Live data from Hacker News

How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

fullstackeconomics.com

311–320 of 684 posts

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

#311
And a solution is exponential taxation for properties not being lived in by the buyer.

I'm done and tired of vulture capitalists and all sorts trying to make bank on where to live. I'm sick of landlords looking for shitty almost-passive income while I build them equity.

Fuck'em all. I want this "industry" to die in a pit of firey death.

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

#313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Someone can move in and refuse to pay rent, refuse to leave, use your house as a drug den, destroy your property and lots more, and you can do nothing about it. This is one of those things that really just confuses me. It's like no one could agree on happy medium between "landlord can eject you whenever they want for whatever reason" and "no one can make you leave, ever, for any reason". And to whoever downvoted yo…

>landlord can eject you whenever they want for whatever reason I don't understand. Why aren't landlords able to do this? Isn't it seen as immoral to steal property from an owner?

There's the whole "house as a human right" angle that is sometimes used to explain why tenant friendly laws exist, but it's not the only angle you have to approach the problem from. It's also true that a cities economy needs a lot of "minimum wage" or whatever workers, and for example if San Francisco didn't have tenant friendly laws like rent control then the hospitality industry would also suddenly need to pay a lot more to get bodies for their people-heavy business. After some deep conversations with a friend about this I now see this from his angle where cities are just state-sponsored big HOAs. If you get property in the HOA you have to abide by their rules and one of their rules is that for certain types of property if you rent it you can't easily kick out the tenants. If you don't like it, no one is forcing you to buy the property and even less to rent it, it's your call.

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

#314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's honestly quite scary how I'm in the top 2% of income earners in my generation and yet I could barely afford to buy a small place in a semi-desirable area. I can easily see myself not being able to compete in algorithmically dominated markets flush with venture cash in the future and I earn more than just about everybody I know today. A thought exercise: suppose that no new houses are ever built and that housin…

> > It's honestly quite scary how I'm in the top 2% of income earners in my generation and yet I could barely afford to buy a small place > I live in Los Angeles, where a "small place in semi-desirable area" gets listed for 1.5M and goes for nearly 2M. I'm somewhere in the top 5% of earners in California, but that $2M 1950s tract housing would be >50% of my post-tax income. I think the obvious answer here is that peo…

You don’t need a lot of there is only one decent house a week for an entire metro of 2-3m people somebody has a rich uncle, a heloc or some windfall earnings they can lean on to make it happen

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

#315
post #40

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,…

One can blame Airbnb, Zillow or whoever else, but the truth is that speculation in real estate and vacation towns have both been a thing for a very long time. If the population rises and we refuse to build more houses, the existing ones will get more expensive no matter what. The solution is out there in front of us but everyone prefers to dance around it.

Prices have increased tremendously even in cities with stagnant population. It's not just pure supply and demand - real estate has a tendency to occupy enough of income in a given area so that the lower paid cannot afford it.

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

#316
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not a liberal if you're casually violating fair housing law :) Everyone wants to call themselves a liberal or progressive nowadays, it's bizarre. These things are about actions, not self-assigned labels.

Is visa status a protected class for rentals in CA/Berkley?

Yes it is, but it's impossible to enforce because landlords can ask for your drivers license/ID with the application and if you are on a visa your ID says "LIMITED TERM" on it. So they can always say yes or no based on that but pretend it was something else that made them make the choice.

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

#317
post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've often wished that one avenue of appeal of a city assessment was an option given to the property owner to force the city to buy the property for 90% of what they assessed it. You could either go through the current appeals process or just sell them the house if they were way off.

And the same for the reverse: You can claim your house is only worth $40k, but then the city is allowed to buy it for $48k.

I'd be OK with that, but would probably design it to allow the homeowner to "fold" and withdraw their petition to reduce the assessment. (Otherwise, you'd see crap like "Oh, nikanj's kid is a senior next year; let's jack up their assessment because they're not going to want to move and so won't contest it...")

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

#318
post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does one accumulate $500K in damages and debt in 1 year? That's like $41k/month.

Some people don't take kindly to being kicked out, even if they're in the wrong, and there's not a lot you can do to stop them from causing hundreds of thousands in damages while you go through the process of evicting them.

The first house I lived at in California was part 2 of that - previous owners destroyed the place during a foreclosure, so we got what was previously an $800k house for $400k in a short sale by a bank. Took ~$50k to fix up because we were willing to do the work ourselves over about a year.

It was disgusting. Glass and other obstructions flushed down the pipes, literal feces on the walls, holes everywhere, missing parts of the ceiling, fixtures ripped out, etc.

Move-in process was essentially move all our stuff to a storage area, continue renting until we'd made the place no longer a biohazard, then we moved in slowly as we fixed up rooms.

But hey, a few hours of work a day for a year essentially saved a year of a FAANG salary on the place.

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

#319

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,…

It's "easy to see" if you don't do any math. US real estate market is around ~$200 billion. That $0.881 billion of zillow is a rounding error.

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

#320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so alien to me. Why don’t you sell the place? Staying the owner of this place makes it so that you can’t spend your money tied up in this house, and this house can’t provide its roof to someone. Seems like both of you loose.

Presumably value appreciating more than selling it and investing in other assets that are as safe.

Also, houses can allow you to lever up with non callable loans.
Post reply on HN