Austin listings after 91 days: charges or sample mix?

[AveryGray]

I’m sense-checking an Austin sample priced from $424,000 to $636,000, mostly new-build flats. The typical listing has remained visible for 91 days. My working theory is that service charges are separating the quick sales from the stale stock, but the sample may be mixing very different neighbourhoods and seller situations. What would you compare first: recent completed sales, withdrawn listings or the timing of price cuts?

 

[RealHorizon]

Start with completed sales and withdrawals. An active listing’s 91 days tells you little about the price at which buyers are actually proceeding, while withdrawn stock can disappear without becoming a sale. Then compare monthly charges among genuinely similar flats rather than across the whole price bracket.

 

[weighTheInk]

I’m not convinced the charges are the main explanation yet. How tightly have you drawn the neighbourhood boundaries, and are the quick and slow groups comparable in condition? Buyer financing and seller motivation could also create the same pattern. A new-build seller able to wait is not equivalent to an owner who needs to move and cuts early.

 

[cairn.common]

I’d put every listing into a simple table: neighbourhood, new-build or resale, condition, asking price, monthly charge, first visible date, price-cut date and final outcome. Also note fresh listing volume so 91-day stock is not being compared with a sudden wave of new supply. If completed sales cluster around lower charges after those differences are controlled, the theory becomes much stronger.