Location
Comparable listings near the asset.
Completed sales tell a lender what has already happened. Panoperty looks at how market participants are behaving now around each collateral asset, using buyer engagement and participation behaviour observed around comparable residential listings from proprietary data sources.
For every asset, Panoperty builds five separate comparator pools, so evidence can differ by attribute. A weakening price cohort, for example, can be seen even when the wider location is stable.
Comparable listings near the asset.
Comparable listings of a similar property type.
Comparable listings of a similar size.
Comparable listings with a similar energy rating.
Comparable listings in a similar price range.
The lender-supplied collateral value remains the recorded collateral value used in the monitoring workflow, including for LTV. Panoperty does not replace it or display any internal reference used to select comparable listings.
Local markets differ in how much comparable activity they have. Rather than hide that, Panoperty reports it alongside every result.
Pools widen geographically only when local evidence is too thin, and the distance actually used is recorded. Where a view cannot be supported, the attribute is recorded as insufficient evidence rather than estimated.
Several behavioural measures are taken for each pool and compared with that pool's own history. The result is a state for each attribute. States describe buyer behaviour relative to its own history. They are monitoring categories, not estimates of value or probability.
A monitoring signal that changes randomly from month to month would be of little operational use. Panoperty tested whether observed weakening states persist for longer than would be expected from the structure of the data alone.
The study followed 592 located residential anchors from 2024-06-30 to 2026-08-19, using the same kind of local evidence as the monitor. It compared observed persistence with a statistical null built by scrambling the timing of individual buyer events, repeated in 10 independent replicates. Persistence that survives this test is not explained by the overlap of measurement windows or by event volume alone.
| Horizon | Observed | Null mean | Null 97.5th percentile |
|---|---|---|---|
| 30 days | 47.0% | 25.7% | 42.5% |
| 60 days | 28.6% | 9.5% | 20.1% |
| 90 days | 15.9% | 6.8% | 13.0% |
At each horizon, observed weakening persistence exceeds both the mean and the 97.5th percentile of the null. The observed weakening states therefore persist beyond what the tested null explains. The same did not hold for strengthening states, whose observed persistence was below the null mean at every horizon.
The experiment tests persistence of local behavioural evidence only. It does not test, and should not be read as evidence about, property value, collateral value, valuation accuracy, lender loss, default probability or the need for revaluation. The study used a research classification of attribute states that differs from the summary shown in the product, so the results are not a direct measurement of product states.
Coverage differs by location and property type. A portfolio assessment shows how much of your portfolio has usable local evidence.