Live data from Hacker News

Zillow to stop flipping homes, loses more than $550M, lays off 25% of staff

marketwatch.com

301–310 of 476 posts

Re: Zillow to stop flipping homes, loses more than $550M, lays off 25% of staff

#302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the 'AI software' running these companies is using linear regression to predict housing prices and one of the inputs is the price of similar houses nearby.

In fairness, I would think humans include nearby home prices as one of their parameters as well.

Human/realtor appraisals are often very poor. They will take 3-4 nearby & similar homes and basically add/subtract the differences from the home they are comparing. Then they basically just average the adjusted sale prices. They might add a bit onto that price since prices go up over time.

So this has some obvious issues: * Areas without a ton of very similar houses that have also sold recently will basically have no 'comps' to use. * It's really easy to keep identifying differences (pros/cons) until the adjusted prices equal each other but it's hard to know if all of the meaningful differences have actually been identified. * It gives average homes and average buyers a huge advantage. This model assumes that the housing market is hot but not hot enough that someone will pay 10-15% more for some specific feature. Anything unique to a home/property is only going to be worth a fraction of the time & money it would cost to add. Anything super common (kitchen remodel, finished basement, etc.) can actually add 100% or more of it's cost to the houses value because the buyer is paying with 5x or more leverage so paying a bit extra to have it included. This is also why it's often better to fix a few things as the seller than give a discount on the sale price - the buyer will often pay a premium to get things move-in ready since it doesn't impact their monthly costs significantly.

Re: Zillow to stop flipping homes, loses more than $550M, lays off 25% of staff

#303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re talking about one owner and one house. Zillow was attempting to do it at an industrial scale.

There is already a gigantic industry of people who buy houses, fix them up, and sell them. Doesn't seem very evil.

Zillow wasn’t fixing them up, though. They were putting minimal-effort, superficial changes with zero care or actual investment, and then resisting for a higher price.

They were scalping housing.

Re: Zillow to stop flipping homes, loses more than $550M, lays off 25% of staff

#304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they would outbid people who actually want to live in those homes, essentially front-running the middle class to earn a massive profit.

> Because they would outbid people who actually want to live in those homes If they outbid everyone who actually wanted to live there, who were they planning to sell to? :P Buying things you think are underpriced and reselling them is not frontrunning. (Ever since GME, a lot of people learned the word frontrunning and started using it in every possible situation.) Zillow's plan was to act as a market maker. Market ma…

>If they outbid everyone who actually wanted to live there, who were they planning to sell to? :P

The same set of people who would move their price points up after a few months and get larger mortgages. This worked for all of 2020 and most of 2021 and only the past quarter did it fail as a strategy.

>Buying things you think are underpriced and reselling them is not frontrunning. (Ever since GME, a lot of people learned the word frontrunning and started using it in every possible situation.)

You're missing that this is Zillow, not a neutral market actor. They have unique information about demand for houses and even get to influence prices upward through Zestimates.

Re: Zillow to stop flipping homes, loses more than $550M, lays off 25% of staff

#305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they would outbid people who actually want to live in those homes, essentially front-running the middle class to earn a massive profit.

Except that massive profit is a ... massive loss.

...last quarter. They ran the housing market up 2x, took profits along the way, and dismantled the operation when banks put a cap on mortgages.

Re: Zillow to stop flipping homes, loses more than $550M, lays off 25% of staff

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's the rent seeking leeches of society that think that by buying a "portfolio" of houses, they can live out their lives without contributing society in any way What implication am I supposed to take from this? Everyone has must contribute meaningfully to society or they're shit? > Anyone arguing against this has either a dog in the race, or loose screws in the head So if I don't already agree with you, I'm either…

No, they're saying if you rent seek without contributing anything then you're shit. Which is correct. If you just contribute nothing then you're ahead of these rent seekers.

So you can say the same about money lenders, right?

Re: Zillow to stop flipping homes, loses more than $550M, lays off 25% of staff

#308
post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investment companies are far less likely to lead a speculative bubble than retail buyers. They are professional investors who go through a valuation process. They have also always been part of the market.

Institutional investment in single family housing stock is brand new. Less than a decade old.

Nevertheless they are not buying houses for emotional reasons, but for the income stream.

FYI, the reason this is happening is that interest rates are so low that people are desperate for yield, and rental yield fits the bill.

There are a lot of benefits:

- professionally managed properties. Most small time landlords are incompetent -- the horror stories you see about landlords being petty or vindictive is from the small time landlord, not the professional manager.

- lower rental prices for properties people want to own. Institutional investors can move funds more quickly to increase rental stock where it is most in demand. Here, too, the yield will fall, which is another way of saying lower rents.

Moreover despite the moral panic by journalists that ordinary households are being priced out, this doesn't actually happen because most institutional investors operate in unconstrained areas, where home prices track construction costs, at most with a small delay. In these areas, an increase in renter demand will result in more property built much more quickly if the institutional investors participate. This actually drives down prices over the long term by increasing supply.

However in constrained areas, this would drive up prices for SFHs. But I thought people weren't supposed to buy SFHs in constrained areas - and institutional investors have been in the multi-unit market for over a century.

Re: Zillow to stop flipping homes, loses more than $550M, lays off 25% of staff

#309
post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the case shiller index for Phoenix - it is absolutely wild since 2020! https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PHXRNSA/

One thing I don’t understand is that many people who buy houses in Phoenix believe in Global Warming getting worse in the short term (source: lived in Phoenix for a year, considered buying a house there, and spoke with many folks who just moved or were about to move).

Hot and dry is not that bad from a global warming standpoint. Evaporative cooling is very effective and efficient so it's actually less energy intensive heating in colder locations. The plentiful amount of space and days of sun makes solar energy very practical. The nights can get pretty cold so it means that certain evening hours are actually very comfortable.

Re: Zillow to stop flipping homes, loses more than $550M, lays off 25% of staff

#310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they're saying if you rent seek without contributing anything then you're shit. Which is correct. If you just contribute nothing then you're ahead of these rent seekers.

So am I allowed to 'rent seek' if I also contribute? Or is 'rent seeking' so bad, merely contributing isn't enough? Is there an amount of rent seeking that's ok? Or is any amount of rent seeking egregious enough to get you on the shit list?

I think you're confusing the common meaning of rent for "rent seeking"[1] which, in economics, means specifically getting more resources in return for nothing. It's a pejorative definition.

Getting paid for a service is not rent seeking in the way people are using it here.

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/rentseeking.asp

Post reply on HN