Mexico City listings: the headline and the street-level picture ...thoughts?

H

HandyEmber

Property investor
I need to decide soon whether these notes are useful for pricing, yet widening the sample may make unlike properties look comparable. It covers mostly Mexico City studios advertised between MX$2,736,000 and MX$4,104,000, with a typical visible period of 46 days.

I first suspected property tax was separating quick transactions from lingering stock. That may be too simple: condition, financing, ambitious pricing and seller motivation could produce the same pattern. Reposted units could also make the exposure figure misleading.

Are recent completed prices pointing in another direction? I’d compare two groups: units that sold or disappeared quickly, and those that were reduced, withdrawn or remained available. Details of their condition and the timing of price changes would help distinguish ownership-cost concerns from seller behaviour.
 
I would not put property tax first without comparing like with like. A studio that is correctly priced, ready to occupy and straightforward for a financed buyer can behave very differently from one needing work or carrying an ambitious asking price. Also, 46 days visible is not necessarily 46 continuous days on the market if listings are withdrawn and reposted.
 
I’m not sure whether to narrow the sample by neighbourhood first or by building quality. Both can distort a mostly-studio comparison, but the exact street boundaries are the missing detail that would change my approach.

Portal area names often combine blocks that buyers do not regard as equivalent. A few studios in weaker buildings or less favoured streets could therefore push the 46-day figure upward without saying much about the wider market. I’d map the listings by street, then compare condition and completed prices within those smaller groups before drawing conclusions from exposure time.
 
I partly disagree with dismissing tax so quickly. Even if it is not the main reason a particular unit sells, the full ownership cost can change what buyers are willing to pay. But your sample needs completed prices, not just asking prices, before that theory can be tested. Quick listings may simply be disappearing because they sold, were withdrawn, or moved elsewhere.
 
New-listing volume matters too. If similar studios keep arriving, older sellers face fresh competition and may wait longer before cutting. I’d separate the sample into unchanged listings, reduced listings and withdrawn listings, then note the first reduction date. That should reveal whether 46 days reflects normal negotiation or a group of stubborn sellers.
 
Condition may be hiding inside the price range. Two studios at similar asking prices are not equivalent if one is usable immediately and the other implies substantial work. Photos can understate that difference, so completed-sale comparisons should be matched as closely as possible by condition and building, not just size and neighbourhood name.
 
Seller motivation is probably the hardest variable to observe but may explain the tails. A seller testing the market can leave a listing untouched, whereas someone working to a deadline may accept a realistic offer or reduce earlier. Can you see whether the stale units have had any cuts, or are they sitting at their original asking prices?
 
That’s helpful. I had treated visible days as one continuous period and grouped listings by the advertised neighbourhood, so both assumptions may be distorting the result. I’ll rebuild the notes around smaller street clusters and track original price, cuts, withdrawal or relisting, condition and whether financing appears relevant. For now I’ll treat property tax as one possible ownership-cost factor rather than the explanation.
 
When you rebuild it, keep the MX$2,736,000–MX$4,104,000 bracket fixed. Otherwise the sample can drift as prices change and you will be comparing a different group. I’d also record new listings by week; a 46-day listing looks less unusual if comparable stock has been arriving continuously.
 
One final caveat: asking-price cuts do not automatically identify the realistic seller. An initially inflated listing can be reduced and still remain above what buyers accept, while a well-priced unit may sell without any cut. The cleanest street-level picture will come from pairing listing histories with whatever recent completed-sale evidence you can verify, then marking cases where the outcome is unknown rather than assuming they sold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top