Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zillow seeks to sell 7k homes for $2.8B after flipping halt

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 634 posts

Re: Zillow seeks to sell 7k homes for $2.8B after flipping halt

#261

Post by amznthrwaway »

game_the0ry wrote: post #255

Former real estate finance professional, here. If you were hoping this was a sign of the real estate market falling and perhaps its your chance to get a bargain, think again. > The company is seeking roughly $2.8 billion for the houses, which are being pitched to institutional investors, according to people familiar with the matter. Institutional investors (Blackstone, Blackrock, Colony, et al) will be being in bulk,…

Institutional Investors make up less than a percent of the single family home buying market.

It’s ridiculous to believe that they’ll monopolize housing and we’ll all be forced to rent.

I know that’s a very very stupid conspiracy theory though, mostly based on a single essay where somebody was postulating possible futures, and they considered a future where people preferred renting.

Re: Zillow seeks to sell 7k homes for $2.8B after flipping halt

#262

Post by ericmcer »

cletus wrote: post #15

This is a good example of the fallacy of youth: buying too far into hype and being all "the sky is falling" with negative news. It wasn't long ago that we were reading how Zillow et al were going to buy up all the housing stock and keep millenials and Zoomers homeless forever. The people saying this have obviously never gone through a "bust" cycle. This is unsurprising as we've now been in the longest bull market in…

New monetary policy is designed to prevent any kind of bust from happening. It is only boom from here on out. 2009 was the last chance to get on the train.

Re: Zillow seeks to sell 7k homes for $2.8B after flipping halt

#263

Post by whimsicalism »

jackorange wrote: post #252
whimsicalism wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why can't we not block building housing?

I don't know where it's being blocked in your view but to use my earlier example of silicon valley, maybe there is a limitation of geographic space, resources in relation to population, and zoning considerations. Maybe silicon valley workers could sponsor the building of a floating land mass to add additional residential space unbound by traditional limitations.

Or we could just not zone as heavily? A recent building near me got blocked because it would add 0.001% (I know it sounds like hyperbole, but I promise I'm being dead serious that was the number) shadow to a nearby park. That is absurd and to pin it on "silicon valley workers" is nativist and dumb.

Re: Zillow seeks to sell 7k homes for $2.8B after flipping halt

#264

Post by WORMS_EAT_WORMS »

tibiahurried wrote: post #242
WORMS_EAT_WORMS wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comments like this make it seem like it’s all figured out. Everyone’s situation is different based on income (sounds like you are high income too - which makes choosing where to deposit cash easier), location, family/living requirements, current net worth, job stability, partner income, etc... It is very possible too your friend made the better decision. There was a time where stocks and house prices going up was dif…

Absolutely, it all depends. But I keep seeing close friends who are now home poor. They own their place, but that's it. They are done. They don't have any significant money for rainy days, they can't afford anything else because all their money go into their properties. For me, that's not how I want to live my life. But as you said, everyone is different. So for them, perhaps that's ok. Not judging.

Don’t think you are judging. Comment definitely just came from position of what I infer as having privilege:

- 10 year retirement (no idea your age but assuming this earlier retirement/semi-retirement)

- Rental properties that are cash flow positive (require in most circumstances a bigger down payment)

- Assuming others have enough income left over to put into the stock market after rent. Don’t consider madness for families to balance their lifestyle and savings

Either way, I believe the majority of these homes Zillow bought are more towards the lower-middle class budgets. Which is kind of my point on frustration with the inflated cost. It’s a much bigger impact than a lot of tech bros/girls probably feel personally.

Re: Zillow seeks to sell 7k homes for $2.8B after flipping halt

#265

Post by mattbrewsbytes »

monkmartinez wrote: post #227
ineedasername wrote: post #30

Sounds like they got in too close to the peak (not to mention delays & increased costs in refurb) and didn't factor increased carrying costs on the potential that these would sit on the market a bit longer if they wanted to sell at a higher premium. A hard lesson for them that listing aggregation & analysis of the market is far different than direct investments & flipping. Flippers take a big risk and offset inevitab…

They simply overpaid. My neighbor received an offer of $150k over the z-estimate in Tucson. He felt that it would be stupid not to sell and wasn't even thinking about selling before the offer came in, so he sold. He paid a slight premium to buy his new house out in the boonies, but the gain offset the rise in price. They are currently listing his old house at the zestimate... I doubt they find a buyer even at that pr…

I think you highlighted an important concept. Rather than overpay, people can look further out from a city center and get cheaper housing. Sure the commute may be longer but there has been a lot of remote working over the last year or so, many companies going fully remote.

Home buyers have many choices and at a certain price, its simply too much and they go elsewhere.

I think zillow is trying to unload their mistake onto some entity they can convince it is still worth it.

Re: Zillow seeks to sell 7k homes for $2.8B after flipping halt

#266

Post by wonderwonder »

ItsMonkk wrote: post #180
harryh wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decades of under-building due to restrictive zoning laws will do that.

Restrictive zoning is a consequence of scarcity seeking incentives. Housing can't be both Affordable and a good Investment. Therefore the only proper value for a home is the price that it costs to build it. The way to do that is a 100% Land Value Tax.

Maybe I dont understand (which I am open too) but it does not seem to make sense unless we transition to a centrally managed economy. Supply and demand drive the price of housing. Whether a house is purchased as an investment or not, it will appreciate based on a variety of factors, including quality of schools, proximity to jobs, etc. If the price of housing did not fluctuate based on demand, and everyone could afford a house anywhere they wanted, who determines who gets the house? House A is on sale and 15 families can afford it. In the current situation, the highest offer takes it. If all offers were forced to be the same, who gets the house? How do you account for bias in the decision process?

Re: Zillow seeks to sell 7k homes for $2.8B after flipping halt

#267

Post by adamhp »

gfosco wrote: post #230
HWR_14 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you live that it takes "months upon months" to close a sale? Usually the complaint is that the market moves so fast people have to make risky snap purchasing decisions.

In the very hot markets only. Anecdote that matches your experience: I sold a house at the beginning of this year (sf east bay), and it was on the market for a few days and closed ~30 days later. More than a dozen offers, most with no contingencies. Top offer was more than 120k over ask.

I bought in Northern Virginia this year, and lost 3 or 4 offers to competitors that were 15-20% over asking. Standard was always no contingencies (no inspection, no financing, nothing) and settle as fast as the mortgage company could underwrite you. You had to really trust your mortgage broker and your agent to pull through. Probably saw 50 houses before getting lucky on an offer because our agent had a connection. It was a pretty awful experience and you were forced to make a terrifying decision very quickly. I still remember the surreal experiencing of clicking the DocuSign button that evening that would result in me being on the hook for multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars...

Re: Zillow seeks to sell 7k homes for $2.8B after flipping halt

#268

Post by 34679 »

We need a property tax rate multiplier for entities and individuals who own multiple properties. The more you own beyond 2 or maybe 3, the higher your rate is. Imagine being a single parent who was outbid for a home in Phoenix by a faceless algorithm - 300 times.

Re: Zillow seeks to sell 7k homes for $2.8B after flipping halt

#269

Post by vb6sp6 »

cletus wrote: post #15

This is a good example of the fallacy of youth: buying too far into hype and being all "the sky is falling" with negative news. It wasn't long ago that we were reading how Zillow et al were going to buy up all the housing stock and keep millenials and Zoomers homeless forever. The people saying this have obviously never gone through a "bust" cycle. This is unsurprising as we've now been in the longest bull market in…

zillow isn't going to release these houses to you and me. they are going to blackrock and other such firms

Re: Zillow seeks to sell 7k homes for $2.8B after flipping halt

#270

Post by qaq »

zemo wrote: post #231
qaq wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All people need shelter but people are not entitled to shelter in any place of their choosing. Your proposed solution will increase rent prices for people who can't afford to buy a house while pushing the housing prices down and making them more affordable to middle class. So essentially you are making house purchasing more affordable to middle class at the expense of the poor and investors.

> people are not entitled to shelter in any place of their choosing I don't think that's a useful framing, because it's again putting the framing in terms of market dynamics in a vacuum. People don't pick where they're born, they don't pick who their parents are, and they don't pick the socioeconomic status that they're born into or have as children. The majority of people are born somewhere and cannot really afford…

I hold the opposite view it should be purely viewed through market dynamics in terms of solutions to societal problems we are trying to solve. As soon as you try to come up with the solution that ignores them you immediately get 2nd order effects that might be directly undermining your original goals. If there is lack of housing any solution that does not meaningfully increase the supply of houses will fail. (I am an immigrant so have pretty decent grasp on sacrifices one makes to move to get access to better opportunities).
Post reply on HN