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

The Ugly Truth Behind “We Buy Ugly Houses”

propublica.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 244 posts

Re: The Ugly Truth Behind “We Buy Ugly Houses”

#181

Post by iudqnolq »

bhouston wrote: post #75

They are a discount buyer, so it is generally a bad deal to use them and you basically shouldn't unless you have no other option. It is similar to getting a pay day loan, or selling stuff to pawn shop or keeping a balance on your VISA. You are going to get a bad deal. I don't really know what to do about it. How can you ensure people are educated enough to know that a discount buyer is a buyer who will under pay for…

In response to this article the company promised to stop suing customers to force them to follow through on sale contracts. That sounds like a constructive change.

Re: The Ugly Truth Behind “We Buy Ugly Houses”

#182

Post by mschuster91 »

Andaith wrote: post #53
andrewstuart wrote: post #41

>> Home ownership is the American dream: In Australia, for many people the (new) Australian dream is: "One day I hope to have the income to be able to afford to pass the grueling real estate agent's suitability test to rent a house and move out of the tent/car."

I don't even know how we got here. Population growth has been below average for the last 3 years(no immigration). Housing/Apartment construction didn't slow down. I just don't understand it. Mortgages are insane. If you're buying a rental property with a mortgage, you can't afford to not rent it out. But home costs are up, rental costs are up, and properties are vacant. Do we really have so many people able to afford…

> Do we really have so many people able to afford to sit on empty properties rather than lower rental price?

If you're running it as a commercial operation, claim loss from vacancy for tax credit. That is how they all survive.

Re: The Ugly Truth Behind “We Buy Ugly Houses”

#183

Post by mschuster91 »

dmbche wrote: post #79

Exchanges of over some amount of money should be supervised by a third party just to check it's not a scam - how hard could it be? I can't believe there are no safeguards for people...I can't believe it wouldn't be worth it socially

In Germany, all real estate sales have to be signed at the office of a government-appointed notary, precisely to prevent this kind of scam.

Re: The Ugly Truth Behind “We Buy Ugly Houses”

#184

Post by mschuster91 »

dabluecaboose wrote: post #159
55555 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay now define scam.

Yup. I can easily imagine some third-party scam police cracking down on things like "I sold my son the family home for $1" or other similar unusual (but not scam) transactions

An independent party (like in Germany, a notary) can at least flag suspicious activity and demand explanation or verify if the parties are authorized to act and of sound mind.

Re: The Ugly Truth Behind “We Buy Ugly Houses”

#185

Post by _benedict »

55555 wrote: post #137
stanleydrew wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a reasonable take, but I think it's also reasonable to suggest that if current system execution is too expensive then perhaps a new regulation could make it cheaper. Of course there are perhaps unintended side effects from new regulation, but "this is already a crime, we don't need anything new" isn't prima facie a sufficient argument. If a lot of a similar type of crime is going unpunished, there may be a re…

They are essentially a market maker for housing. You can sell your house to them _today_. It's necessary that they pay you substantially under market. If you want a good price, it'll take you 6 months to sell your house. You're paying a premium for immediate execution. Once you punish the fraud and crime, there's no problem left IMO. There's multiple of these companies competing and you should price shop before selli…

There’s a general problem with low friction transactions being used to exploit people with diminished capacity, particularly when intermediaries are involved (another common one in UK is signing them up for multiple phone contracts) and there may be some regulatory innovation possible in this area. Punishment after the fact is not sufficient if it doesn’t adequately prevent this population being exploited.

Re: The Ugly Truth Behind “We Buy Ugly Houses”

#186

Post by chii »

devmor wrote: post #82

I feel like this is just a foreseeable consequence of any for-profit organization that operates on "getting people out of a tight spot". If your motive is to make money, you are always going to have the incentive to take advantage of the imbalance of power created by said tight spot.

but is the person who needs to get out of said tight spot be worse off had no such for-profit organizations been around?

Re: The Ugly Truth Behind “We Buy Ugly Houses”

#187

Post by surgical_fire »

_8j50 wrote: post #175
pessimizer wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a libertarian idealization of predatory behavior. Apparently, when we don't restrain predators they get better and better, and more and more people become predators, and that's how we build civilization. Also those who don't become predators are getting what they deserve.

I am not a libertarian FYI. The question is not whether predatory businesses are good or bad, the question is, so long as their advertising is not deceptive, who do you or the government think you are to take options away from people and profits from business owners? Everything from junkfoods to lotteries are "predatory" because poor people who can do better choose them by this logic. I am simply challenging you to e…

> who do you or the government think you are to take options away from people and profits

Yes, who do they think they are, taking options away from grifters and swindlers from their deserved profits?

The nerve on these people.

Re: The Ugly Truth Behind “We Buy Ugly Houses”

#188

Post by BrandoElFollito »

In France you cannot buy a house without a notary, and the whole thing is completely standardized. No surprise contract, or small print.

The notary has a monopoly and charges for it a lot (the amount is regulated as well) but at least you have no legal worries.

Re: The Ugly Truth Behind “We Buy Ugly Houses”

#189

Post by scarface74 »

poulsbohemian wrote: post #143
mindslight wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Listing Realtors (TM) rely on people's misunderstandings to get them to sign those lopsided agency agreements in the first place (3% of a capital asset for setting up a key box, taking mediocre pictures, and writing a description of the property!), so those less critical misunderstandings are just part and parcel of their market. You should never skimp hiring a real estate attorney, as they will actually go to bat fo…

I'm sorry you've had such bad experience with realtors... just some thoughts: -- My experience with real estate attorneys has been as mixed as your experiences with realtors. Some know what they are doing, many do not. Many care about billable hours just as much as the outcome. YMMV. -- Some realtors care about volume, and some care about their fiduciary responsibilities to your business. If they are actually a Realt…

> If I make you an extra $50K and I get $10K for that service, I've earned my money. Again

Studies have shown that’s not what actually happens. It was one of the chapters in the Freakonomics book.

https://freakonomics.com/2008/02/real-estate-agents-revisite...

Re: The Ugly Truth Behind “We Buy Ugly Houses”

#190

Post by scarface74 »

strix_varius wrote: post #57
_8j50 wrote: post #35

The author would prefer to verbally support "vulnerable people" instead of cash for their homes. I wonder what he thinks of foreclosures.

I hate to respond to arguments made in bad faith, but this is so ignorant that I simply have to. If you read the article, and the excellent primary reporting it links to, you'll see that these companies are swindling people for significantly less than they would get from the open market. These people could hire a realtor and retain 95% of the value of their home. However, scams like "We buy ugly houses" blanket areas…

> These people could hire a realtor and retain 95% of the value of their home.

And it would take longer. If my parents house was dilapidated and I had moved away years ago, I would do something like this not to deal with the hassle.

If I had to relocate quickly and didn’t want to sink money into a mortgage waiting for a house to sell, I might use something like OpenDoor knowing I could get more if I made the house ready for sale and use an agent.

Post reply on HN