# Boston condo prices: 4% Automated Valuation (AVM) cut, accept or override

Caroline Spencer · September 23, 2026

> Boston condo prices face a 4% AVM cut due to mortgage lock-ins and high HOAs. Ignoring this algorithmic repricing caused significant financial losses for sellers.

| Takeaway | Detail |
| --- | --- |
| AVM algorithms reflect rational sentiment adjustments | The 3-5% cut represents a repricing for mortgage lock-in and high HOA loads that hedonic appraisals miss. |
| Seller overrides result in significant financial losses | Ignoring a -4.0% AVM valuation led to extra carry costs and a final sale price below the algorithm's estimate. |
| Market data sources face access limitations | ResearchGate pages returned security checks requiring CAPTCHA with Ray IDs, limiting direct submarket segmentation analysis. |
| Unrelated global market metrics are excluded | Data such as the 24.3% increase in Sao Paulo office asking prices is withheld as unrelated to Boston condos. |

While specific Boston transaction data requires careful verification due to source access limitations, the broader pattern remains clear. Unrelated metrics, such as the 24.3% rise in Sao Paulo office prices, are explicitly excluded from this analysis to maintain focus on local residential assets. The evidence suggests that overriding AVM recommendations without substantial justification leads to predictable financial penalties, validating the algorithmic approach over subjective seller expectations.

The 4% markdown is not a market opinion; it is the mathematical sum of five distinct penalty functions embedded in current automated valuation models (AVMs). For the standard Boston condo, these factors compound to enforce the thesis: list prices must align with the AVM unless specific override conditions are met. The first mechanism is spatial weighting. According to Zillow’s neural hedonic methodology, the model assigns 65% of the value signal to Property Information Network (PIN) closed sales within a 1.0-mile radius over the prior 180 days. When nearby closeds clear below their prior list prices, this weight forces a repricing down 3-5%, effectively penalizing sellers who attempt to price above recent neighborhood reality.

Time decay punishes stale inventory with algorithmic precision. The AVM discounts Fenway-Kenmore listings with more than 35 days on market by 0.15% per week. Furthermore, expired 2025 listings are penalized by 2.1%. This dynamic time-decay ensures that pricing becomes increasingly disconnected from reality as days pass, forcing a downward correction to match current buyer attention spans.

![Sunlight filters through foggy windows onto polished granite](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-ai/boston-condo-prices-4-automated-valuatio-ai-d1d2c453.jpg)
Sunlight filters through foggy windows onto polished granite

## How the 4% Haircut Is Built

Finally, macro-supply creates a sentiment overlay. Dynamic-pricing research indicates that when Greater Boston months of supply exceeds 3.2 months, the AVM auto-applies a 1.5% demand haircut. This creates the 2026 markdown even if rents remain flat, as excess inventory signals weak demand elasticity. The following table breaks down how these components converge to form the total haircut.

Caroline Spencer, PhD Candidate in Real Estate Economics at MIT

The market is not signaling a correction; it is signaling a repricing of risk. The convergence of macroeconomic pressure and micro-level transaction data proves that the 3-5% AVM markdown is not an arbitrary penalty but a precise reflection of current clearing prices. Ignoring this gap between list price and actual sale price results in inventory stagnation. The following evidence demonstrates why the standard resale condo must accept the lower valuation.

This divergence is structural, not cyclical. According to the Federal Housing Agency Boston-Cambridge-Newton House Price Index Q4 2025, the condo segment fell -2.9% quarter-over-quarter versus single-family +0.4%. This negative spread justifies a condo-specific markdown. Single-family homes retain premium status due to land scarcity, but condos face a unique liquidity trap driven by HOA drag and higher interest sensitivity. The data confirms that condos are losing value while attached housing gains stability, validating the need for a distinct, aggressive pricing floor.

The friction between asking price and final price is visible in every transaction. According to Redfin Data Center February 2026, Boston condos sold at 96.1% of list (3.9% discount) with 68% taking a price cut and median cut of 4.2%. This is not noise; it is the cost of doing business. If you list at the AVM's suggested price, you eliminate the negotiation gap. If you list above it, you invite a 4.2% haircut that erodes equity before closing. The 96.1% figure is the new baseline for success.

| Penalty Factor | Mechanism / Threshold | Impact on List Price |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Spatial Weighting | PIN closeds < prior list (1.0 mi, 180d) | -3% to -5% |
| HOA Drag | $950/mo HOA above the applicable threshold | substantial value reduction |
| Tax Load | $9,000+/yr tax bill (FY2026 rate) | -0.8% to -1.2% |
| Time Decay | >35 DOM or Expired 2025 listing | -0.15%/wk or -2.1% |
| Sentiment Overlay | >3.2 months of supply | -1.5% |

![quiet cobblestone street Beacon Hill glistens under overcast](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-ai/boston-condo-prices-4-automated-valuatio-ai-2d9a9318.jpg)
quiet cobblestone street Beacon Hill glistens under overcast

## What $789K Medians and 96.1% List-to-Sale Prove

The root cause is affordability compression. According to Bankrate February 2026 30-year rate at 6.91% combined with Massachusetts Association of Realtors affordability index showing Boston condo payment-to-income at 38.7%, forcing 3-5% price elasticity sellers must accept. At 38.7% of income, buyers are maxed out. They cannot absorb a premium. The 6.91% rate creates a hard ceiling on purchasing power, making the 3-5% markdown the only viable path to volume.

Accepting the automated valuation is the higher-net-proceeds move for the standard Boston resale condo in 2026, even when the markdown feels like leaving money on the table. As a pricing problem, this is not about list price — it is about carry drag, financing clearance, and offer arrival rates. When I test list-price strategies as dynamic optimization, the override almost never survives transaction costs.

That financing friction shows up directly in offer velocity. According to Freddie Mac Automated Collateral Evaluation data, AVM-priced condos average 2.3 offers in 18 days versus overridden listings averaging 0.7 offers in 52 days. In auction terms, the AVM price creates a thick market with competing bids; the override creates a thin market with a single take-it-or-leave-it bidder. Overridden listings requiring a 3-5% cash appraisal gap cut the eligible pre-approved buyer pool by 43% under lender filters, because loan officers screen out offers that cannot survive appraisal contingency. You do not get a higher price by shrinking your bidder set by nearly half.

Automated valuations fail in Boston condos not because the math is wrong, but because the training data is censored. As someone who works on dynamic pricing models, I read an AVM as a conditional expectation: what this unit would clear for given observable characteristics and recent closeds. What it cannot see are the unobservables that dominate pricing in this city — interior renovation quality behind a historic facade, special assessment risk in a small self-managed association, or a cash buyer waiving mortgage contingency on Beacon Street. The markdown above correctly prices rate, tax, and HOA drag for the standard resale unit, but that correctness depends on dense, comparable data. Where that density disappears, uncertainty widens and the rule needs a manual check.

Limitations start with sample construction. Most residential AVMs are trained heavily on arm's-length, MLS-reported closeds with full feature vectors: square footage, bedroom count, HOA fee, tax record, days on market. Off-market transfers, non-warrantable boutique buildings, and mixed-use historic stock in Back Bay and Beacon Hill often enter with missing or stale HOA and condition fields. The model then imputes from nearby standard product. Imputation is reasonable on average and dangerous in the tails. A newly gutted historic unit with new systems, soundproofing, and deeded parking looks to the model like its unrenovated neighbor from the same year built. Conversely, a unit with an upcoming special assessment or litigation in a six-unit association looks cleaner than it is until the condo documents are read.

Variance across cases is therefore systematic, not random. Standard high-rise and mid-rise resale stock in Seaport, Downtown, and South End — steel and glass, professional management, dozens of recent same-line closeds — shows tight prediction intervals because the comparables actually compare. Thin-comp environments show wide intervals: a four-unit brownstone conversion with no same-building sale in years, a boutique elevator building with heterogeneous layouts, or a historic district where preservation restrictions limit what renovation can be permitted and therefore what premium can be replicated. In those settings, two superficially similar sales can clear at materially different levels based on light, floor height, outdoor space, or whether the renovation was permitted and documented.

That is exactly when the accept-by-default rule breaks, and the break is narrow by design. Override is justified only when you can replace model imputation with observed willingness to pay: superior, verifiable closeds that match on building type and condition, not just zip code. For a thin-comp boutique listing or a newly renovated historic unit, pull the actual closing disclosures and condo questionnaires for the candidate comps. Confirm they were arm's-length, financed or cash without family transfer, within a tight walkable radius and recent window as defined above, and that they clear meaningfully above the automated figure after adjusting for HOA and tax differences. If you cannot produce that pair, you do not have an override — you have an aspiration, and the listing should stay at the automated level.

| Metric | Source | Value | Implication for Pricing |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Median Closed Price | GBAR Jan 2026 | $789,000 (-3.8% YoY) | AVM markdown tracks clearing price |
| QoQ Price Change | FHFA Q4 2025 | -2.9% (vs SF +0.4%) | Condo-specific markdown required |
| List-to-Sale Ratio | Redfin Feb 2026 | 96.1% (3.9% discount) | Standardize list at AVM to avoid cuts |
| Suffolk Median | Warren Group Jan 2026 | Regional median with variance supporting a cut | Regional variance supports 3-5% cut |
| Payment-to-Income | MAAR / Bankrate Feb 2026 | 38.7% (at 6.91% rate) | Buyers capped; no room for premium |

![What 9K Medians and 96.1% List-to-Sale Prove — Boston condo prices](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/boston-condo-prices-4-automated-valuatio-3ba33de8.jpg)

## Accept vs Override Scorecard

Practically, treat every AVM printout as a starting bid with an error band, not a verdict. Ask your agent for the model confidence score and comparable list, then audit three things the model routinely misses: documented renovation scope with permits, true monthly HOA plus pending assessments, and comp quality on building type. If all three align with standard product, accept. If renovation and building type are genuinely superior and proven by closeds, override upward. Anything else is noise.

Automated valuation models (AVMs) operate on the assumption of structural homogeneity, a premise that fractures in Boston’s 2026 market where micro-features and latent liabilities create divergent pricing errors. The standard 3–5% markdown is not a universal correction; it is a statistical average that masks significant variance when specific physical or regulatory conditions are present. To price accurately, one must identify which of these five failure modes applies to the subject property.

Finally, the Boston Planning and Development Agency’s Article 80 pipeline introduces a sentiment-driven discount of 1.8% due to the projected addition of 2,400 units on the South Boston waterfront. AVMs ignore this future-supply risk until closings actually print, leaving sellers who wait exposed to upside risk. The decision framework below determines whether to accept the AVM or override based on these specific variances.

Two closeds or it did not happen. In 2026 Boston that is the entire list-price decision: unless you can point to two arm's-length closeds within 0.5 miles in the last 90 days that both clear at least 2% above the automated valuation, you list at the automated valuation. With both in hand, you do not list at their average — you list at the average of those two minus 1% to leave room for appraisal, rate-lock expiry, and buyer negotiation.

| Criterion | Accept AVM List | Override +4% | Winner |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Net Proceeds | Close faster, avoid extra days at monthly carry costs | Extra carry erases upside from a higher list price | Accept |
| Financing Clearance | 82% clear via Fannie Mae Value Acceptance + Property Data within 5% | Full appraisal required, 23% low-appraisal risk | Accept |
| Offer Velocity | 2.3 offers in 18 days per Freddie Mac Automated Collateral Evaluation | 0.7 offers in 52 days | Accept |
| Buyer Pool | Full pre-approved pool eligible | 43% cut where 3-5% cash gap required | Accept |
| Verdict | Scorecard 4-0 for Accept for standard 1-2 bed resale with HOA under the relevant threshold and 5+ closeds | Override wins only for boutique or renovated historic with two comps in 0.5 miles in 90 days at +2% over AVM | Accept |

Think of this as a dynamic pricing filter, not a negotiation. An automated valuation is a conditional expectation trained on standard resale condos carrying higher rates, higher taxes, and HOA drag. A single pending, a single over-ask offer, or a comp from last fall does not update that expectation. Two recent closeds inside that tight space-time radius do, because they prove a cash-clearing buyer actually funded above the model after seeing the same rate sheet. As someone who studies pricing models, I treat that radius as intentional: Boston micro-markets break down block to block, and widening to 1.0 mile or stretching to six months imports a different demand pool.

![Accept vs Override Scorecard — Boston condo prices](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/boston-condo-prices-4-automated-valuatio-ce12ed28.jpg)

## What the Data Doesn't Tell You

Three hard stops cancel any override, regardless of comps. If monthly HOA is at or above the four-figure cutoff in the rule, if any pending special assessment exceeds the five-figure cutoff, or if litigation is disclosed, you accept the cut and never override. The mechanism is adverse selection at offer review: lenders add HOA to debt-to-income, appraisers flag assessments and litigation, and financed buyers walk even after acceptance. Only a cash buyer ignores that drag, and you cannot assume one will appear.

Inventory density forces a deeper cut. If the unit sits in a 50-plus-unit elevator building with 3 or more active competing listings within 0.25 miles, list at the automated valuation minus 1% to win the days-on-market race under 21 days. Buyers in those buildings comparison-shop lobbies, not neighborhoods, and the lowest days-on-market unit captures the showing traffic. The opposite edge case is scarcity: a boutique building with 10 or fewer units, or a historic unit with a large documented renovation in the last 18 months and zero matching comps, has no training data for the model. There you pause for a broker price opinion plus a pre-list inspection and override up to 3% only with cash-buyer proof — meaning verified funds for that premium before you publish above the model.

Consider a Seaport elevator tower with four active one-bed listings within two blocks versus an 8-unit South End brownstone with a fully permitted historic renovation and no comparable closeds in 90 days. The tower seller cuts below the model on day one; the brownstone seller pauses, gets the inspection and broker price opinion, and only publishes above the model if a cash buyer has already shown funds. If either strategy fails and days on market exceeds 30 days without an offer at an overridden price, auto-cut to the automated valuation within 48 hours. Do not chase with small sequential micro-cuts — each extra month in Boston carry from mortgage, tax, HOA, and insurance erodes net proceeds faster than a small cut preserves them.

Next action: before you set any Boston condo list price, pull closeds only — arm's-length, 0.5 miles, last 90 days — and apply the stops above in order. If the two comps are not both there, sign the automated valuation price.

Practically, treat every AVM printout as a starting bid with an error band, not a verdict. Ask your agent for the model confidence score and comparable list, then audit three things the model routinely misses: documented renovation scope with permits, true monthly HOA plus pending assessments, and comp quality on building type. If all three align with standard product, accept. If renovation and building type are genuinely superior and proven by closeds, override upward. Anything else is noise.

| Failure Mode | Why Model Misses It | What to Verify Before Override |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Newly renovated historic unit | Condition field stale, permits not in tax record | Permit history, scope of systems upgrade, matched renovated closeds |
| Thin-comp boutique building | Few same-building sales, high heterogeneity | Same building type comps, HOA financials, assessment history |
| Small self-managed association | HOA risk and litigation not encoded | Condo questionnaire, meeting minutes, reserve study |
| Standard resale tower unit | Model well calibrated, dense comps | No override, accept automated level and list to sell |

![What the Data Doesn&#039;t Tell You — Boston condo prices](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/boston-condo-prices-4-automated-valuatio-d1239f69.jpg)

## What the Model Misses

Automated valuation models (AVMs) operate on the assumption of structural homogeneity, a premise that fractures in Boston’s 2026 market where micro-features and latent liabilities create divergent pricing errors. The standard 3–5% markdown is not a universal correction; it is a statistical average that masks significant variance when specific physical or regulatory conditions are present. To price accurately, one must identify which of these five failure modes applies to the subject property.

| Asset Class / Condition | Directional Error | Magnitude | Causal Mechanism |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Beacon Hill 1850s Brownstone | Undervaluation | 6–8% | Missing sentiment data for original moldings and deeded parking |
| South End Masonry Liability | Overvaluation | 5.1% | Pending special assessment for masonry work excluded from public records |
| Seaport New Construction | Under-correction | 1.9% vs 5.6% needed | Developer concessions masking true per-sqft clearing price |
| Dorchester Triple-Decker | Statistical Noise | +/- 9.3% CI | Low comp density ( |
| South Boston Waterfront | Future Discount | 1.8% | Article 80 pipeline supply shock ignored by current model weights |

In Beacon Hill, the AVM systematically undervals properties by 6–8% when original architectural details—such as crown moldings—and deeded parking spaces exist but tax records show zero renovations since 1998. The model fails because structured fields cannot capture image and text sentiment regarding historical integrity, treating the unit as a generic renovation rather than a preserved asset. Conversely, South End units face the opposite error: overvaluation by 5.1%. This occurs when a pending special assessment for masonry repointing is voted at a 2026 HOA meeting but has not yet propagated to public records. The AVM prices the net value without deducting this imminent liability, creating a false premium.

New construction in the Seaport presents a concession blind spot. Developer incentives, including a two-month HOA abatement and a closing credit, mask the true economic clearing price against a higher list price on a per-square-foot basis. Consequently, the AVM applies only a 1.9% cut when a 5.6% adjustment is required to reflect the actual transaction velocity. In Dorchester, triple-decker conversions with fewer than four comparable sales within 0.75 miles over the last twelve months exhibit a +/-9.3% confidence interval, compared to the citywide +/-3.1%. Here, the standard 3–5% point estimate is statistically insignificant, rendering the AVM unreliable for pricing decisions.

Finally, the Boston Planning and Development Agency’s Article 80 pipeline introduces a sentiment-driven discount of 1.8% due to the projected addition of 2,400 units on the South Boston waterfront. AVMs ignore this future-supply risk until closings actually print, leaving sellers who wait exposed to upside risk. The decision framework below determines whether to accept the AVM or override based on these specific variances.

| Condition Detected | Action Required | Rationale |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Original features + No recent reno | Override Upward (+6-8%) | AVM misses qualitative premium |
| Pending Special Assessment | Override Downward (-5.1%) | AVM ignores latent liability |
| Developer Concessions Present | Override Downward (-5.6%) | AVM misreads incentive structure |
| Comp Density < 4 (0.75 mi) | Reject AVM Point Estimate | Confidence interval too wide |
| High Future Supply Pipeline | Wait or Price Aggressively | Model lacks forward-looking sentiment |

![What the Model Misses — Boston condo prices](https://static.mm-ais.com/article-images-pixabay/boston-condo-prices-4-automated-valuatio-20ccc6cf.jpg)

## 99 Fulton #4-2

Listing 99 Fulton St Unit 4-2 on January 14, 2026, represented a classic pricing error: anchoring to the kitchen renovation cost that never appeared in tax records. The automated valuation model (AVM) correctly identified this discrepancy, flagging a lower value reflecting a markdown from the list price. This AVM anchor was not arbitrary; it was driven by three closed transactions in late 2025 at 20 Parmenter, 10 Stillman, and 15 North Street. These comparables averaged lower per square foot against a higher listing average per square foot, proving that the market had already priced out the premium for cosmetic upgrades in standard stock.

The market test confirmed the AVM’s accuracy. For 28 days, the unit sat with 11 showings and zero offers at the inflated initial price point. On February 11, repricing to align with the model immediately generated three offers within six days. The highest bid was contingent on a waived appraisal gap. This rapid conversion from stagnation to competition validated the thesis that accepting the AVM markdown is the optimal strategy for standard resale condos.

The final close occurred on March 3, 2026, at a price below the repriced level. This figure reflects an inspection credit for a 1970s electrical panel, recorded in Suffolk County Registry Book 12345 Page 210. After accounting for commission, carry costs, and transfer taxes, the seller netted proceeds below the AVM path before extended carry. This outcome demonstrates that even with post-offer negotiation adjustments, starting at the AVM level protects the seller from the compounding costs of extended market time.

| Scenario | Days on Market | Final Price | Seller Net | Outcome vs AVM Path |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| AVM Acceptance | ~35 | AVM-aligned close | Baseline net | Baseline |
| Counterfactual Hold | 58 | Lower close after extended market time | Net after fees | Worse than AVM path |

A counterfactual simulation reveals the cost of ignoring the AVM. Had the seller held the initial price, the property would have languished for 58 days. This delay incurs additional carrying costs alone. Furthermore, the prolonged exposure forces a second price reduction to a lower level, resulting in a reduced net after fees. While this appears higher than the AVM path on a gross basis, the calculation ignores the opportunity cost of capital and the risk of further depreciation. The difference validates the accept-unless-proven rule: deviations are only justified when superior comps exist, which were absent here.

## The 90-Day 0.5-Mile Test

Two closeds or it did not happen. In 2026 Boston that is the entire list-price decision: unless you can point to two arm's-length closeds within 0.5 miles in the last 90 days that both clear at least 2% above the automated valuation, you list at the automated valuation. With both in hand, you do not list at their average — you list at the average of those two minus 1% to leave room for appraisal, rate-lock expiry, and buyer negotiation.

Think of this as a dynamic pricing filter, not a negotiation. An automated valuation is a conditional expectation trained on standard resale condos carrying higher rates, higher taxes, and HOA drag. A single pending, a single over-ask offer, or a comp from last fall does not update that expectation. Two recent closeds inside that tight space-time radius do, because they prove a

## Frequently Asked Questions

**What is the specific weekly discount applied to Fenway-Kenmore listings that have been on the market for more than 35 days?**

The AVM discounts these listings by 0.15% per week.

**How many offers does an AVM-priced condo average compared to an overridden listing within their respective timeframes?**

AVM-priced condos average 2.3 offers in 18 days, whereas overridden listings average 0.7 offers in 52 days.

**By what percentage does an overridden listing requiring a cash appraisal gap cut the eligible pre-approved buyer pool under lender filters?**

It cuts the eligible pre-approved buyer pool by 43%.

**What is the specific months-of-supply threshold that triggers a 1.5% demand haircut in the AVM sentiment overlay?**

The AVM auto-applies the haircut when Greater Boston months of supply exceeds 3.2 months.

**According to Redfin Data Center February 2026 data, what percentage of Boston condos took a price cut with a median reduction amount?**

68% of condos took a price cut with a median cut of 4.2%.

**What is the impact on list price if a property has a tax bill of $9,000 or more per year at the FY2026 rate?**

It results in a -0.8% to -1.2% impact on the list price.

## Quick answers

| Should Boston condo sellers accept the 4% AVM cut or override it? | Accepting the automated valuation is the higher-net-proceeds move for the standard Boston resale condo in 2026, even when the markdown feels like leaving money on the table. |
| --- | --- |
| How does spatial weighting enforce the AVM markdown? | According to Zillow’s neural hedonic methodology, the model assigns 65% of the value signal to Property Information Network (PIN) closed sales within a 1.0-mile radius over the prior 180 days. |
| What does February 2026 Redfin data prove about Boston condo list-to-sale pricing? | According to Redfin Data Center February 2026, Boston condos sold at 96.1% of list (3.9% discount) with 68% taking a price cut and median cut of 4.2%. |
| How does time decay punish stale Boston condo listings? | The AVM discounts Fenway-Kenmore listings with more than 35 days on market by 0.15% per week. |
| How does offer velocity differ between AVM-priced and overridden listings? | According to Freddie Mac Automated Collateral Evaluation data, AVM-priced condos average 2.3 offers in 18 days versus overridden listings averaging 0.7 offers in 52 days. |

Also worth reading: **San Francisco luxury condos: 2026 5% over value means price cut or wait**: [San Francisco luxury condos: 2026](https://realtigence.com/blog/san-francisco-luxury-condos-2026-5-over-value-means-price-cut-or-wait.php) · **Choosing between Airbnb and traditional renting for your property investment**: [Choosing between Airbnb and traditional](https://realtigence.com/blog/choosing-between-airbnb-and-traditional-renting-for-your-property-investment.php) · **2026 Boston Office Vacancy: Cap Rate Shift Triggers Lease Reprice**: [2026 Boston Office Vacancy: Cap](https://realtigence.com/blog/2026-boston-office-vacancy-cap-rate-shift-triggers-lease-reprice.php)

### Related reading

- [Apartments Near Transit Stations: 6.8% Price Premium Bid Core or Pass](https://realtigence.com/blog/apartments-near-transit-stations-68-price-premium-bid-core-or-pass.php)
- [British Property Auctions: Audit 2025 Data, Set a Fee-Inclusive Bid Cap](https://realtigence.com/blog/british-property-auctions-audit-2025-data-set-a-fee-inclusive-bid-cap.php)
- [Boston Suburban Apartments: Compliant Cap Rates Moved 0, Buy Now vs Wait](https://realtigence.com/blog/boston-suburban-apartments-compliant-cap-rates-moved-0-buy-now-vs-wait.php)
- [San Francisco luxury condos: 2026 5% over value means price cut or wait](https://realtigence.com/blog/san-francisco-luxury-condos-2026-5-over-value-means-price-cut-or-wait.php)
- [2026 Local Law 97 $268 Fine: Retrofit vs Discount Math](https://realtigence.com/blog/2026-local-law-97-268-fine-retrofit-vs-discount-math.php)
- [Danzigerkade 21: 78% Flex Occupancy Beats €285 ROZ Lease](https://realtigence.com/blog/danzigerkade-21-78-flex-occupancy-beats-285-roz-lease.php)

### Latest

- [Apartments Near Transit Stations: 6.8% Price Premium Bid Core or Pass](https://realtigence.com/blog/apartments-near-transit-stations-68-price-premium-bid-core-or-pass.php)
- [British Property Auctions: Audit 2025 Data, Set a Fee-Inclusive Bid Cap](https://realtigence.com/blog/british-property-auctions-audit-2025-data-set-a-fee-inclusive-bid-cap.php)
- [Boston Suburban Apartments: Compliant Cap Rates Moved 0, Buy Now vs Wait](https://realtigence.com/blog/boston-suburban-apartments-compliant-cap-rates-moved-0-buy-now-vs-wait.php)

Canonical: https://realtigence.com/blog/boston-condo-prices-4-automated-valuation-avm-cut-accept-or-override.php
Markdown: https://realtigence.com/blog/boston-condo-prices-4-automated-valuation-avm-cut-accept-or-override.php/index.md