Santiago mixed-use listings: does the -0.9% movement mean anything yet?

[FreshFrame]

The people I asked offline are split, so I’m trying to decide whether the reported -0.9% price movement is actionable or just noise.

I pulled a small sample of Santiago mixed-use buildings advertised between CLP 823,400,000 and CLP 1,235,000,000. Median marketing time was about 46 days, although differences in condition made the average fairly messy.

The part I cannot settle is transaction fees. At this price level, are buyers negotiating over who absorbs negotiable deal costs, or do they generally reject an unattractive structure and move to another listing?

 

[full_story]

Before drawing a conclusion, I’d separate the fee categories. A buyer may push back on one negotiable charge while treating another cost as unavoidable. “Transaction fees” bundled into one number will hide that distinction.

Also, are these completed deals or active advertisements? Forty-six days on market says something about listings, but not what buyers ultimately accepted.

 

[cairn.common]

Recent completed sales would be much more persuasive than the -0.9% headline. Asking prices can edge down because sellers change the mix of stock, not because comparable buildings actually trade lower. I’d also keep the neighbourhood boundaries tight; combining unlike parts of Santiago could overwhelm a movement that small.

 

[AlbaSnow]

I’m not convinced tighter boundaries alone solve it. Withdrawn stock matters too. An overpriced building can disappear without recording a price cut or sale, making the remaining listings look healthier than the full seller experience. Count new listings, completed sales and withdrawals over the same period before interpreting the 46-day median.

 

[kian_rents]

How are you handling condition? For mixed-use buildings, “needs work” can mean very different amounts and timing, and buyers dependent on financing may react differently from buyers with more flexibility. If the rougher properties sit longer, the fee issue may actually be a proxy for concern about total cash required.

 

[FreshFrame]

Good questions. These were advertised listings rather than confirmed completed sales, and the sample crosses more than one neighbourhood. I also grouped the deal costs together because the adverts did not provide a consistent breakdown.

So the -0.9% is not enough for a market conclusion. My practical decision is whether to expand this sample or abandon it and rebuild around completed transactions.

 

[RueYoung]

Rebuild rather than abandon. Keep the current listings as a record, then add columns for neighbourhood, condition, first asking price, each reduction date, withdrawal or completion, and any available final price. For fees, record the wording rather than forcing everything into one figure. That should reveal whether buyers object early or negotiate later.

 

[bench.far]

One caveat: price-cut timing can be more revealing than the number of cuts. A reduction shortly after listing may reflect an unrealistic opening price; one after a long quiet period may suggest stronger seller motivation. Neither proves buyers negotiated fees, but both help identify which sellers might entertain a different allocation of costs.

 

[oren_young]

I would split the neighbourhoods before expanding the price range. CLP 823,400,000 to CLP 1,235,000,000 is already broad enough for condition and location to distort the comparison. A smaller set of genuinely similar properties, including withdrawn ones, is more useful than a larger Santiago-wide list that produces a neat but misleading median.

 

[full_story]

Maria, given that these are advertisements, there is no reliable yes-or-no answer yet on buyer behaviour. The next step is to ask agents or sellers the same neutral question for each listing: which costs are included in the stated price, and which are expected from the buyer? Compare the responses with later price cuts, withdrawals and completed outcomes rather than relying on initial wording.

 

[bench.far]

I’d retain 46 days and -0.9% only as baseline observations. Build the next round around recent completed sales, with active and withdrawn stock as context. Then separate price negotiation from cost allocation: a seller holding the headline price while absorbing a negotiable cost is economically different from a straightforward price cut, even if the listing history does not show it.