Your “magic % number” question is an interesting one. I will respond to that one by writing a blog because I often get that question.

with 2, i see your point, especially for lower priced towns. i work with data all day long, so i completely understand that there’s a million of ways to present everything and you can’t please everyone at once.

i was being selfish here as to what i’d be interested in, which would be in the 200-250 bucket. from my perspective, i’d narrow down my town preferences and within those look for one with the biggest bucket in that range. although my plan to do this would be in second half of the fall, hopefully with even more desparate sellers on the market.

what you provide here, i find, is exteremely valuable — i really appreciate it. i’m surprised you’re not charging for this data.

out of curiosity, is anyone keeping track, what on average ,per each town, the % difference between price listed and price closed is? is there some magic % number that realtors advise the sellers to inflate the price by?

1. Newington has 75 properties that are still for sale, no offers on them. That’s the data provided in the chart. In addition, there are 50 properties that have accepted offers on them, so they aren’t really “available” any more, they are not included in the graphs.

2. I find that for the less expensive towns, people tend to search in smaller price ranges/buckets. For example, in Manchester a person may be looking around the $200K price range, with a stretch price of $215K, maybe $225K. And when I aggregate by $50K increments the numbers become skewed by the “buckets” being too large. Higher price towns and higher price ranges have larger increments because it reflects buyer behavior. Does that make sense?

I like providing data. I think the market should be as transparent as possible in order for people to make smart decisions that are relevant to their situation.

two things. one a question the second a suggestion.

1) just so i understand, when you say for newington 75 listings and 50 under contract, so one can assume that the data you’re showing should be reduced by about 66%, if applied across the board?

2) i understand that some towns are more expansive, but perhaps when you post the charts it’d be nice to see them all on the same scale, say in 50k chunks, like you did for glastonbury.

i think what you’re showing here is great. for anyone able and cash-in-hand, this really shows the areas where one can go in and really try to make their buying $ stretch or haggle. feel bad for the sellers