Launch
The inventory that was left over by mistake
There was no shortage of buyers. Nobody asked them before building.
A real-estate development's feasibility study measures, with precision, what it costs to build, the projected sales value and the target margin. The question that decides whether the product sells — who it is for, what price that buyer pays, with exactly which product — is usually answered by impression, not by research. The launch answers "what it costs to build" with rigour, and "who buys" with a guess.
That is how the mismatch shows up, always too late to fix without cost. A product sized for one buyer profile launches in a submarket where real demand, at that price, belongs to a different profile. The feasibility study does not catch that error — it only tracks cost and margin. The error surfaces eighteen months later, as unsold inventory on the balance sheet, discounted unit by unit, at the exact moment the developer most needs that launch's cash to close out the works or start the next one.
Hence the order that avoids the problem: market research — who buys, at what price, what product — needs to come before the floor plan is locked, not after the launch goes badly. Once the unit mix and the price table are set, changing them is expensive. Research done after the launch only explains the mistake; it no longer prevents anything.
The test is to look backward: survey the last three competing launches in the same area and the same tier as your product — how much they sold in the first 90 days, at what price per square metre, to which buyer profile. If you cannot answer that question about your own product, you have not decided yet — you have bet.
Market research aimed at the product and the location, with a stated methodology and a comparison against equivalent launches, delivered before the product decision — not after the launch.
In the house, this sits with Market and product intelligence.
Official source, at the exact point: the service or the search you can use today. It does not replace analysis of the specific case, which is our work.
Each note starts from a sourced figure, explains the mechanism behind it and ends with a test you can run yourself, today, without calling us. They are deliberately short pieces: what does not fit in them fits in a conversation.
A note does not replace the review — it shows the mechanism and gives the reader back the ability to check alone. That is deliberate: whoever understands the mechanism negotiates better, including with us.
If the reading raises a question the note does not answer, it is probably the right question. Worth sending: answering a new question is the cheapest way to find out what we have not explained properly yet.
We do not promise a percentage before looking at the data, we do not promise a homologation date — the procedure belongs to the State: and we do not chase speculative theses to fatten an opinion. Nor do we take commission for referring anyone.
A conversation, with no materials and no proposal, to understand what is blocked. If there is matter to work on, the next step is the letter of authorisation and secrecy, a document that limits our own access before anything else.
Every statement on this page comes from a public norm, and the links above lead to the full text: not to the agency's portal. That is deliberate: whoever wants to check can check alone, which is the only kind of trust that does not depend on whoever asks for it.
No thesis moves forward without its classification written beside it. That is what separates a survey from a promise.
Say in two lines what you need to resolve. Eduardo Roveda answers personally, in business hours, and the conversation starts where it makes a difference.
This pagepoint the cameraIt reached the desk of whoever answers. The reply comes in writing, during business hours.
