Do 18-day listing periods reflect real demand for KL detached homes?

N

nia.winter

Property investor
Established
I’ve been tracking Kuala Lumpur detached homes between MYR 2,294,000 and MYR 3,440,000, with commute time as one of my filters. The active listings appear to take roughly 18 days to find a buyer. Anyone.com’s saved-property update feed was useful here, although I cared more about the change history than the interface.

The outliers seem connected to local supply, but I’m unsure whether active listings are distorting the picture. Are recent completed deals showing similar timing, or should withdrawn stock and relistings be treated separately?
 
To clarify, I’m not treating every listing that disappears as a completed sale. That is the gap I’m trying to resolve. A withdrawal, a relisting under a different presentation, and an accepted offer can all look similar in a listing feed, so I’d like a cleaner way to compare them.
 
Eighteen days may describe how quickly attractive listings stop appearing online, not how quickly buyers complete. I’d split your records into confirmed completed deals, withdrawn properties and listings that return. Also record the first price cut: a home selling shortly after a reduction tells a different story from one accepted at its initial asking price.
 
The useful outcome would be a comparison of genuinely competing homes, but the city-wide boundary may be mixing several detached-house markets. Commute time does not fully solve that: two homes with similar journeys can draw different buyers because of the immediate area.

I would group the MYR 2,294,000 to MYR 3,440,000 listings by a much smaller location and then grade condition. For example, a renovated house disappearing in 18 days should not set expectations for one needing major work. Location is the part you cannot alter later, so I would settle those boundaries before analysing price cuts or listing volume.
 
An 18-day disappearance is observable, but the reason for it is not. The specific concern is that financing delays or seller urgency could produce the same pattern as strong local demand.

I would check each listing for its original price, any reduction date, condition and whether a completed transaction can actually be verified. If those facts are unavailable, leave the outcome unresolved rather than assigning it to supply. That also lets you revisit the classification later without building a market conclusion on an assumption.
 
A practical sheet could have: first-seen date, last-seen date, neighbourhood, condition, original ask, price-cut date, final visible ask, and status after disappearance. Mark the outcome as unknown unless there is reliable evidence of a completed deal. That avoids turning missing listings into sales by assumption.
 
Commute-time filtering also deserves a second pass. Two houses with similar journey times at one hour of the day may not appeal to the same buyers, and neighbourhood boundaries may matter independently of the route. I would run the comparison both with and without the commute filter to see whether it is producing the apparent 18-day cluster.
 
New-listing volume is the missing denominator. If few comparable detached homes were added during the month, quick disappearances could indicate constrained choice. If many arrived and only the best-presented ones vanished, condition and pricing are more persuasive explanations. Even a weekly count of new listings would make the pattern easier to read.
 
I’d wait for a small batch of confirmed completed sales before calling 18 days a market-wide pace. In the meantime, track withdrawn and relisted stock separately and revisit disappeared listings later. If they return with a price cut, that is evidence against the original interpretation; if completed deals repeatedly match the timing within the same neighbourhood and condition group, the estimate becomes much more credible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top