Live data from Hacker News

How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

fullstackeconomics.com

21–30 of 684 posts

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#21
I was at Zillow for many years and left in 2020. On the tech side the pivot into iBuying was absolutely bonkers. The message from senior leadership was basically: I have no idea what your teams should be working on but it’s definitely not what they are currently working on so stop that and figure something else out.

This has nothing directly to do with their market failure but they probably are driven by the same leadership problems.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#22
post #18

The scary thing is that it's easy to see how something how like this could drive a market boom and bust cycle. I'm imagining a scenario where two iBuyer companies try to outbid each other algorithmically, driving the prices further and further out of reach of people who are looking for a primary home. Tangentially related, I talked to a friend who works on geospatial data for one of the big vacation rental companies,…

I think people should expand what "desirable" means to them. There's a ton of suitable houses all over the country. Everyone seems to need to own a SFH in a trendy part of a trendy city.

Are there jobs near those houses? Specialist doctors? Good schools?

I WFH so I could probably buy one of those houses, but most of my friends in my age bracket are expected to show up to an office 5 days a week, so those suitable houses are no good for them.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#23
Reminds me of an old guy in knew back in the early 90's. His (quite nice) house was on a lot shaped like "well, that was the leftovers, after we gave all the other houses reasonable lots". Every year, the City tried to raise his property's assessed value by ~10% more than the neighborhood's average increase. And every time that his house sold (he had decades of records, to support his appeals of their over-assessments), it sold for ~50% of what the City wanted it to be worth. Now if he could have gotten the City to buy him out, for what their Assessment rulebook said his house was worth...

Edit: Added seemed-obvious final sentence.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#24

The scary thing is that it's easy to see how something how like this could drive a market boom and bust cycle. I'm imagining a scenario where two iBuyer companies try to outbid each other algorithmically, driving the prices further and further out of reach of people who are looking for a primary home. Tangentially related, I talked to a friend who works on geospatial data for one of the big vacation rental companies,…

> I'm imagining a scenario where two iBuyer companies try to outbid each other algorithmically, driving the prices further and further out of reach of people who are looking for a primary home.

But iBuyers are always low-balling. They are bidding under the asking price with an all-cash offer that they hope will make up in speed and ease what it lacks in price.

> It's not that uncommon to see nearly entire neighborhoods converted to short term rentals now in some areas where they're still legal. Hearing that really depressed me.

I lived in Lake Tahoe for ten years before AirBnB was a thing and three out of four homes there were absentee owners that only used them a few weeks a year. It made it a very hard place for small businesses to stay afloat. Most visitors stayed at big hotels or paid huge premiums for ad hoc "cabin rentals" through local realtors. The most depressing part was Halloween - kids hiking up and down steep hills to mostly empty houses. :)

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#25
post #18

The scary thing is that it's easy to see how something how like this could drive a market boom and bust cycle. I'm imagining a scenario where two iBuyer companies try to outbid each other algorithmically, driving the prices further and further out of reach of people who are looking for a primary home. Tangentially related, I talked to a friend who works on geospatial data for one of the big vacation rental companies,…

I think people should expand what "desirable" means to them. There's a ton of suitable houses all over the country. Everyone seems to need to own a SFH in a trendy part of a trendy city.

+1 GP is top 2% of their generation but not necessarily top 2% of the area they're looking into. Sounds fairer when put that way.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#26

The scary thing is that it's easy to see how something how like this could drive a market boom and bust cycle. I'm imagining a scenario where two iBuyer companies try to outbid each other algorithmically, driving the prices further and further out of reach of people who are looking for a primary home. Tangentially related, I talked to a friend who works on geospatial data for one of the big vacation rental companies,…

Sounds like a good sci-fi story... Rebellion against the AI landlords.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#27
post #16

The scary thing is that it's easy to see how something how like this could drive a market boom and bust cycle. I'm imagining a scenario where two iBuyer companies try to outbid each other algorithmically, driving the prices further and further out of reach of people who are looking for a primary home. Tangentially related, I talked to a friend who works on geospatial data for one of the big vacation rental companies,…

The problem here is that they were buying the homes at prices above what they would actually sell for to real buyers and Zillow ended up racking up losses in that way. In your scenario in which two iBuyers outbid each other -- fine, but wouldn't the same situation as Zillow's happen? They'd just end up with overpaid inventory.

Whether or not the market works itself out later, it puts everything into a weird state while the bidding war is going on. If iBuyer1 and iBuyer2 together buy up the inventory of a zip code for 120% of asking, then what are people who are willing to go to 105% to do? Maybe it just resets the market to whatever the drunken algorithm decided it to be.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#28

Anecdote on the estimates. We bought a house for X and renovated it. The day before we listed it both Zillow and Redfin estimate had an estimate around the purchase price X. When we listed it for 2X, both companies changed their estimate to be close to the listing. However, Redfin changed the entire price history as well showing a gentle slope. Zillow preserved their previous history and showed a spike.

Noticed the same, but I still think Zillow tweaks historical but just not as brazenly as Redfin.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#29

I recently bought a home. We toured a Zillow home, and I can understand what they were going for and where they failed. We were able to pull up to the driveway, book a tour for that minute, and walk in the front door. It was almost a magical experience compared to the process of finding and going to showings. The listings were clear and thorough. The experience was extremely compelling. The downside: the homes were a…

> The downside

If this wasn’t another house in the same neighborhood then the differentiator most certainly wasn’t Zillow or their pricing.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#30
post #18

The scary thing is that it's easy to see how something how like this could drive a market boom and bust cycle. I'm imagining a scenario where two iBuyer companies try to outbid each other algorithmically, driving the prices further and further out of reach of people who are looking for a primary home. Tangentially related, I talked to a friend who works on geospatial data for one of the big vacation rental companies,…

I think people should expand what "desirable" means to them. There's a ton of suitable houses all over the country. Everyone seems to need to own a SFH in a trendy part of a trendy city.

Not me. I just want mixed residential housing. Yeah, it’s not happening because America made that effectively illegal. We’re finally rolling some of that back, but it’s going to take decades to undo and by that time the shortage will continue.
Post reply on HN