Live data from Hacker News

How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

fullstackeconomics.com

321–330 of 684 posts

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

#321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people in the world live and raise families in the conditions where they don't control what happens behind the floor, walls and ceilings. This seems like very strong entitlement.

Most people in the world don't have time to post on HN, or even have the privilege of knowing it exists. You posting a reply here is a very strong entitlement. But if they did, they would probably come here and reply that they don't want 8 drunken college bros constantly partying next to their house either.

62% of the world has access to internet. HN is also free. There is no vetting process to see that you are wealthy. Somewhere like philippines, even the dirt poor know English, so English isn't necessarily a barrier either.

Personal I live in a SFH, and I have a family. Even though I don't want 8 drunken bros living next to me, they have as much right to exist as my rather loud and surely annoying toddler has.

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

#322
post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the population rises and we refuse to build more houses Building more houses is generally good too, but it's a bit of a cop-out to blame the whole situation on that. Totally independent of supply concerns, I would argue that it's not great that in so many areas the value of homes seems to be almost entirely divorced from the fact that people need homes to live in . Imagine if a bunch of very wealthy people just…

Thing is if people start hoarding medicine then new companies can pop up and fill in the gap, or existing ones can increase production, making the whole thing pointless to do. Same goes for every other "necessary to life" product. Temporary disruptions will be handled by the market in the long term, and in the worst case government can step in and regulate. Housing is probably the only sector where all the laws and r…

> Thing is if people start hoarding medicine then new companies can pop up and fill in the gap, or existing ones can increase production, making the whole thing pointless to do.

Hoarding medicine isn't a trend and even so, this market correction doesn't happen. Look at all the medicines with insanely high prices because there won't be any competition.

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

#323
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah those are good points. I live in a bit of a bubble where most folks around me either WFH or have to travel to work. There are absolutely "specialist doctors" in every large city though...

You might be surprised how hard it is to actually find specialists, even in big cities. In the SF bay area for example for a couple different procedures I had done in the last decade there were perhaps 3 specialists in the whole area who could do it, far enough from me that I had to book a hotel room to stay in closer to the facility and avoid 4+ hours of driving.

A family friend was diagnosed with a difficult brain tumor, and to get it removed via a (if memory serves, this was a while ago) gamma knife procedure, he had to drive 6+ hours north from a relatively large mid-california city up to Sacramento because we had one of the only facilities equipped for it there at the time.

In general people often will get transported to other hospitals for treatment, often multiple hours or even across state lines. Now imagine that you have to do this multiple times a month because you moved to a less-urban area due to housing prices...

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

#324
As a current residential real estate appraiser, and coming from being a developer for a large corporation that is very active in this space, this has been eye opening yet unsurprising to watch from where I sit with access to all the transactions in my area (I service the Phoenix-Metro and outlying areas).

In appraisal after appraisal after appraisal within the last 6-7 months, I have watched Zillow, Opendoor, and OfferUp getting cleaned out to the tune of losing $30,000 - $60,000 on home after home in some neighborhoods. And in AZ, Zillow and Opendoor have been buying and selling in this market pretty healthily the past few years, and we’re it not for themselves and the buying frenzy of last Spring and Summer, they probably would not have gotten as hurt here in the Valley. They got suckered into paying top dollar in a market that was at its peak, and their algos were not trained to deal with the human factors causing this.

When I was working as a developer for a real estate tech company, it was made very clear that this company, along with any other iBuyer are able to show homes and come up with estimates is because they have local access just like realtors, appraisers, and developers to a Multiple Listing Service (MLS). In fact, the company I worked for had access to every MLS in the US; They would use the data from any of these MLSs to populate their front end product, which would then be influenced by their data science team to give the “estimate” based on whatever factors they deemed appropriate.

As someone whose job is predicated on objectively using primarily historical (for the past year) MLS/County data to asses what the market will allow a home to be valued at, it pains me to see people being taken advantage of by companies like Zillow who want to be “market makers” while not thinking through the implications of their strategies past making money on “easy” flips.

All this at the cost of local communities home values losing touch with the realities of the people who are living in an area to live, not invest. And here in Phoenix, it’s only gotten worse for anyone who doesn’t already have generational or attained wealth to find affordable housing.

The median price as of the past few months has cooled down to $350,000 - $400,000 for what would be considered normal for a less-than 2,000 square foot home. But, in some areas of the valley, it’s gotten so ridiculous that a sub 2,000 sf house is able to sell for $610,000.

On the one hand, I can appreciate these types of companies and business practices because they will keep me in a job making sense of the messes they make in the micro. On the other hand in a macro view, I hope this shakes some sense into the C-suite and product teams of these platforms that they need to approach this less as a “move fast, break things” type enterprise, for themselves and the communities they impact with their choices.

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

#325
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this in the US? I've never heard of this before and am curious to learn more. It sounds like something that is nearly unenforceable.

It doesn't have to be enforceable. But as soon as you do this, any potential hiccup like having to evict tenants or go to court for anything minor, and the state/police find out about your little "unenforceable" violation.

People on AirBnB generally are not 'tenants' and kicking them out is as easy as trespassing them, optionally with a Sheriff if they refuse to leave. You're reading way to much into Sheriff Bill worrying about what's happening. The AirBnB side is typically a civil matter.

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

#326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest to God, the founders of Airbnb should have been sent to prison. That would have fixed much of this, it's point blank illegal to run a bed and breakfast out of your home. Now if you're my buddy, and you want to slide me $200 to crash at my house for a week that's fine, but if you add technology to it, it ends up destroying entire neighborhoods. Ride-sharing is a bit different, since I'd argue the reduction in d…

> That would have fixed much of this, it's point blank illegal to run a bed and breakfast out of your home. Why? It's your home, you can do anything in it. Why should you need a license to rent out your own home for a few days? Does it physically destroy neighborhoods or just your perception of it? If so, why should anyone care?

> Why? It's your home, you can do anything in it

You kinda can, but you don't get the type of legal protections a hotel or B&B that plays by the rules has.

Also like it's your home, but it's not your roads, cops, firemen, sewage system, power grid, courts... you wanna use all those services you have to play by their rules and there's a lot of rules and they don't exactly make a lot of sense.

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

#327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the population rises and we refuse to build more houses Building more houses is generally good too, but it's a bit of a cop-out to blame the whole situation on that. Totally independent of supply concerns, I would argue that it's not great that in so many areas the value of homes seems to be almost entirely divorced from the fact that people need homes to live in . Imagine if a bunch of very wealthy people just…

In areas where home prices are high, the vast majority of homes have people living in them. So the idea that home prices are inflated by people buying homes and not doing anything with them seems a bit suspect to me. Additionally it kind of strains belief that people are buying homes, paying property tax, etc. just because they like collecting them the way a kid likes collecting pokemon cards. More likely they'd buy…

> In areas where home prices are high, the vast majority of homes have people living in them.

When the very rich park wealth in real estate, it is precisely in the ares where prices are highest. Not much point in parking wealth in a cheap house in the midwest.

https://nypost.com/2021/08/05/nearly-half-of-luxury-units-em...

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

#328

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 lea…

Sounds familiar, I read this as leadership saying... "you all need to change what you are doing because you must not know what you're doing because we don't know what we're doing and we're the ones in charge."

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

#329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dont really think anyone would call the business models of Opendoor, Offerpad, and formerly Zillow "flipping." Yes, they did buy a house with the intent to sell it but imo the term flipping refers to a much, much smaller scale business that also includes fixing up the property in some way. That is not what iBuyers do.

Buying a house to make a short-term profit on the resale is flipping. You can cover it up with some marketing tech-biz baloney, but it is still flipping flipping.

Agreed.

In my local Multiple Listing Service, it can show you all deed history for a given property, it is most certainly labeled as a flip if anyone – iBuyer or no – buys and then sells within a short period of time, even if they don’t make profit. The intention is understood by all market participants.

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

#330
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Heck I know several people who prefer to keep their condos/houses empty rather than rent them out at market rate because of 100% tenant friendly city and state laws. 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. At that point the city is just incentivizing homeowners to contribute to the housing…

> 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…

There is a happy medium, and many cities are in it, it's just that landlords love painting that happy medium as tyranny.

They also never make any distinction between letting a basement or a room in a home, a private landlord letting a detached home, and a corporate landlord letting hundreds of units.

Post reply on HN