Policy timing could matter, but only if a specific announcement or effective date overlaps the decisions being measured. I would not use a general policy narrative to explain this sample after the fact.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Edinburgh inventory shifted in October 2025 — what are you seeing?
- Thread starter timo_taxes
- Start date
Agreed. First establish that October differs from adjacent periods using the same method. Only then look for financing, policy or seasonal explanations.
A simple sequence works: first advertised price, each reduction, agreed stage, final completed price. Missing stages should stay marked missing rather than being inferred.
leo.winter
First-time buyer
Could the 57 days be an average rather than a median? A few long-running listings would affect the average much more, so the calculation itself matters.
The opening says “roughly,” which makes me reluctant to overanalyse small movements. Publishing the count and the chosen summary measure would be more informative than another decimal place.
And “needing work” may be standing in for unrealistic pricing. Condition and initial price positioning should be examined together rather than assuming buyers simply reject renovation.
That suggests comparing time to the first reduction. If dated properties reduce late, their longer marketing period may reflect seller expectations rather than weak underlying demand.
Conversely, a quick reduction could produce a fast agreement while hiding an overambitious original ask. This is why final ask and original ask both belong in the table.
I would not combine completed-sale gaps with properties merely under offer. Outcomes can change before completion, and the datasets represent different stages.
So far the defensible conclusion is narrow: the observed October 2025 sample shows faster movement for well-presented serviced apartments, but it cannot yet identify the cause.
The next useful contribution would be a small batch of consistently recorded completed deals, not more impressions about whether the whole city feels busy or quiet.
One complication: completed transactions collected later can revise the October picture. The analysis should state when it was assembled and preserve earlier versions rather than silently replacing them.
Yes. A later, fuller release may change the sample without indicating that the market itself changed. Data maturity and market movement are separate things.
Would you group by month of listing, month of agreement, or month of completion? I favour showing all three because each answers a different question.
Month of listing is best for inventory exposure, agreement for buyer response, and completion for achieved price. Calling all three “October sales” would invite confusion.
That framework also exposes seasonal noise. A property listed before October but completed during it should not be evidence about October’s newly listed inventory.
Likewise, a property listed in October and still available cannot yet contribute a completed price. Any early analysis will naturally favour faster transactions.
That is right-censoring in plain terms: slower listings have not had time to finish. The 57-day cohort must be observed long enough for comparable outcomes.