I have been tracking Singapore condo listings around S$308,200, within a wider S$246,600–S$369,800 sample. Roughly 15 days seems typical before a listing disappears or changes status, but the individual listings are behaving very differently. Vacancy appears connected to several outliers. Should I treat this as time to find a buyer, or are active and withdrawn listings distorting the picture compared with recent completed sales?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Do 15 days online really indicate a buyer at around S$308,200?
- Thread starter simple_river
- Start date
Fifteen days online is not automatically fifteen days to a buyer. A disappearance could be a completed deal, a withdrawal, or a relisting, while active listings have not reached an outcome yet. I would compare recent completed sales separately and avoid assigning every removed listing to the sold column.
If the area boundary is too broad, the 15-day figure could lead you to price or negotiate against the wrong competition. Split the records into genuinely comparable pockets before drawing an average, even if that leaves a smaller sample.
Condition needs its own filter as well. A vacant unit that can be viewed immediately is not equivalent to an occupied one requiring work, despite similar asking prices. I would tag neighbourhood, condition and viewing availability separately, then see whether the apparent outliers remain.
Condition needs its own filter as well. A vacant unit that can be viewed immediately is not equivalent to an occupied one requiring work, despite similar asking prices. I would tag neighbourhood, condition and viewing availability separately, then see whether the apparent outliers remain.
balanced_cairn
Buyer
I am not convinced vacancy is the main explanation. It may make viewing easier, but seller motivation and price-cut timing could matter more. One vacant seller may hold firm indefinitely; another may reduce quickly. If the outliers received early reductions, that is a different pattern from simply being vacant.
The missing piece is new-listing volume. If many comparable properties entered the market during your 15-day window, older listings could look slow because buyers suddenly had more choice. Do your saved records include the date each property first appeared, later price changes, and whether it vanished rather than being marked as completed?
I would keep a weekly table with four movements: new listings, still active, visibly price-cut, and removed. Treat removed as unknown unless you can connect it to a completed sale. Then compare only close matches by neighbourhood and condition. That will not prove why a buyer chose one, but it should stop withdrawals and relistings from making the 15-day figure look cleaner than it is.
Completed sales can help, but they may describe decisions made earlier than the listings currently online. Buyer financing can also separate apparently similar properties: an agreed price does not mean every interested buyer could proceed on the same timeline. I would use completed deals as a comparison group, not as a direct replacement for the live-listing sample.
To build on my earlier question, I would first split the S$246,600–S$369,800 range into neighbourhood groups, then note condition, vacancy, first-seen date and first price cut. After that, revisit the S$308,200 area of the sample. If the 15-day pattern survives those splits, it is more persuasive; if not, the overall figure is probably blending several small markets and seller strategies.