Do 11-day listings really show a faster Rio market this month?

B

blueprint.solid

Real estate agent
Established
Verified Pro
I’m trying to work out whether Rio de Janeiro changed meaningfully this month or whether my sample is misleading me. Apartments advertised between R$4,973,000 and R$7,459,000 appear to need roughly 11 days to find a buyer, with most outliers seemingly tied to local supply.

Has anyone compared that with recently completed deals? There are more new listings, but not many I would actually buy. I’m concerned that listings still online are getting too much weight while withdrawn or quietly agreed stock is disappearing from the picture.
 
Eleven days may describe how quickly an advert disappears, not how quickly a sale completes—or even whether a buyer was found. Withdrawals, duplicate adverts and relistings can all shorten or reset the visible period. I’d separate completed sales, withdrawn properties and listings still active before drawing a conclusion.
 
What event are you using to stop the clock: removal from the portal, a status change, or confirmation from the seller’s agent? Also, how tightly have you drawn the neighbourhood boundaries? At this price level, combining nearby areas with different supply and property condition could make an 11-day average look more meaningful than it is.
 
I wouldn’t dismiss the active-listing measure entirely. If Fatima used exactly the same collection method in earlier months, a change in disappearance time can still be a useful signal even when the reason for removal is unknown.

The bigger problem may be quality. More listings plus very few attractive ones could mean renovated or well-positioned apartments move quickly while compromised stock accumulates.
 
A small cohort table would help: initial asking price, first observed date, date of first price cut, date removed, condition, broad location, and whether the removal reason was confirmed. Keep relisted properties attached to their original appearance rather than treating them as fresh stock. Then compare the 11-day group with listings that survived the month.
 
Buyer financing could also distort the interpretation. An accepted offer is not necessarily a completed deal, and different buyer circumstances may create very different timelines after agreement. Unless you know what “found a buyer” means for each listing, I’d call 11 days an advertising-exposure figure rather than a transaction figure.
 
Seller motivation may explain more than total supply. A realistically priced apartment from a motivated seller can vanish quickly, while another owner may test a high figure and withdraw rather than cut. I’d look closely at when reductions occurred: before removal, after a relisting, or not at all. Those paths should not be grouped together.
 
Oscar’s distinction is fair, although completed-sale timing may be less useful for answering what changed this month because completion can reflect decisions made earlier. For a current-market signal, newly listed properties and early price cuts are more timely. I’d use completed deals to validate the direction, not as the only measure.
 
Agreed—that is a better way to frame it. I wasn’t suggesting waiting for completed deals alone. A useful split would be marketing time, time to an accepted offer where confirmed, and final completion time. Even if only the first is consistently available, labelling it accurately prevents a fast removal from being mistaken for a fast sale.
 
For the next update, keep this month’s listings as a fixed cohort rather than repeatedly sampling whatever remains online. Record additions, removals, confirmed deals, withdrawals and price cuts through the same end date. Then divide by neighbourhood and condition only where the groups remain large enough to compare. That should reveal whether 11 days reflects genuine demand or simply which adverts disappeared.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top