This has nothing directly to do with their market failure but they probably are driven by the same leadership problems.
How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M
21–30 of 684 posts
Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M
#22The 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.
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
#23Edit: Added seemed-obvious final sentence.
Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M
#24The 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,…
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
#25The 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.
Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M
#26The 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,…
Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M
#27The 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.
Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M
#28Anecdote 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.
Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M
#29I 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…
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
#30The 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.