Are 70-day coastal listings distorting the São Paulo picture?

[noor_compares]

I’m tracking coastal homes in São Paulo advertised between R$2,509,000 and R$3,763,000. My current sample is taking roughly 70 days to find a buyer, with most outliers apparently linked to lease length.

I’m trying to decide whether that reflects the market or simply the listings that remain visible. Are recent completed deals showing a similar timeline? Asking-price data is easy to find, but completed numbers are another story. I’m also unsure how to treat withdrawn and later relisted stock.

 

[blueprint.solid]

The live listings probably exaggerate the timeline because the quicker sales disappear from your sample. Withdrawals create the opposite problem if they vanish without being counted as unsuccessful listings. I wouldn’t treat 70 days as a market-wide figure until you can match at least some completed sales and preserve the original listing date when a home is relisted.

 

[OrlaIves]

What boundaries are you using for “São Paulo” and “coastal”? That price band can still contain very different neighbourhoods, property conditions and buyer pools. I’d also separate occupied homes by the remaining lease term rather than just calling lease length an outlier. A vacant, renovated property and one needing work or carrying a lease are not really comparable, even at the same asking price.

 

[HiddenQuill]

I’d build a weekly record rather than rely on whatever is online today: first-seen date, neighbourhood, condition, occupancy, initial ask, price-cut date, withdrawal, relisting and eventual disappearance. Flag whether buyer financing could have extended the process, while keeping that separate from marketing time.

Even completed deals may not settle the issue if the seller accepted a lower price after a late cut. Compare like with like and note the cut timing; seller motivation is harder to observe, so avoid treating every disappearance as a sale.