Does 73 days on market mean more room to negotiate in Santiago?

F

full_story

First-time buyer
Established
The Santiago market looks split rather than uniformly fast or slow. I’m watching detached homes asking roughly CLP 985,100,000 to CLP 1,478,000,000, with about 73 days on market. Properties with a clear answer on service charges seem to move differently.

Are buyers actually negotiating harder, or is this mostly unsuitable stock lingering? Recent completed examples would help, especially where the final price differed from the public asking history.
 
Seventy-three days alone does not prove sellers are accepting lower offers. I would separate the listings by neighbourhood, condition and whether 73 days means since the original advert or the latest relisting. Withdrawn and relisted homes can make the visible period misleading. Price reductions after several quiet weeks would be a stronger sign of changing seller expectations.
 
Which parts of Santiago are included? At that price level, shifting a neighbourhood boundary could change the comparison substantially. Also, are all of these genuinely detached homes, or does the group include homes within developments that have shared charges? That may explain why clarity on service charges affects buyer interest.
 
I’d be cautious about relying on public asking histories as evidence of the completed discount. They show the seller’s advertised path, not necessarily the terms ultimately agreed. A seller might accept less, include different conditions, withdraw the property, or simply change agents. Completed sales are the useful comparison, but they need to match closely on location and condition.
 
A practical way to test this is to follow a fixed group of listings from first appearance to sale, withdrawal or continued availability. Record the initial ask, each reduction, days between reductions, visible condition, stated charges and any relisting. Keep completed, withdrawn and still-active properties in separate groups rather than treating every disappearance as a sale.
 
Negotiation may also be happening outside the headline price. A buyer dependent on financing could seek more time or protective conditions, while a seller might prefer a lower but cleaner offer. So even a reliable final price would not tell the whole story unless you know whether the competing offers had materially different terms.
 
New-listing volume matters too. If few comparable homes are arriving, 73 days may not give buyers much leverage despite the age of individual adverts. If fresh alternatives keep appearing while older stock remains, sellers face more pressure. I’d compare each property with what a buyer could choose at the time of making an offer, not just today’s available stock.
 
Mila’s tracking method is sensible, but a disappeared advert needs an “unknown” category as well. Otherwise withdrawals may accidentally be counted as completed sales. I’d also preserve the original listing date when the same photos, description and property return, while noting the relisting date separately.
 
Agreed—“unknown” is better than assuming a result. I’d use four outcomes: confirmed completed, withdrawn, still active and unknown. That would also expose whether the apparent 73-day figure is being shaped by quick removals or repeated relistings rather than genuine transactions.
 
The timing of cuts may reveal more than the average days on market. A meaningful reduction followed quickly by a disappearance is different from several tiny reductions over months. The first can indicate that price unlocked demand; the second may show a seller testing the market without much urgency. Neither confirms the final figure, but the patterns are worth separating.
 
Neighbourhood definitions should be kept tight as well. I would not pool properties merely because they share a broad Santiago label and price range. Buyers compare access, immediate surroundings, plot, layout and renovation needs. Condition is especially important: two similar asking prices can conceal very different amounts of work after purchase.
 
The service-charge point may be acting as a proxy for uncertainty. Buyers can compare a known recurring amount with their budget; an unclear answer leaves them wondering what else is unresolved. I wouldn’t conclude that lower charges automatically produce a faster sale—clarity, what the charge covers and the home’s overall condition could be the real factors.
 
For someone preparing an offer, I’d assemble three sets of evidence: close completed comparisons where available, current alternatives, and the target seller’s own pricing timeline. Then ask why the property is still available. Poor presentation, condition, financing limitations and an unmotivated seller call for different tactics; 73 days should start the conversation, not determine a discount by itself.
 
One addition: price any visible repair or updating work separately rather than turning “needs work” into an arbitrary percentage reduction. That makes an offer easier to explain and prevents double-counting age, condition and time on market. If the seller has already priced those issues in, an aggressive discount based solely on 73 days may go nowhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top