Phoenix listings: the headline and the street-level picture?

E

esme.snow

Real estate agent
Established
The 33-day figure looks useful at first, but I hesitate to draw any conclusion while Phoenix properties are being labelled “coastal.” My sample covers asking prices from $1,096,000 to $1,644,000, so even a few records from the wrong market or neighbourhood could distort it badly.

Transaction fees may affect what buyers offer, although I suspect that is a second-stage question. Would you first remove the doubtful records, define tighter neighbourhood boundaries and compare active homes with completed and withdrawn listings? I’d also like to track condition, financing issues, price reductions and any signs that a seller needs a quick deal.
 
I would fix the sample before forming a theory about fees. “Coastal” attached to Phoenix suggests either a categorisation problem or properties from another market slipping in. Also, asking-price listings won’t reveal why the quick ones sold. Match completed sales to their original condition, price history and time on market, then compare them with the still-active homes.
 
What does “visible for 33 days” mean here: current listing age, final days on market for sold properties, or time since the portal first captured them? Relisted and temporarily withdrawn homes can look newer than they are. I’d also want the exact neighbourhood boundaries, because a citywide Phoenix label may be hiding several very different groups of properties.
 
I’m not convinced transaction fees would create the split Noor describes. Within one market and price bracket, those costs may apply broadly, while condition and seller expectations can vary property by property. A renovated home with realistic pricing and a financeable condition is not directly comparable with one needing work, even if both sit near the same asking price.
 
There’s another issue: 33 days by itself doesn’t establish that the stock is stale. The useful comparison is what happens during those 33 days. Are sellers cutting early, holding firm, withdrawing, or replacing listings? New-listing volume matters too—a steady flow of fresh properties can make the active sample look healthier while older unsold homes quietly disappear.
 
That’s fair; “stale” was too strong without the listing histories. I’d separate homes into sold, active, withdrawn and relisted groups, then note the first price reduction rather than only the latest asking price. For condition, even broad categories such as ready to occupy versus visibly needing work would be more informative than pooling everything together.
 
A practical order would be: first remove anything that cannot confidently be tied to Phoenix, especially the coastal-labelled records. Next, define the neighbourhood boundaries and confirm what the 33-day measure represents. Then compare recent completed sales with active and withdrawn stock using original price, reduction timing, condition and financing complications. Seller motivation may remain unknowable, but repeated cuts or withdrawal without a sale can at least provide clues. Only after that would I test whether transaction costs explain any remaining gap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top