Milan studios: is the -0.6% movement hiding a condition problem?

[vale.sunny]

The 119-day median surprised me more than the reported 0.6% decline, and it changed how I view this sample. The Milan studios are advertised from roughly €993,600 to €1,490,000, but their condition and sale status vary enough that the overall movement may be misleading. Refurbished units appear to attract attention sooner, while some weaker listings are reduced, remain unsold or disappear from the market.

I also cannot tell whether rental restrictions are producing lower offers or causing investment buyers to avoid particular units altogether. To test that, I think I need recent completed sales in tightly defined areas, separated by condition, occupancy and income basis, plus a record of withdrawn listings. I also need to verify whether the 0.6% figure measures changes to asking prices or actual transaction prices. Without that distinction, it may say more about the stock mix than buyer negotiating power.

 

[FriendlyJournal]

First separate vacant units from anything already occupied or being sold on an income basis. Buyers may not negotiate over “regulation” in the abstract; they negotiate over the resulting rent, flexibility and uncertainty. If your sample mixes owner-occupier stock with investment stock, the median time could conceal two quite different markets.

 

[emery.nash]

The neighbourhood boundaries may be doing as much damage as the occupancy mix. At those prices, two studios a short distance apart can appeal to different buyers. I’d compare recent completed sales within very tight areas rather than treating Milan as one pool. Also, is the -0.6% based on asking-price changes or completed prices?

 

[AdaChase]

I would be cautious with 119 days unless withdrawn listings are included. A property can disappear without selling, then return later with a new presentation or price. That makes active-listing marketing times look cleaner than the real history. Tracking withdrawals and relistings may explain why the visibly reduced properties appear to sit so long.

 

[coffeeAndGrain]

I don’t think regulation should automatically be the leading explanation. Your own observation about renovation is stronger. Buyers can estimate a visible discount, but poor condition creates uncertainty over cost, timing and what will be uncovered. That often encourages them to move on rather than negotiate, especially if fresh renovated listings are still appearing.

 

[AdaChase]

The timing of reductions would help distinguish those explanations. A cut after a short test at an ambitious price is different from one made after months without serious interest. Record the initial ask, first reduction date, later reductions and final outcome. Then compare occupied and vacant properties separately, if that information is available.

 

[sailsAndDoor]

Buyer financing could also skew this small sample. A renovated unit may present a simpler total budget, while an unrenovated one requires both the purchase funds and a separate works allowance. Even without changing the headline valuation, that can reduce the number of buyers able or willing to proceed. Cash and financed interest should not be assumed to behave alike.

 

[FriendlyJournal]

Agreed, and “rental regulation” needs to be defined listing by listing. Is the concern an existing tenancy, the rent currently achievable, or restrictions a buyer believes will affect a future letting? Those are not interchangeable. Before attributing negotiations to regulation, I’d ask agents what objection was actually raised and verify the property’s occupancy and paperwork locally.

 

[AdaChase]

A useful next pass would have four groups: renovated/vacant, renovated/occupied, unrenovated/vacant and unrenovated/occupied. For each, note new-listing volume, withdrawals, first price-cut timing and any completed sale evidence. The sample may become very small, but that is preferable to a precise-looking median built from unlike properties.

 

[sketchesAndHarbor]

Seller motivation is the missing human variable. Two similar stale listings can behave differently if one seller needs to complete and the other is content to wait. I’d treat the -0.6% as a description of this sample, not yet a Milan signal. The strongest practical evidence will be which sellers accept offers after the first cut, not merely which listings reduce.