3 ms·

So if the previous owners moved out and then repainted the house and sold it for 20% additional value, would they be villains too? Or is it okay because they're

So if the previous owners moved out and then repainted the house and sold it for 20% additional value, would they be villains too? Or is it okay because they're "middle class" and Zillow's shareholders presumably are just yacht-owning billionaires?

_vertigo 5y ago
I think there’s a difference between a company with enormous amounts of capital buying a bunch of houses to flip, intentionally trying to drive a trend of increasing home prices to profit, and a single homeowner improving a single house and profiting primarily because of the improvements and not because he’s driving the market up massively..
- gruez 5y ago
  >intentionally trying to drive a trend of increasing home prices to profit was that their goal? it's possible to be a market maker without cornering/manipulating the market. see: market makers on stock markets.
boopboopbadoop 5y ago
You’re talking about one owner and one house. Zillow was attempting to do it at an industrial scale.
- stickfigure 5y ago
  There is already a gigantic industry of people who buy houses, fix them up, and sell them. Doesn't seem very evil.
  - jachee 5y ago
    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.
    - stickfigure 5y ago
      People who flip houses don't put in more money than they need to, that's a tautology. It still adds value to the market. "Scalping" makes zero sense in this context. Scalping exploits ticket mispricing and asymmetrical access to the market (waiting in line). Houses are bought at auction; you can't "scalp" at an auction. Try it at Christie's sometime.
      - jachee 5y ago
        To further your auction analogy, Zillow was doing the equivalent of offering Buy it Now prices above asking and owners were selling immediately. They had asymmetrical access to the market because they had asymmetrical capital. They were literally scalping properties. And, like a scalper who has too much inventory, they’re now selling at a loss.

_vertigo 5y ago

I think there’s a difference between a company with enormous amounts of capital buying a bunch of houses to flip, intentionally trying to drive a trend of increasing home prices to profit, and a single homeowner improving a single house and profiting primarily because of the improvements and not because he’s driving the market up massively..

gruez 5y ago
>intentionally trying to drive a trend of increasing home prices to profit was that their goal? it's possible to be a market maker without cornering/manipulating the market. see: market makers on stock markets.

boopboopbadoop 5y ago

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

stickfigure 5y ago
There is already a gigantic industry of people who buy houses, fix them up, and sell them. Doesn't seem very evil.
- jachee 5y ago
  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.
  - stickfigure 5y ago
    People who flip houses don't put in more money than they need to, that's a tautology. It still adds value to the market. "Scalping" makes zero sense in this context. Scalping exploits ticket mispricing and asymmetrical access to the market (waiting in line). Houses are bought at auction; you can't "scalp" at an auction. Try it at Christie's sometime.
    - jachee 5y ago
      To further your auction analogy, Zillow was doing the equivalent of offering Buy it Now prices above asking and owners were selling immediately. They had asymmetrical access to the market because they had asymmetrical capital. They were literally scalping properties. And, like a scalper who has too much inventory, they’re now selling at a loss.