Seoul duplex pricing: condition or rental regulation?

[knitsAndAtlas]

I’m tracking Seoul duplexes listed between ₩1,474,000,000 and ₩2,211,000,000. The broad movement figure I have is +3.1%, while listings are taking about 36 days. Renovated properties seem to move quickly; those needing work tend to sit and receive cuts.

I’m trying to decide whether rental regulation explains the negotiated-price spread better than headline demand, or whether I’m over-weighting it. Recent completed sales would be more useful than asking prices. Does this pattern hold up, and can replies specify the Seoul neighbourhood boundary and property type they are comparing?

 

[pine.open]

I wouldn’t use 36 days alone to support the regulation theory. Withdrawn listings can make the visible market look healthier, while relisted properties can obscure their true time for sale. Compare completed sales with the original condition, first asking price and date of the first cut. Also, what period and property set does the +3.1% cover?

 

[theo_cedar]

The neighbourhood boundary is the missing piece for me. Even within Seoul, combining different micro-markets could create an apparent condition discount that is partly location. I’d separate the duplexes into tightly defined areas, then compare renovated and unrenovated completed sales within each area. New-listing volume matters too: quick renovated sales mean less if very few suitable units are coming up.

 

[bikesAndEcho]

I’m less convinced rental regulation is the main driver. Condition affects both the buyer’s expected costs and the uncertainty around those costs, so two apparently similar duplexes may not be close substitutes. Seller motivation could also explain why one owner cuts early while another waits.

 

[bikesAndEcho]

Following that thought, price-cut timing may be more revealing than the average 36 days. A cut in the first couple of weeks suggests a different situation from a reduction after a long unsuccessful campaign. I’d also keep active, withdrawn and completed listings in separate columns rather than treating all disappearing stock as sold.

 

[alba_stone]

Buyer financing could widen the gap as well. A renovated property may present a simpler total budget, whereas a cheaper property needing work requires the buyer to retain funds beyond the purchase price. That doesn’t rule out regulation, but it means the negotiated discount cannot automatically be assigned to one cause. The comparison should use total expected outlay, not only sale price.

 

[knitsAndAtlas]

That helps. I was treating the 36-day figure and +3.1% movement as stronger signals than they probably are without a precise period, neighbourhood boundary and treatment of withdrawn or relisted stock. I’ll rebuild the comparison around completed duplex sales, record condition, first list date, cut timing and seller behaviour, and keep active and withdrawn listings separate. Then I can test whether the regulation explanation survives after condition, location and financing are accounted for.