Mexico City new-build flats: is 85 days a real sales timeline?

I

isa.east

First-time buyer
I’m tracking Mexico City new-build flats advertised between MX$15,770,000 and MX$23,650,000. My current sample sits at roughly 85 days on market, with most of the outliers apparently linked to lease length.

The problem is that I’m relying heavily on listings still online. Do recent completed deals support an 85-day selling period, or is the visible stock giving me a distorted picture?
 
The live listings alone cannot answer that. They exclude homes that sold quickly and may include withdrawn, duplicated or simply neglected adverts. I’d separate confirmed completions from withdrawals first, then compare their original listing dates. Also note when each price cut occurred; 85 days at the original price is different from a deal agreed soon after a reduction.
 
A broad neighbourhood sample is easier to maintain, but I don’t think it is reliable enough at MX$15,770,000 to MX$23,650,000. Adjacent parts of Mexico City can behave differently, and one development with a batch of fresh listings could pull the apparent 85-day figure in either direction.

I’d narrow the boundaries and then separate completed, ready-to-occupy flats from units that are unfinished or still under construction. That classification can be revised if better information appears; treating all live adverts as equivalent sales evidence is harder to undo. Completion records and listing histories should show whether the longer cases reflect location, condition, withdrawal or an actual sale timeline.
 
I’m not convinced lease length explains the outliers without knowing the flats’ condition and sale terms. A long-marketed unit might have an awkward layout, unfinished details or a seller unwilling to negotiate. Buyer financing can stretch the period between an accepted offer and a completed sale too, so “time to buyer” and “time to completion” should not be merged.
 
Julia’s boundary point is important. New-listing volume could also move the figure even if buyer demand has not changed: a fresh batch from one development would suddenly make the active sample look younger. I’d group listings by development and first-seen date rather than counting each advert as an independent signal.
 
One addition to my earlier reply: keep withdrawn stock as its own outcome instead of assuming it sold. If an advert disappears, record the disappearance date and leave the result unknown unless there is evidence of a completed deal. Otherwise fast withdrawals will incorrectly pull your apparent selling time down.
 
There is also a seller-motivation problem. Two similar flats can have very different timelines if one seller accepts negotiation and the other is testing the upper end of the range. Track the initial ask, each reduction and the final known price where available. That would show whether 85 days reflects normal exposure or several weeks before sellers become realistic.
 
I’d turn this into three small cohorts: confirmed completed sales, still-active listings and withdrawals/unknowns. Within each, split by neighbourhood, development, condition and lease length. Then note financing delays separately from marketing time. Until those categories are filled, 85 days is a useful description of the visible sample, but not yet a reliable estimate of how long a typical flat takes to find a buyer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top