Does the Same Kelowna Home Sell for Less in Fall?

6,852 Repeat Sales: Does the Same Kelowna Home Sell for Less in Fall?

By Mark Coons | Selling Okanagan Group

I've been looking at whether fall and winter are actually better times to buy a home in Kelowna.

Not just whether sellers are more willing to negotiate. And not just whether homes sell further below their asking price.

I wanted to know whether buyers are genuinely getting better value.

My first analysis found something interesting.

Over an 11-year period, fall and winter buyers paid approximately 1.2% below their neighbourhood's median price per square foot. Spring buyers paid approximately 0.6% above it.

That's a 1.8-percentage-point difference in relative pricing.

But I kept coming back to one question.

What if the homes selling in fall are simply different from the homes selling in spring?

Maybe spring attracts more desirable properties. Maybe the homes selling in winter need more renovations. Maybe we're comparing different neighbourhoods, home styles or price ranges.

Any of those differences could influence the results.

So I decided to approach the question another way.

What happens when we compare the same property?

I examined 6,852 repeat-sale comparisons involving Central Okanagan homes that had sold in both fall and spring over approximately 20 years.

The results supported the earlier findings, but they also revealed something I think is even more important.

The same properties tended to sell for roughly 2% less relative to their neighbourhood market when the transaction occurred in fall.

But fall was the cheaper season in only about 56% of the matched comparisons.

That's a pretty important distinction if you're planning to make one of the largest purchases of your life.

Does the same Kelowna home sell for less in fall?

Historically, the repeat-sale research suggests a fall pricing advantage, but it isn't consistent enough to assume an individual home will sell for less simply because of the season.

Here are the three findings that matter most:

• 6,852 repeat-sale comparisons: Homes that sold in both spring and fall were compared using their prices relative to the surrounding neighbourhood market.
• Approximately 2% relative pricing difference: Fall transactions tended to occur at a lower relative valuation than spring transactions.
• Approximately 56% of comparisons favoured fall: The fall transaction represented better relative value in a modest majority of matched comparisons.

That last number changes how I interpret the first two.

A 2% pricing difference across thousands of comparisons sounds convincing.

But a 56% success rate is a long way from a guarantee.

Both results can be true.

Here's why.

Why I wanted to compare the same homes

Most seasonal housing studies compare all the homes sold in one period with all the homes sold in another.

There's a problem with that.

The mix of properties can change.

Imagine that 100 homes sell in April and another 100 sell in November.

The April group might include more newer homes, larger properties and lake-view houses.

The November group might include more older homes, smaller lots and properties needing work.

If the November homes sell for less, does that mean buyers got a seasonal discount?

Not necessarily.

They may simply have purchased different types of properties.

That's why I wanted to use repeat sales.

Instead of comparing one group of homes against a completely different group, I looked at properties that had actually changed hands in both seasons.

We're still comparing transactions from different points in time, but at least the property itself is part of the comparison.

That removes one major source of variation: we're no longer comparing entirely different addresses.

It doesn't solve every problem, but it gets us closer to answering the question.

How do you compare a home sold years apart?

Here's where the research gets a little more interesting.

Say a house in Glenmore sold for $650,000 in the spring of one year and $850,000 in the fall several years later.

We can't conclude that fall buyers paid more simply because the second sale price was higher.

The entire neighbourhood may have appreciated substantially between those transactions.

What matters is how each sale compared with the local market at the time.

For example, imagine the same home sold:

Illustrative example only, not an actual matched sale from the study.

The home sold for $200,000 more in the fall transaction.

But relative to the neighbourhood benchmark, it sold at a smaller premium.

That difference is what we're interested in.

In this example, the fall buyer paid a lower price relative to the surrounding market, even though the actual purchase price was much higher.

The research is about relative value, not whether the property's dollar price declined between two sales.

That distinction matters because home values change over time.

Without a market benchmark, comparing two historical sale prices can tell us more about appreciation than seasonal negotiating conditions.

What the 6,852 comparisons revealed

Across the matched transactions, the fall sale tended to occur at a relative price approximately 2% lower than the spring sale.

That's worth paying attention to.

It points in the same general direction as my earlier research comparing seasonal sale prices against neighbourhood median price per square foot.

Different approaches. Similar conclusion.

Fall appears to have offered better relative pricing on average.

But I think the more revealing finding is what happened when I looked at how often that advantage actually occurred.

Fall was the cheaper season in approximately 56% of the comparisons.

Which means approximately 44% did not favour fall.

That's not a minor exception.

It's a substantial portion of the properties studied.

So how can the average show a meaningful seasonal difference when the result is only slightly more likely than a coin flip for an individual comparison?

Why a 2% advantage doesn't mean fall wins every time

This is where averages can lead people in the wrong direction.

Imagine we compare 100 properties.

For 56 of them, the fall transaction shows better relative value.

For the remaining 44, the spring transaction is equal or better.

Now imagine the 56 favourable fall comparisons have somewhat larger pricing differences than those favouring spring.

The average could show a meaningful fall advantage even though fall only wins a modest majority of the time.

Here's a simplified example.

Suppose:

• 56 homes show fall pricing 5% lower relative to the local benchmark.
• 44 homes show fall pricing 2% higher relative to that benchmark.

The average difference works out to approximately 1.9% in favour of fall.

Yet fall was cheaper in only 56 out of 100 cases.

The example isn't drawn from my actual sales records. It's simply a way to show how the two findings can coexist.

The average tells us the overall size and direction of a pattern. The percentage of comparisons favouring fall tells us how consistently that pattern appears.

We need both.

Otherwise, it's easy to turn a useful historical finding into a promise the data can't support.

What this doesn't prove

I think it's important to be clear about what a same-property comparison can and cannot tell us.

Even when two transactions involve the same address, we're not necessarily comparing an identical home under identical circumstances.

A property can change significantly between sales.

The owner might renovate the kitchen, finish the basement, replace the roof or add a suite.

The home also gets older.

Its neighbourhood can change.

Mortgage rates, buyer demand and local inventory can be completely different.

And there's another consideration: homes that sell repeatedly may not represent every home in the Central Okanagan.

So this study doesn't isolate the pure effect of the season.

It tells us what happened in a set of matched historical transactions after comparing sale prices with their relevant neighbourhood markets.

That's a useful result.

But it isn't proof that changing the sale date from April to November would have reduced the purchase price of the exact same home by 2%.

To establish that, we'd need to control for more of the differences between the transactions.

Why the finding still matters for Kelowna buyers

With all those limitations, you might wonder whether the seasonal pattern is useful at all.

I think it is.

Because the question isn't whether fall always produces the lowest possible price.

The question is whether the time of year should influence how you approach a purchase.

And these results suggest that it should be considered.

We now have two pieces of historical research pointing in the same direction.

The broader neighbourhood price-per-square-foot analysis found that fall and winter buyers tended to pay less relative to their local market than spring buyers.

The repeat-sale analysis found a similar advantage when looking at the same properties sold in different seasons.

Neither makes fall a guaranteed winner.

But together, they give us a reason to investigate whether quieter market conditions create better negotiating opportunities.

That's much more useful than simply assuming spring is always the best time to buy because there's more inventory.

Why spring can still be the better time to buy

There's something fall can't always offer: the same selection.

If you're looking for a specific type of property, more listings can matter.

Maybe you want a walkout rancher in Lakeview Heights.

Or a family home in Lower Mission with a particular school location, yard and floor plan.

You could spend months waiting for the right home to appear.

If several suitable options become available in spring, that additional selection has real value.

Even if buyers historically pay a slightly higher relative price during spring, having more choices might be worth it.

And a home that checks every box may not be interchangeable with another property that's 2% cheaper.

You also have to consider the financial cost of waiting, changes in mortgage rates and what happens to the market between now and your eventual purchase.

For some buyers, fall will offer a better opportunity.

For others, spring will.

The data helps us understand the trade-off. It doesn't make the decision for us.

What if you're buying and selling in the same market?

This research also raises an interesting question for homeowners planning to move.

Suppose you're selling a $900,000 home and buying a $1.3 million home.

Would you rather do that in a stronger spring market or a quieter fall market?

Your first instinct might be spring because you could get more money for your current property.

But you also need to consider what you'll pay for the next one.

If you're moving up in price, a more favourable purchase on the expensive property could offset a somewhat lower sale price on your current home.

If you're downsizing, the calculation may be different.

The important number isn't simply what you sell for.

It's the difference between what you sell and what you buy, including transaction costs, financing and timing.

The repeat-sales study doesn't calculate that difference for your specific situation.

But it does remind us that choosing a season based only on your selling price can overlook the other half of the transaction.

How I would use this research when evaluating a home today

If I were buying in Kelowna, I wouldn't start with the calendar.

I'd start with the property.

What makes it desirable?

What have similar homes sold for recently?

How does its asking price compare with those sales?

How much competing inventory is available?

How long has the property been listed, and have there been price reductions?

Then I'd look at the season.

If we're heading into November and a comparable home has been sitting for several months, the historical data gives us a reason to examine whether there's room to negotiate.

But I still need the current sales evidence to support an offer.

On the other hand, if a well-priced home comes available in April and there's nothing comparable on the market, I wouldn't tell a buyer to pass on it simply because November has historically offered better relative pricing.

The research should improve the questions we ask.

It shouldn't become a rule that overrides everything else.

So, is fall actually the best time to buy a home in Kelowna?

The 6,852 repeat-sale comparisons suggest a real historical pattern worth investigating.

Fall transactions tended to occur at approximately 2% lower relative valuations than spring transactions.

But fall offered better relative pricing in only about 56% of those comparisons.

That tells me two things.

First, there may be a seasonal advantage that buyers can use when evaluating their options.

Second, it's nowhere near consistent enough to treat as a guarantee.

If I told someone they could save 2% just by waiting until fall, I'd be leaving out almost half the story.

And that's exactly the kind of conclusion I wanted to avoid when I started this research.

The best time to buy isn't necessarily the month that historically produces the lowest average price. It's when the right property is available, the price makes sense and the conditions work in your favour.

The historical data is there to help us recognize those conditions, not predict them with certainty.

Want the full seasonal market research?

I've been comparing seasonal sale prices, neighbourhood benchmarks and repeat transactions to better understand when buyers have historically found value in the Central Okanagan.

If you'd like to review the full seasonal market research, including the 6,852 repeat-sale analysis, email me at [email protected] with the word SEASONAL.

I'll share the research so you can see how the results compare and what they might mean for your situation.

Mark Coons
Personal Real Estate Corporation, REALTOR®
Selling Okanagan Group | eXp Realty Kelowna
778-946-6454