Lisbon inventory shifted in September 2024 — what are you seeing?

F

fair_bridge

First-time buyer
Established
The detail that surprised me in my September 2024 Lisbon notes is the split by condition. Well-presented duplexes appear to leave the market in about 47 days, while properties requiring work remain visible for longer. At the same time, I am seeing an apparent 8.5% difference between asking figures and completed prices.

I do not yet know whether that reflects seasonality, selective buyers or simply mismatched samples. Has anyone compared transaction volume and sample size across the same property type and part of Lisbon? Revision histories would also help: a final asking price after several reductions is not the same starting point as the original listing price. Please say whether your observations come from listings or completed deals.
 
My direct answer is that one September snapshot cannot distinguish selectivity from seasonality. The condition split is suggestive, but the 8.5% gap means little unless the asking and completed figures cover comparable properties and time periods.
 
How were the 47 days measured: first appearance to removal, first appearance to an agreed deal, or completion? Also, is 8.5% the difference for matched properties or between separate groups of listings and sales?
 
That matching issue is crucial. Comparing the average asking price of today’s inventory with the average price of recently completed deals can produce a gap simply because the two groups contain different property types, sizes or conditions.
 
The condition split may be real, but it does not necessarily show a broad change in buyer behaviour. A home needing substantial work can remain unsold because the owner has not adjusted the price enough to reflect that work.

I would separate those properties from the well-presented duplexes, then compare their reduction histories and any matched completed sales. If the same pattern remains within each condition group, the selectivity argument becomes stronger; otherwise, seller pricing is the narrower explanation.
 
Transaction volume is the missing piece for me. A small number of completed deals could move the apparent discount sharply, especially if well-presented duplexes are already a narrow subset.
 
Listing history matters too. If a property is withdrawn and relisted, its apparent time on market may restart. Duplicate advertisements can also make inventory look larger unless individual homes are identified consistently.
 
The September 2024 date needs careful handling. Completed deals recorded in September may reflect negotiations begun earlier, while September listings represent current seller expectations. That timing mismatch alone could widen the visible difference.
 
How is “needing work” being classified? A consistent condition category would help. Otherwise, one observer’s dated but usable home may be another observer’s renovation project, weakening the comparison with presented duplexes.
 
Policy timing could complicate the month as well. If any relevant announcement or change occurred around the observation period, the weeks before and after should be separated rather than treating September as one uniform market. I would not assume an effect without that split.
 
Citywide aggregation may be hiding the real pattern. I’d divide Lisbon into smaller areas first, then compare similar properties within each. A shift in which areas supplied the completed deals could create the 8.5% gap without prices moving locally.
 
A practical test would be three cohorts: matched listing-to-completion records, still-active September listings, and withdrawn listings. The matched cohort addresses negotiation; the other two show what failed to sell. Mixing all three answers no single question.
 
Was the data captured once in September or downloaded later? Figures can be revised, and listing descriptions or prices can change. Keeping dated snapshots would show whether the result came from the market or from later revisions.
 
Also separate new inventory from old inventory carried into September. Total availability can rise because stale homes accumulate even when new supply is unchanged. That would fit the observation about properties needing work without proving a broad market turn.
 
Withdrawals deserve more attention here. A removed advertisement is not automatically a completed deal, so treating every disappearance as a sale could make the 47-day figure look faster than it is.
 
I share the sample-size concern. Duplexes are already more specific than property overall, and the well-presented subset is narrower again. Please give the number behind 47 days before anyone treats it as typical for Lisbon.
 
These questions expose the weakness in my comparison. The 47 days refers only to the well-presented duplex subset, while the roughly 8.5% figure comes from visible asking prices compared with a separate group of completed deals, not matched properties. I don’t yet have a reliable transaction count or consistent treatment of relistings, so I’ll stop calling it a market-wide shift.
 
That clarification changes the interpretation substantially. The 8.5% is currently a difference between two baskets, not evidence of an average negotiated discount. It may still reveal a mix change, but matched records are needed to say anything about bargaining.
 
For the next pass, record first listing date, each asking-price change, condition, property type, smaller area, withdrawal date and completion date where available. Keep unknowns blank rather than inferring them. That should expose relistings and timing mismatches.
 
To test seasonality, compare September 2024 with the same period in more than one earlier year using the same method. Comparing only August with September risks confusing a normal monthly pattern with a turning point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top