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

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

marketwatch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 476 posts

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

#371

Post by phreeza »

moconnor wrote: post #343
withinboredom wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I worked on software that did algorithmic pricing. It was a race to the bottom because some bozo wanted to be on the first page of sellers. So they’d price it one penny under the lowest price. The next seller would match it. Before you knew it, the product was worth dollars or cents. We also had people do it on purpose (we called it price bombing), but that was easy to negate since we filtered out competitors with lo…

Why does pricing competitively to appear in the front page earn the label “bozo”? Should they prioritise the effects on the market ahead of their own profits or goals? It sounds like a really interesting story that’s missing a few steps due to space - it’d make a great blog post in detail!

I think it is probably a great illustration of how merchants actually think. The idealized vision of a market induces a seller to act as you say, in reality there is probably a lot of indirect collusion, where people don't undercut each other too much, to not "damage the market", even without explicitly communicating with each other.

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

#372

Post by LordDragonfang »

grayhatter wrote: post #362
LordDragonfang wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who previously worked for, and is also the child of, landlords, I can attest to the fact that, yes, there is some work and some risk, but you're wildly overselling it. The reason "everybody" doesn't do it is that in order to do it, you have to already have money (even if you can do it on a loan, the terms won't be favorable unless you have significant starter capital). At that point, it's basically free mo…

Why is that, specifically, wrong? I'm going to reply to your other comment as well, but I'd like to drive this point/idea to a conclusion as well.

Are you asking why, in a system that its supporters claim is a meritocracy, it wrong for it to be easier for the rich to get richer than for the poor to achieve parity, given equal merit? Is that a rhetorical question, or are you about to argue in favor of the ethics of feudalism? Because bridging that ethical divide would take more than a simple hacker news comment.

edit: Ah, to more directly address you point earlier, and lay it out in simple ethical terms: withholding essential goods (housing) from others is a moral wrong according to consequentialist ethics systems. Doing things with a motivation of greed (profit) is also considered a moral wrong in intent-based ethics systems. The agreed upon axiom that they contribute nothing in return means there is no moral good to outweigh the moral wrong in either system, so in combination it is a net moral wrong.

This really shouldn't need to be spelled out.

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

#373

Post by bserge »

muttantt wrote: post #11

Crazy. I recently sold a condo to Opendoor for significantly more than I would have even thought to list it for. When I negotiated with Opendoor after their initial offer, I pointed out a recently sold condo (days before, in similar condition, layout and finishes) in the same complex that sold for much higher than Opendoor offered. Within hours Opendoor came back matching that same selling price. The kicker? It was a…

So when will algorithms start outbidding people on houses they can afford?

Finally, found a home you can buy? ClosingDoors, Chuggle and WetDreamVerse make a better offer near instantly.

Oh and it doesn't stop there. Now you can't afford a car, either. Or a computer. Or a power generator. But it's fine, just rent them from Memezon!

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

#374

Post by mattmanser »

ojosilva wrote: post #365
sangnoir wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it could arguably increase the throughput (easier to on and off). Which is better: more vehicles on the freeway at lower average speeds - or fewer, faster ones?

According to analysis from engineers, or Esther from a guy I used to work with who studied break waves for the state transportation board, less cars with larger gaps is better. That's why you see semaphores on highway entering ramps sometimes, ie 101 around SV or certain European big city inner highways. This is a problem that can probably be solved someday with self driving cars collaborating to make highways huge c…

Actually, this is a problem that is already solved by smart motorways in the UK (Europe too maybe?). They have a variable speed limit that dynamically changes according to traffic that stop brake waves happening.

Do you not have them in the US?

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

#375

Post by iudqnolq »

sollewitt wrote: post #354
RNCTX wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Because the real estate sector is like 30-40 trillion. 2007 was the result of a massive infusion of debt by unsophisticated retail "investors" who bid prices up far higher than even their rental value. Lending standards dont allow this today. lol. 2007 was the end of a long road, paved by unsophisticated "money managers" and doubly unsophisticated "bank regulators" and even more unsophisticated "politicians" since…

What is this green card prioritization mechanism you allude to?

EB-5 investor visas

> Under regulations ... an EB-5 investor would need to invest ... a minimum of $1 million normally or $500,000 in economically disadvantaged areas...

> You'll need to plan on having your money tied up in the business for several years. When you first get your green card, your permanent resident status will be conditional for two years. During the 90-day period before the end of the two-year conditional residency, you'll need to submit a petition to remove the conditions—to show you invested the required amount and created ten jobs. These two years and government processing times result in your money being parked until you finally get your unconditional permanent residency.

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/investme...

Edit: Not OP, just guessing

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

#376

Post by lordnacho »

maxsilver wrote: post #190
lokar wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were trying to act as a market maker, providing liquidity for a price. Nothing wrong with that.

> Nothing wrong with that. Zillow was literally scalping housing , a basic human need that all people must buy. That's generally considered very immoral by most reasonable people. And they didn't just do it once or twice, they did it at ridiculous scale (tens of thousands of homes sold last quarter, was a sale to a scalper to artificially drive up all housing prices). Most reasonable people would consider this behavi…

First of all, lots of people thinking something doesn't make it true. Verify yourself at your local church.

> Most reasonable people would consider this behaviour to be evil (like, comic-book-villain level evil).

This requires supporting evidence. Comic book villains do things like murdering half of all living things. Show me that study that says people think flipping houses is that bad.

I've met plenty of people who were flipping houses, and I'm pretty sure if most people thought it was on a par with comic book villainy, they would not just stand at a kids birthday party and talk about it.

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

#377

Post by eru »

kgwgk wrote: post #337
eru wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sometimes there's just no good alternative. You can always just stick your money in an ETF.

Which may not be a good alternative.

Well, you can also put your money into short-selling strategies, if you think stuff is overvalued.

(Of course, taxes and regulations complicated this discussion.)

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

#378

Post by Faaak »

fspeech wrote: post #339
WalterBright wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew about the brake wave back in 1980, as I could see it on I405 on my way home from work. Due to a curve in the highway, I could see about 3 miles ahead. The wave heading towards me was pretty obvious. I found I could "break" the wave by letting a gap grow in front of me that would absorb the wave, and I wouldn't have to brake to a stop (and so my clutch would last longer). It never occurred to me to write a pape…

"by letting a gap grow in front of me that would absorb the wave" would cause the freeway to carry fewer cars if everyone does it. My oldest one used to argue with me on this point when I asked him to keep a bigger gap from the car in the front for safety reasons.

You should read about the "Fundamental diagram of traffic flow" and it's corresponding diagram. It's very well explained and shows that throughput can increase when having fewer cars on the road

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

#379

Post by [deleted] »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #340
pbourke wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Car rentals? Tool rentals? Camera equipment rentals? Leeches, all of them?

You're being disingenuous. All of those things you listed fulfill a temporary or geographically localized need, and are very short term. On the other hand, people often spend an entire generation in one apartment. Those categories are wholly unalike each other, and it's clear because the category of actually short term housing also exists, hotels. Likewise, long term car rentals exist, they're called leases.

[deleted]

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

#380

Post by grayhatter »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #370
grayhatter wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point I was trying to make, so I assume the person you replied to see it the same. Is that no one else really attempts to explain the context around the assertion. Everyone previous is happy to blame people who are winning the game, labeling anyone who's not losing as a cheater. No one else is willing to explain why or how they're cheating. Which, if you don't know all the rules, and exploits looks like complaini…

The assertion is that rent seekers are "leeches", providing no value, while extracting value for themselves. It's very hard to prove the existence of a negative. That's the context. Note that no one said "cheating", that's context you read in yourself. It's interesting that you haven't made a single attempt to provide an actual counterpoint of your own, of what value rent seekers actually provide, especially since yo…

> The assertion is that rent seekers are "leeches", providing no value, while extracting value for themselves. It's very hard to prove the existence of a negative. That's the context. Note that no one said "cheating", that's context you read in yourself.

You wouldn't be proving a negative. The assertion is that doing so (extracting value without providing any) is bad requires that bad thing to be stated. It's bad because opportunity cost, it's bad because people have to exchange currency for goods or services, it's bad because houses being in possession of money is itself immoral. These aren't negatives that need to be proved. As for cheating, what should I call acting so that others don't get a chance to participate?

> It's interesting that you haven't made a single attempt to provide an actual counterpoint of your own, of what value rent seekers actually provide, especially since you're complaining that no one else is explaining their position. "No one" attempts to explain, including yourself?

I don't have an assertion I want to make. Nothing other than to point out the problematic rhetoric. As an example, pointing out that 2+2=6 is invalid, or unconvincing because if you only have 1,2 and another for 3,4 can't reach 6. Does contribute, because the assertion that 2+2=6 is bad to leave unchallenged. Just like me making an assertion that 2+2=5 which would also be wrong. I don't know enough about the housing market in CA to make an any argument I'd want to stand behind. But I'm willing to say, just owning and renting property isn't enough to call them malicious, leaches, nor shitty.

Post reply on HN