I’m tracking Porto coastal property advertised between €253,900 and €380,900. The listings still visible suggest roughly 41 days to find a buyer, with much of the variation apparently linked to local supply. Is that a fair reading of this month, or is the sample distorted because quick sales and withdrawn listings disappear? I’d especially like to compare recent completed deals, price-cut timing and financing-related delays.
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.
Porto coastal listings averaging 41 days — real slowdown or survivor bias?
- Thread starter ZaneSage
- Start date
route.awake
Real estate agent
The active listings will almost certainly give you an incomplete picture. They retain the slow stock while properties that found buyers quickly leave the sample. I’d follow each new listing from its first appearance and record whether it sells, is withdrawn, gets relisted or remains available. Then compare like-for-like groups rather than treating everything no longer online as a completed deal.
What counts as “coastal Porto” in your sample? A small change in neighbourhood boundaries could alter both supply and buyer profile. I’d also separate renovated, move-in-ready homes from properties needing work. At the same asking price, condition may explain more of the 41-day figure than a citywide change this month.
I’m not convinced completed deals alone will settle it. They reflect decisions made earlier, while your active sample describes today’s competition. New-listing volume is the missing piece: 41 days alongside a sudden increase in comparable stock means something different from 41 days in a thin market. Withdrawals also need their own category, not an assumption that they sold.
Agreed on separating the time periods, but the completed deals can still act as a reality check if Noor groups them by when they were first marketed. I’d use tight neighbourhood boundaries, the same price band and broad condition categories. Also note the first price reduction: a buyer found after 41 days at the original price is not the same signal as one found just after a substantial cut.
A simple cohort table would help: first-seen date, neighbourhood, condition, asking price, price-cut date, last-seen date and outcome if known. Add the number of comparable new listings that appeared during each property’s marketing period. That should expose whether a few stale or repeatedly relisted homes are pulling the average upward.
One more caveat: “time to find a buyer” and time until a deal is completed are different measures, especially where buyer financing is involved. Keep marketing time separate from any later completion delay. Seller motivation matters too—an ambitious seller waiting 41 days without cutting is not directly comparable with one pricing for a quick agreement.