Live data from Hacker News

How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

fullstackeconomics.com

421–430 of 684 posts

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

#421

Has anyone seen an analysis of why their pricing models were above market, and/or worse than OpenDoor?

Mike DelPrete has done several:

- https://www.mikedp.com/articles/2021/12/16/opendoor-vs-zillo...

- https://www.mikedp.com/articles/2021/11/3/zillow-exits-ibuyi...

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

#422
post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s very hard to do good real estate pricing models from raw data. You can get all sorts of metrics on the property statistics but one important factor in the cost of the home is the state of renovation. Since most listings don’t have a historical listing of work done in the home your best hope of accurately assessing this comes from something like computer vision on the listing pictures. Assessing the quality of wo…

What was stopping Zillow from having a human look at the property and adjust the price based on factors that their algorithm didn't consider?

What stopped them is that the entire rational for Zillow's approach is that human appraisal isn't needed. An algorithm, they think, should be able to do a good enough job. Any individual person who, when presented with this scenario, thought they should have brought in a human to look at the house does has been selected out of working for Zillow.

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

#423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Someone can move in and refuse to pay rent, refuse to leave, use your house as a drug den, destroy your property and lots more, and you can do nothing about it. This is one of those things that really just confuses me. It's like no one could agree on happy medium between "landlord can eject you whenever they want for whatever reason" and "no one can make you leave, ever, for any reason". And to whoever downvoted yo…

I had a friend who let someone move in as part of an apartment share. Person NEVER paid them a nickel, never paid landlord anything, claimed they felt unsafe and got a restraining order. It was actually genius. My (female) friend HAD TO MOVE OUT of the house she was renting, the landlord required she still pay rent on the lease. "self-help" (changing locks) was totally out. All this would have been fine I think if sh…

So she basically directly sublet part of her apartment, and is surprised the landlord didn't care and still held her responsible? That's exactly the stance the landlord should take in such a situation. Assuming it wasn't just directly a breach of contract of the rental terms to start with, which would even further just protect the landlord.

Did she even bother to draft a contract with the subletter? Or was this all just, "sure, stranger, move right on in to the property for which I am legally obligated? I'm sure this will all work out fine."

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

#424
post #236
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm arguing that people should lower their standards. It should be easy to understand that not everyone can afford own property walking distance to the city center. I fully agree with you on prioritizing primary residence.

Everyone can with smaller cities. Living in a megacity and expecting it is the problem.

How big of a city are you talking about? I live in a city of just over 50k and house prices have been an issue for years and keeps getting worse. It's the same for every "city" around this size that I've looked into. I've seen a town with <20k where house prices have more than doubled in the past 2 years. It's a bold statement to say everyone can afford to own a desirable home in even a smaller city.

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

#425
post #15

I am especially annoyed at Zillow SF holding "Data Science" meetups in San Francisco at the penthouse place, while advertising for TWO data science positions.. meanwhile, frat guys are at the golf course by the dozens, across three states. The people that they hired at that time, probably built this setup exactly as required by the frat guys. Happy banking Zillow!

There's some poetry in older banks claiming they're pivoting to being tech companies (i.e. Capital One) while some tech companies are heading straight towards being banks.

Former C1 employee here with a personal opinion. C1 is walking the walk; everyone up to the CEO is very tech-forward (which quite surprised me initially)

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

#426
post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In areas where home prices are high, the vast majority of homes have people living in them. When the very rich park wealth in real estate, it is precisely in the ares where prices are highest. Not much point in parking wealth in a cheap house in the midwest. https://nypost.com/2021/08/05/nearly-half-of-luxury-units-em...

The problem here is that there are something like 3.5 million housing units in New York City and Billionaires' Row is like 5 buildings. It just simply doesn't matter if every single one of those units is empty. We're not talking about enough units to matter.

Billionaires row is hardly the only home sitting empty as an investment. Further they represent an outsized share of housing space even if the total number of apartments isn’t that high.

So even if 5 buildings out of 300 skyscrapers are at 50% occupancy on their own don’t matter much they still impact the market when combined with similar investments. Worse they prime the bubble by convincing more people to invest without putting them up for rent.

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

#427
post #401
post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thing is if people start hoarding medicine then new companies can pop up and fill in the gap, or existing ones can increase production, making the whole thing pointless to do. Same goes for every other "necessary to life" product. Temporary disruptions will be handled by the market in the long term, and in the worst case government can step in and regulate. Housing is probably the only sector where all the laws and r…

This is missing the point that land is a finite resource and homes aren't fungible. It doesn't help most Californians that more homes can be built in rural Arkansas.

Land is a finite resource but housing units are not. Once America gets over it’s love affair with single family homes, we could undercut most speculators by just building up.

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

#428

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…

> I also know the maintenance responsibilities aren't inherently and legally mine

Yes, that's right, they are legally the landlord's. And if they stopped maintaining it, they are breaking the law, and you can sue them. If, instead, you choose to live with it, or deal with it yourself and pay for everything, then that's a horrible mistake.

It's fine for that comment to make you see red, but it should be the slumlord you are angry at, not the guy who pointed out that you're being a doormat.

Landlords are one option for people who cannot afford to buy a home. Some of them are bad, some are good. They offer a service for a price, and if the price is too high or the service is too poor, then they are taking advantage. Plenty of them aren't like that. Your anger seems a little irrational.

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

#429

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,…

Keep in mind you also will not (for now at least) have to spend a ridiculous amount on interest like many people did before you.

It is going to get interesting when the millennial generation suddenly starts mass inheriting baby boomer houses - not sure how that is going to play out honestly.

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

#430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should doctors work for free? Should farmers?

Do landlords labor?

Do business owners labor?

As someone who's moved around a lot (to London, then to Zürich) I definitely appreciate being able to rent, and hence landowners. Without them, I'd have to live 2-3 year homeless until I saved enough for a downpayment, then be saddled with 30 year monthly commitment (i.e. mortgage) and unable to move anywhere else.

Post reply on HN