Madrid duplexes: is energy performance behind the 108-day divide?

G

grain.brisk

Seller
Established
The practical limitation is that I do not yet have enough closely matched completed sales. The Madrid properties I am following are mainly duplexes advertised between €912,600 and €1,369,000, and the typical advert has remained visible for 108 days.

I wondered whether poorer energy performance was contributing to the slower listings, but renovation condition, layout, financing and seller flexibility could all produce the same pattern. It may also be misleading if withdrawn adverts later return with a fresh date.

Would you first narrow the comparison by street and condition, then track reductions and reappearances? Or are recent completed sales still the best first filter even when the matches are imperfect?
 
I wouldn’t put energy performance first without matching the properties more tightly. Two duplexes in the same price bracket can differ sharply in condition, layout, outdoor space and building characteristics. Compare listings within a very small area and similar condition; otherwise the energy measure may just be standing in for renovation needs.
 
How are you treating listings that disappear and then return? A visible period of 108 days can understate total marketing time if the advert was withdrawn or refreshed. I’d keep separate dates for first seen, each price reduction, disappearance and reappearance. That would also show whether stale stock is actually selling or merely being recycled.
 
Energy could still matter even if it isn’t the main cause. A buyer may look at weak performance alongside the wider cost and disruption of updating the property. But I agree with Luca that asking prices alone won’t establish it. Split the sample into comparable condition bands, then see whether the quicker group still differs on energy performance.
 
Neighbourhood boundaries may be distorting this more than expected. Madrid-wide, or even district-wide, comparisons can place quite different streets and buildings in one bucket. I’d map each listing rather than relying only on the neighbourhood label. Also separate true duplex layouts from properties marketed loosely as duplexes; the buyer pools may not be identical.
 
That’s useful. My 108-day figure is based on how long the sampled listings have been visible, so Ravi’s point about disappearance and relisting is a real limitation. I’ll avoid treating that as full time on market.

Next pass, I’m thinking: tighter geographic groups, comparable condition, advertised energy performance, first-seen date and price-change dates. Completed sale information is the piece I’m least confident about. Is it still worthwhile to analyse removals if I label the outcome unknown rather than sold?
 
Yes, as long as “removed” stays a separate outcome. Don’t silently convert it into a sale. A simple table could use active, removed, reappeared and confirmed completed sale where you genuinely have that information. Then compare when price cuts occur. A reduction shortly before removal tells a different story from repeated cuts followed by relisting.
 
One caveat: completed sales may not answer the energy question neatly because the final price, property condition and marketing history all need to line up. I’d start with matched pairs from the same micro-area and note why each pair is genuinely comparable. A smaller clean comparison is more useful than a large Madrid-wide pile of unlike duplexes.
 
Financing deserves its own column, even if it remains “unknown” in many cases. At €912,600 to €1,369,000, a buyer’s ability or willingness to finance renovation may affect how they respond to weaker energy performance. Seller motivation matters too: an owner holding firm can create a long visible period without proving there is no demand.
 
I’d also track new-listing volume over the same timeline. If several comparable duplexes arrive after an older listing, its 108 days may reflect growing competition rather than one defective feature. Your conclusion should probably be framed as association: energy performance appears alongside faster or slower outcomes after controlling as far as possible for location, condition, relisting, cuts and competition. Causation would be much harder to establish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top