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

Zillow to Acquire Trulia for $3.5B

dealbook.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 172 posts

Re: Zillow to Acquire Trulia for $3.5B

#111

Post by ssharp »

kbenson wrote: post #90
ssharp wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that was the argument in Freakonomics and they're completely right. The real estate market can be extremely receptive to low prices, so if you list your house very low, you're likely to sell it much faster. The bulk of the money the agents make will come from the part of the house that could sell very easily. If a house could sell for $200,000 today, but you have to have it listed six months before it could sell…

Depending on the market, a lower list price can work out really well. If demand is high and supply us low, a low list price and not accepting (or at least responding to) offers until after a specific date can result in a bidding war increasing the price 5-10%, as you've increased your exposure. This tactic has been used to great effect over the last few years in the area North of San Francisco. I bought a house a yea…

My experience has not been in "hot" real estate markets, so I've never experienced the low listing price as a tactic other than trying to sell a house faster. Most houses in my direct area sit around for at least several months, if not several years. I'm sure other areas are substantially different.

Re: Zillow to Acquire Trulia for $3.5B

#112

Post by ssharp »

mooreds wrote: post #92
ssharp wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that was the argument in Freakonomics and they're completely right. The real estate market can be extremely receptive to low prices, so if you list your house very low, you're likely to sell it much faster. The bulk of the money the agents make will come from the part of the house that could sell very easily. If a house could sell for $200,000 today, but you have to have it listed six months before it could sell…

There are good agents and bad agents, just like good and bad folks in any profession. (Actually, because the barriers to entry are so low, there are probably more bad real estate agents.) See my comment below about LTV--if a consumer feels they aren't being treated well, the agent might make a bit more on this sale, but lose five figures of income later. Just like that agent that you interacted with. Now, if you feel…

A lot will depend on the situation as well. Maybe you're willing to take less money to sell the house faster. Getting a very aggressive agent would be a good option then.

Like with most things, you're best bet is to do the research and gather several options. When I was selling my house, I spoke with three or four agents and ultimately chose a flat-fee MLS service.

Re: Zillow to Acquire Trulia for $3.5B

#113

Post by imjk »

swalsh wrote: post #52
chatmasta wrote: post #23

I interned for Redfin last summer. This is a really interesting space, and most people don't realize that Zillow/Trulia are operating drastically different businesses from Redfin. Some background: The US real estate industry is broken up into regions (e.g. SF bay area, Orange County, Lake Tahoe, etc.). In order for a brokerage [1] to operate in a region, it needs to employ agents specifically licensed in that region,…

I bought my house through Red Fin. Though zillow gave some interesting data, the Red Fin experience was much better. In fact because the market is so competitive here (Boston) it was a big leg up. Our house was listed on a Wednesday morning, with an open house scheduled for Saturday. Since redfin had the most up to date feed, i got an email alert right away. That night we got an early tour, and we put a bid in at lis…

Just out of curiosity, which Boston neighborhood do you live in? I feel like it's such a seller's market in Boston right now, I'll probably wait it out a year before I decide to buy.

Re: Zillow to Acquire Trulia for $3.5B

#114

Post by imjk »

rgovind wrote: post #58

All real estate news and websites are biased and always suggest you that buying a home is a god think. In the SF bay area, I hear real estate agents speak on the radio. Before recession, they said you should buy a home immediately so that rates may increase....Then during recession they say you should buy a home as rates have fallen to historic lows..for last 1-2 years, whenever you hear...they say the interest rates…

Yeah, it's hard to get a real estate professional to talk frankly about the market. Right now I'm in a market that I think is over priced, but you won't get that sense from any of the realtors here.

Re: Zillow to Acquire Trulia for $3.5B

#115

Post by cookiecaper »

chatmasta wrote: post #23

I interned for Redfin last summer. This is a really interesting space, and most people don't realize that Zillow/Trulia are operating drastically different businesses from Redfin. Some background: The US real estate industry is broken up into regions (e.g. SF bay area, Orange County, Lake Tahoe, etc.). In order for a brokerage [1] to operate in a region, it needs to employ agents specifically licensed in that region,…

What would happen if Zillow started to compete against MLS and tell agents to use it as the primary source of data? This sounds like it would deprive Redfin of one of its main advantages (direct MLS access) by circumventing the problem entirely, and also provide Zillow the opportunity to charge for API access to that data feed, which other developers could build their own apps against, further obsoleting the disjointed MLS system. If they already have 80% of real estate agents double-entering the data, they should be able to find a way to get them to say "We don't need that stinky old MLS anyway".

Is there any reason this couldn't or shouldn't happen? It sounds like maybe there is some regulation that involves MLS that might make this difficult.

Re: Zillow to Acquire Trulia for $3.5B

#116

Post by amorphid »

chaosphere2112 wrote: post #37
rahimnathwani wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they provide a hugely invaluable service What is that service? I'm not being snarky; I'm genuinely curious, as the structure of the industry (and fee level) is significantly different than where I'm from. I don't get why you need a real estate agent to help you buy.

I'm in the process of buying my first home, and it's been hugely helpful to have an agent. Services include: - Tours of homes; seeing something online and seeing something in person is an impressive difference. Some houses look amazing online and terrible in person, or vice versa. Cannot possibly overstate the value of this. - Negotiation; he's a professional negotiator, and he has years of experience negotiating in…

My brother just bought a house in the San Francisco Bay Area. Given that he was relocating from severe hundred miles away, his real estate agent was very helpful him shop from a distance. I helped out by doing a final walkthrough of the house with the agent, and saw the stack of paperwork the agent had to deal with. OMG, there were so many forms. A real estate agent who knows how to navigate all of that would be worth it to me.

Re: Zillow to Acquire Trulia for $3.5B

#117

Post by cookiecaper »

ssharp wrote: post #75
tnorthcutt wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you use a real estate agent trying to pump the price as high as possible I was surprised to read this, since I thought you'd hinted at exactly the opposite by mentioning Freakonomics. Isn't the Freakonomics argument that an agent is incentivized to instead sell the property as quickly as possible , regardless of the sale price? For instance, accepting an offer that is $10k under the listing price will cost…

Yes, that was the argument in Freakonomics and they're completely right. The real estate market can be extremely receptive to low prices, so if you list your house very low, you're likely to sell it much faster. The bulk of the money the agents make will come from the part of the house that could sell very easily. If a house could sell for $200,000 today, but you have to have it listed six months before it could sell…

Economists have a tendency to overlook data that is difficult to quantify. In the short term, a real estate agent may make more money by rushing a sale, but on a macro level, he does himself a disservice. Real estate agents need to become your friend and engender loyalty so that you'll recommend them and so that you'll use them again when you sell your new house. Every hour spent with a client and every dollar knocked off the final price is an investment in a long-term relationship that has the potential to net many more sales down the road. Protecting that stream of future work is much more important than rushing sales for short-term gain.

Re: Zillow to Acquire Trulia for $3.5B

#118

Post by eyeareque »

chatmasta wrote: post #23

I interned for Redfin last summer. This is a really interesting space, and most people don't realize that Zillow/Trulia are operating drastically different businesses from Redfin. Some background: The US real estate industry is broken up into regions (e.g. SF bay area, Orange County, Lake Tahoe, etc.). In order for a brokerage [1] to operate in a region, it needs to employ agents specifically licensed in that region,…

I honestly thought that all three sites were basically doing the same thing. Thanks for the insight, this was actually very informative and interesting to learn.

Re: Zillow to Acquire Trulia for $3.5B

#119

Post by eyeareque »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #22
IgorPartola wrote: post #12

Having bought real estate, I can say that Zillow/Trulia are both a blessing and a curse. They are great in that you can see what's been listed for a while, scan a map, and generally put a pretty interface on house searches. This I imagine is their great advantage. I also found my mortgage company through Zillow's mortgage rate search. Their big disadvantage is that their records are not updated as fast as the convent…

they provide a hugely invaluable service What is that service? I'm not being snarky; I'm genuinely curious, as the structure of the industry (and fee level) is significantly different than where I'm from. I don't get why you need a real estate agent to help you buy.

Buying a house is a huge investment. Sure, you can do it all on your own to try to save some money but not without risks. I like to think of an agent as a sort of insurance charge to ensure I am not wasting my money and that I'm getting the best possible price on the best home on the market that fits my needs. I also don't want to spend all day looking for listings on my own. Had I not used an agent I wouldn't have bought the home I live in (and love) today since it didn't fall into the specs I was set on going after.

Re: Zillow to Acquire Trulia for $3.5B

#120

Post by sliverstorm »

scelerat wrote: post #96

Just adding some anecdata to the chatter about these sites and the experience of buying a home: I began searching for a house in the East Bay about two years ago, culminating in a purchase in June 2013. The first year or so I was using Redfin, Zillow, and Trulia to track availability, prices and neighborhoods. While I got some good information, it wasn't until I started talking to an agent with about thirty years exp…

The house I ultimately bought was something she found via her network of colleagues before it even was placed on the market.

That's my experience too. My agent notified me of a property that was "probably going to be sold". I liked the description; he came back to me a month later to say it was going to be sold. I took a tour a week later, prepared an offer a week after that, and submitted the offer the week after that- on the same day it was listed .

Suffice to say, I had "some" advance notice on this property! Without the agent, I would have been much too late to the party. I went under contract with the seller 12 hours after submitting my offer, competing against another offer that had been submitted that day.

Post reply on HN