort approach would help: group properties first listed during the same period, then record whether each completed, remained available or was withdrawn. That avoids mixing a fresh listing with one that has already sat through several price changes.
 
Condition and buyer financing could be doing more work than location here. At this price level, two warehouses with similar asking prices may require very different amounts of work or attract different financing options. Are those details visible in your sample?
 
Also record the date of the first price cut, not merely the latest asking price. A property at $170,000 after a late reduction has had a different market test from one introduced at $170,000.
 
Seller motivation is another missing piece. A stubborn asking price and a seller willing to negotiate can produce very different timelines even when the properties look comparable. Withdrawals may reveal sellers who preferred not to meet the market.
 
The cohort idea is sound, although it won’t answer this month’s question immediately because some outcomes are unresolved. I’d show both measures: current age of active inventory and the eventual outcome of earlier listing cohorts.
 
Agreed. I’d also label property condition explicitly rather than trying to explain every long listing through rental regulation. Even broad categories would expose whether the 79-day result is mostly coming from properties needing work.
 
One complication: withdrawn stock may return as a new listing and appear fresh. If you can identify obvious continuations, preserve the original listing date. Otherwise the apparent new-listing volume rises while accumulated marketing time disappears.
 
A simple table could carry this without overcomplication: neighbourhood, original list date, original and current price, first reduction date, condition, current status and completion date where available. Then calculate active age and completed-sale time separately.
 
I’m not convinced a single result for $136,000–$204,000 is very informative. That range may combine properties appealing to different buyers. Split it into smaller price bands if the number of listings permits, but publish the counts so tiny groups aren’t overinterpreted.
 
Median would be more useful than average here, plus the full spread. Keep neighbourhood definitions fixed across active, completed and withdrawn properties; otherwise a boundary change can look like a market movement.
 
There are now three distinct questions: how old today’s available stock is, how long completed deals took, and how often listings disappear without selling. The original 79 days can answer only the first unless “find a buyer” is based on an actual status change.
 
Be careful with the endpoint as well. Time until a buyer is found is not necessarily the same as time until a completed sale appears. Financing and other transaction steps can widen that gap, so choose one definition and state it plainly.
 
That distinction reinforces why completed records alone won’t reproduce the active figure. I’d avoid claiming the market takes 79 days. Safer wording is that the currently available sample has been listed for roughly 79 days.
 
For withdrawals and relistings, even a manual pass through the oldest and newest entries could expose whether this is a major issue. No need to solve every duplicate before deciding whether the headline is overstated.
 
And if the regulation-related outliers remain after consistent classification, show the result both with and without them. That is more transparent than silently removing them or letting a small unusual group drive the overall number.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top