As markets have "normalized" around the country properties are staying on the market longer before selling. In many areas a perfectly good listing may take sixty to ninety days to sell, sometimes longer. This raises considerations that are new to many agents, and that haven't been at issue for some time.
Suppose I have a ninety-day listing that is about to expire, and that the seller is content to continue on for another ninety days. Should we extend the listing contract and extend its closing date in the MLS, or should we let the listing expire, execute a new listing contract and enter it as a new listing in the MLS? Why might we choose to do the latter? One reason that is given for following such a practice is that it "refreshes" the listing. By having it come out as a new listing, it may catch someone's attention who wouldn't have noticed it otherwise. Moreover, by coming on as a new listing the property avoids a certain stigma of being an old or "stale" listing.
Frequently, buyers and agents of buyers want to know how long a property has been on the market. Sometimes they figure that an owner who has been trying to sell for a considerable length of time may be especially motivated and more liable to accept a "low ball" offer than would another. Conversely, people sometimes infer that there must be something wrong with a property that has been on the market for a long time, and they may not choose to show or see it. (I'm not saying that such beliefs are true, just that they are what some people think.)
Many Multiple Listing Systems show how long a property has been on the market. In some cases that figure only reflects how long the property has been for sale under its current listing designation. For example, 123 Elm Street might have been entered into the system ninety days ago as listing number L200. But, if it expired 10 days ago and was entered anew as listing number L250, then today it would only show that it had been on the market for 10 days, even though it has been for sale for the past 100 days.
Some feel that a process such as just described is misleading. They believe that the new listing for 123 Elm Street should show that it has been for sale for the past 100 days. And they have a point. (Though we also might want to ask just who is misled, and whether we care that they are misled.) Their answer to the problem is that a listing should show its cumulative days on market, a solution that has been adopted by a number of MLS systems.
The solution, though, raises other questions. What should the cutoff be? If a property is re-listed ten days after expiration, should its previous listing period be counted in the cumulative days on market field? What about twenty days after? Or thirty? Or ninety?
There are other considerations as well. Suppose we take 123 Elm Street off the market, give it a complete facelift -- new carpet, paint, etc. -- and then put it back on. Should its previous listing time be counted in the cumulative days on market field, or is it truly a new listing?
Does being listed with a different broker make a difference? If Joe's Realty and Boutique has done a lousy job of marketing 123 Elm Street for the 120 days it was listed with them, is it fair or appropriate that it should show as having been on the market for four months when it is now a brand new listing with Super Real Estate Services?
Finally, of course, we can question whether there really is much relevance to knowing how long a property has been on the market. The information is useful for overall statistical purposes, but in any given case it really may not matter all that much. Perhaps the best solution would be simply to keep the information inaccessible to those who view the listings, but to retain it internally for MLS statistical purposes.
