Why are comparable Montreal student-housing listings moving at different speeds?

M

musicAndWorkshop

First-time buyer
I’m torn between two readings of the slower Montreal listings: they may justify lower offers, or they may be properties that should not be in the comparison at all. The student-housing group runs from C$637,200 to C$955,800, and the typical saved advert has been visible for 84 days.

I first thought building reserves explained why some moved quickly while others sat. The pattern is less tidy than that. Condition, buyer financing and an owner’s willingness to negotiate could each produce the same result, while withdrawn stock might be mistaken for completed sales.

What evidence would you use to separate those explanations at street level? I’m particularly interested in whether recent cuts and verified outcomes tell us more than the 84-day figure.
 
Reserves could explain part of it, but I would first separate genuinely comparable buildings and neighbourhoods. “Student housing” can hide major differences in condition, layout and likely tenant demand. Also compare completed sales with withdrawn listings; a disappearing advert is not necessarily a sale. Eighty-four days across a mixed sample may be telling you more about the sample than the market.
 
Do you know when price cuts occurred? A listing visible for 84 days but reduced recently is in a different position from one sitting at the same price throughout. I’d also want to know whether your neighbourhood labels cross boundaries that buyers treat as meaningful. Two properties that look close on a map may attract different pools of buyers.
 
I’m not convinced reserves are the main dividing line. At this price level, buyer financing and the property’s income assumptions can create a bigger gap between “looks attractive” and “can actually close.” Seller motivation matters too: stale stock may simply belong to owners unwilling to meet current bids, rather than buildings with a specific defect.
 
That’s fair, but financing and reserves are not entirely separate. If the building information raises concerns, financing may become harder or buyers may hold back. Charlotte, are all the saved properties the same ownership form and broadly similar in condition? If not, I’d split those categories before drawing anything from the 84-day figure.
 
Eighty-four days is useful only if the status behind each listing is known. The missing fact for me is whether older properties are facing a steady flow of newer, better-presented competition or are simply being held by sellers who will not adjust.

I’d give each property one row showing the original and current asks, first-seen date, exact neighbourhood, condition, ownership form and any available reserve information. The final column should distinguish a verified sale from an active or withdrawn advert. After that, match the completed sales as closely as possible and add new-listing volume by period. If fresh supply is limited, seller motivation may matter more than presentation; if it keeps rising, the older stock’s marketing time becomes more meaningful.
 
And don’t automatically treat the oldest listing as the best negotiating opportunity. A motivated seller may cut early and sell, while an unrealistic seller can remain listed indefinitely. I’d focus on recent price cuts and verified completed sales first, then use days visible as supporting context rather than the deciding measure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top