Use 66-day listings or wait for Bogotá completed sales?

F

field.full

Buyer
Established
I can either treat 66 visible days as evidence that these Bogotá listings are moving slowly, or wait for completed-sale information that may be difficult to obtain. Neither option feels reliable on its own because withdrawn and relisted properties could make the first measure misleading.

The sample covers asking prices from COP 1,919,000,000 to COP 2,878,000,000 and consists mostly of listings described as studios. I first suspected lease length was separating faster stock from stale stock, but occupancy details are inconsistent. Would it be more useful to compare apparently vacant and occupied units first, then record price-cut timing, financing issues and neighbourhood-level results?
 
A listing disappearing is not necessarily a completed sale, so I would not divide these into quick sales and stale stock yet. Some may have been withdrawn, relisted or simply allowed to expire. Also, are the studios vacant, owner-occupied or sold with a lease? Lease length can matter for an occupied unit, but it cannot explain the whole sample without that distinction.
 
That is the weakness in my notes: I can see whether a listing remains visible, but not reliably separate completed sales from withdrawals. I’ll stop treating disappearance as a sale. The lease details are also inconsistent, so perhaps the first useful comparison is vacant versus apparently occupied, followed by whether either group receives earlier price cuts.
 
I would verify the property classification too. “Mostly studios” across that price bracket may include materially different offerings presented under the same broad label. Neighbourhood boundaries, condition, floor area and any included ancillary space could overwhelm lease length. Even two listings described as being in the same area may appeal to different buyers if one sits near the edge of that area.
 
I’m less convinced that leases are the leading explanation. Seller motivation and buyer financing can create the same pattern: a realistic seller accepts the market early, while another holds the original ask for weeks and cuts only after interest fades. Track the first reduction against days visible. If the older listings have not changed price, that tells a different story from repeated cuts without a transaction.
 
Fair, although occupancy could still change the buyer pool even when the asking price is sensible. I’d separate three questions rather than choose one explanation: who can use the property immediately, whether financing affects the likely buyer, and whether the seller has shown flexibility. The original 66-day figure is much more informative once those cases are not blended together.
 
A weekly sheet would help: listing identifier, stated neighbourhood, asking price, apparent occupancy, condition, first-seen date, each price change, disappearance and any return under a new listing. Mark the final outcome as unknown unless a completed sale can actually be established. Also record new-listing volume; 66 days means something different in a steady market than in one where comparable stock keeps arriving.
 
One more caution: don’t let a citywide midpoint become the street-level conclusion. Build small groups only where the listings are genuinely comparable, then look for repeated patterns. If a listing vanishes and returns, retain its original first-seen date rather than resetting the clock. That should expose whether the apparent quick turnover is really relisting activity while preserving lease length as one possible factor rather than the assumed cause.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top