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

How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

fullstackeconomics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 684 posts

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#411

Post by knodi123 »

paxys wrote: post #40
thr0wawayf00 wrote: post #9

The scary thing is that it's easy to see how something how like this could drive a market boom and bust cycle. I'm imagining a scenario where two iBuyer companies try to outbid each other algorithmically, driving the prices further and further out of reach of people who are looking for a primary home. Tangentially related, I talked to a friend who works on geospatial data for one of the big vacation rental companies,…

One can blame Airbnb, Zillow or whoever else, but the truth is that speculation in real estate and vacation towns have both been a thing for a very long time. If the population rises and we refuse to build more houses, the existing ones will get more expensive no matter what. The solution is out there in front of us but everyone prefers to dance around it.

> The solution is out there in front of us but everyone prefers to dance around it.

Jesus, man, slow down. It's a little early to start suggesting cannibalism as a solution to the housing crisis.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#412

Post by searchableguy »

lordnacho wrote: post #49
thr0wawayf00 wrote: post #9

The scary thing is that it's easy to see how something how like this could drive a market boom and bust cycle. I'm imagining a scenario where two iBuyer companies try to outbid each other algorithmically, driving the prices further and further out of reach of people who are looking for a primary home. Tangentially related, I talked to a friend who works on geospatial data for one of the big vacation rental companies,…

This has perplexed me as well. Here in the UK, the top 1% of incomes is £175K. Assuming the bank lets you borrow 5x, and you're married to someone with a more middling income, you can borrow ~£1M. Yet there's a ring around London where it's hard to see any family homes that are under £1M. I mean sure maybe they're sitting on equity or mom and dad are contributing, but by my estimation there are a huge number of peopl…

London is one of the most popular places for people to whitewash their money via real estate.

It doesn't seem surprising.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#413

Post by knodi123 »

jliptzin wrote: post #51
paxys wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One can blame Airbnb, Zillow or whoever else, but the truth is that speculation in real estate and vacation towns have both been a thing for a very long time. If the population rises and we refuse to build more houses, the existing ones will get more expensive no matter what. The solution is out there in front of us but everyone prefers to dance around it.

There's even lower hanging fruit than that. I have a 6 bedroom house, but local regulations state that I am not allowed to live with more than 2 people unrelated to me. Plenty of parking, tons of people looking for housing, but legally I am forced to keep 3 bedrooms empty.

> legally I am forced to keep 3 bedrooms empty.

Not at all! Look into what it would take to lease them out to a self-storage facility. :-P

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#414

Post by IAmGraydon »

thr0wawayf00 wrote: post #9

The scary thing is that it's easy to see how something how like this could drive a market boom and bust cycle. I'm imagining a scenario where two iBuyer companies try to outbid each other algorithmically, driving the prices further and further out of reach of people who are looking for a primary home. Tangentially related, I talked to a friend who works on geospatial data for one of the big vacation rental companies,…

You honestly think 2 iBuyer companies would have the liquidity to move the entire housing market? I don’t think you understand the size of the US housing market.

If you’re in the top 2% of earners and can’t buy a home, you either live in a ridiculously expensive city (outlier) or have a money management issue.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#415

Post by MiroF »

missedthecue wrote: post #392
MiroF wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civil Rights Act of 1968, Unruh Civil Rights Act, ... there are a few other California specific legal statutes around civil rights/housing discrimination.

What part of the civil rights act does it violate?

It's discussed on other parts of the thread. Also, I was assuming that this was not an owner-occupied duplex. It falls to state law if it is.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#416

Post by robertlagrant »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #398
endisneigh wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? Do you think the house magically takes care of itself?

This comment made me see red, seriously the maddest I've been in weeks. You couldn't have known that and I'm not upset at you. _I_ take care of the house in this situation. The landlord doesn't shovel snow or mow grass, I do. They do carry some of the burden specifically in taxes and liability, yes I know. I also know the maintenance responsibilities aren't inherently and legally mine, and so I can be blamed for ente…

> you're not going to change my mind about it today

Probably not worth asking the question in the first place, then.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#417

Post by dangrossman »

lubesGordi wrote: post #157
ryandrake wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > 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 > I live in Los Angeles, where a "small place in semi-desirable area" gets listed for 1.5M and goes for nearly 2M. I'm somewhere in the top 5% of earners in California, but that $2M 1950s tract housing would be >50% of my post-tax income. I think the obvious answer here is that peo…

I'm under the impression that 'cash offer' just means that whoever is buying has already secured their financing. That means there's almost no risk of the deal falling through and the sale can go from contingent to pending immediately. This is better for the buyer because they sell faster. Senior software eng at microsoft can pull this off no problem (no one is buying a house with cash in their bank, not even rich pe…

> no one is buying a house with cash in their bank, not even rich people

That's how I bought my house, and I earn less as a solopreneur than many FAANG employees in this community. My "cash offer" came with the standard proof of funds: a piece of paper the local Wells Fargo branch printed for me on their letterhead that said I have an $X balance as of that date, where $X was greater than the price I was offering for the house. I walked into the same branch and wired that cash to an escrow company a few days before closing.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#418

Post by asdff »

endisneigh wrote: post #7

They should’ve set it up so you can be sent a set of cameras to put across your house, they photograph and setup a smart lock, etc. In 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.

Who do you talk to about the listing in this case?

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#419

Post by jjav »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #372
jjav wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, cash offer means actually pay it cash. If there's any kind of financing involved, the bank will need to approve the purchase, slowing down the process, which is what a cash offer bypasses. > no one is buying a house with cash in their bank, not even rich people They most certainly are. Tons of real estate sales here (Silicon Valley) are all-cash because the other people making offers are also all-cash, so the onl…

> If there's any kind of financing involved, the bank will need to approve the purchase, slowing down the process, which is what a cash offer bypasses. That's not "already secured" then, is it?

Correct. But the point was that if you're getting financing from an institution, there is no such thing as secured, before they evalute the house and the offer.

Re: How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

#420

Post by endisneigh »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #398
endisneigh wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? Do you think the house magically takes care of itself?

This comment made me see red, seriously the maddest I've been in weeks. You couldn't have known that and I'm not upset at you. _I_ take care of the house in this situation. The landlord doesn't shovel snow or mow grass, I do. They do carry some of the burden specifically in taxes and liability, yes I know. I also know the maintenance responsibilities aren't inherently and legally mine, and so I can be blamed for ente…

If you honestly believe being a landlord is such a slam dunk you should take out a mortgage, buy a property somewhere in United States (there are places as cheap as $50K) and rake in the cash.

There are landlords who absolutely take care of all of the maintenance - and of course there are landlords who are absentee landlords as well.

To say a landlord inherently doesn't do anything is the most ridiculous thing I've read today. Thanks for the laugh. As for your situation, stop doing work the landlord should be doing.

Post reply on HN