How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M
fullstackeconomics.com
How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M
1–10 of 684 posts
Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M
#2However, I always took that to be intentional, sort of a "see how valuable your home is / how high the values are where you're looking at"; hype that cost them nothing but made everyone feel better. Did the person that set that "glamor bonus" fudge factor get fired or just wasn't allowed to talk to the team deciding offer prices?
Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M
#3Zillow's estimates of home values in my area have consistently been 150% of actual prices, as far as I've seen over the past years. Not that I've looked that closely and given that this is a hard area for them with low sales and a broad range of values for reasons not easy for their algorithms to quantify. However, I always took that to be intentional, sort of a "see how valuable your home is / how high the values ar…
Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M
#4Zillow's estimates of home values in my area have consistently been 150% of actual prices, as far as I've seen over the past years. Not that I've looked that closely and given that this is a hard area for them with low sales and a broad range of values for reasons not easy for their algorithms to quantify. However, I always took that to be intentional, sort of a "see how valuable your home is / how high the values ar…
Odd. My house is valued at $330k on zillow, would sell for $420K+ in a few days.
FWIW, we have had a high frequency of home sales in the past year, so that might help. I just looked up my previous house (sold 5 years ago), and Zillow is saying $740K, which I am pretty sure is massively overvalued, however the street it is on, and general area, have a fairly low turnover, so less recent data.
Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M
#5Zillow's estimates of home values in my area have consistently been 150% of actual prices, as far as I've seen over the past years. Not that I've looked that closely and given that this is a hard area for them with low sales and a broad range of values for reasons not easy for their algorithms to quantify. However, I always took that to be intentional, sort of a "see how valuable your home is / how high the values ar…
Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M
#6We 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 absurdly overpriced. I bought a home for about 10% less than the last Zillow listing. For less, I got three times the land, 40% more square footage, a better location, updated appliances, new carpets, landscaped back yard, horseshoe driveway, two car garage. Almost zero effort had been put into modernizing the Zillow home and it showed.
I suspect if I had come in with a very low offer, they'd have accepted it. But for what?
If I was Zillow, I'd have licensed the tech to realtors. I'd definitely be inclined to buy a home through them if they weren't the ones selling the property directly.
Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M
#7In return people would be able t book a viewing to your house without a buyers agent nor would a sellers agent be involved. Cut both parties out, pass some savings to the buyer and seller and take a large cut.
Everyone wins.
Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M
#8Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M
#9Tangentially related, I talked to a friend who works on geospatial data for one of the big vacation rental companies, and he was remarking how many homes in many desirable areas are now rentals. 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.
We often talk about automation in terms of replacing various types of labor, but I've become really interested in automation creating adverse market incentives for smaller market participants because that's exactly what buying real estate right now feels like.
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.