5 ms·

Oh, bubbles can surely happen even in the era of widespread information. Look no further than housing. A few points on housing: - real home prices have now su

Oh, bubbles can surely happen even in the era of widespread information. Look no further than housing. A few points on housing: - real home prices have now surpassed the 2000s peak - household formation and population growth has been decelerating, while building has been accelerating. - there are 1.1 homes per household, same as the year 2000. We are not at historically low supply as some claim. Only low in terms of active listings. - mortgage rates are climbing at a historically fast pace... If inflation doesn't abate we can expect 5-6% mortgages within a few months. Rates were kept low due to the belief in transitory, but confidence in this is quickly eroding. Mortgages roughly correlate with 10y treasury which is at 2%, while inflation at 7.5%. typically these values are close together - all in affordability will reach record lows within a few months, if inflation and mortgage trends don't abate - there's clearly a mass FOMO/psychological phenomena going on right now. Buyers aren't acting rationally from a financial perspective Home prices can avoid a correction if we quickly return to 0 or negative rates, which could happen. If inflation persists, they will correct in a big way within a year or two as rates adjust to inflation Sources: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QUSR628BIS https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QUSR628BIS https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNDCONTSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/UNDCONTSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPPOPGROWUSA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/SPPOPGROWUSA https://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/mortgage-rates/30-year-fixed https://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/mortgage-rates/30-year-fix... EDIT: And the fervent denials that it's a bubble is surely a hallmark of bubbles too :). Please refute with actual data if you disagree

thatfrenchguy 5y ago
> while building has been accelerating massively Nope, we have a decade of underproduction that led us to this crisis
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  Households to number of homes built is exactly the same as it was in year 2000. You can compute it yourself using FRED data. 1.1 homes per household (or vice versa). People who count from 2010 are cherrypicking the underbuilding decade while ignoring the overbuilding decade, 2000s. There is no "shortage" of homes, there's a shortage of homes listed currently.
  - thatguy0900 5y ago
    Couldn't there also be a shortage of homes where people want them to be? A house in the city and a house in the boonies are not exchangeable
    - adam_arthur 5y ago
      That could apply to some local markets, sure. But we are seeing massive price increases rather universally, which implies it's a more widespread phenomena than just local undersupply. But it will be true for certain markets. Most homebuilding is concentrated in the SMILE states (southern, areas where people are migrating to)
- brimble 5y ago
  Builders have been working as fast as they can (and sometimes faster than they should) around here non-stop since maybe 2011 or 2012, and it's not enough. Tons of new neighborhoods, probably half the apartment buildings I know of were put up in the last ten years, and so on, but house prices and rent are nuts and still increasing faster than inflation anyway. We're at the end of what sure looks like about a decade-long housing construction boom, in my city, which is not trendy or growing very fast, and prices have done nothing but go up at 2-5x the rate of CPI the entire time. It's possible the under-supply was so bad that all the construction still isn't enough to catch up, but then why did prices not start higher than they did? I find it hard to believe that this city's gained new residents faster than it's gained new housing. Something else is going on.
  - echelon 5y ago
    > Something else is going on. Growth. In the last 40 years, the US population has picked up 100 million people. 227M vs 329M [1]. By 2050, the US population is estimated to be 379 million (+50M), and by 2100, it will be 434 million (+ an additional 55M) [2]. That's a lot of housing need to fill. [1] Google "US population"; I'm not sure if these figures includes those here on non-permanent visas, but if not, it would probably increase the growth even more. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...
    - hunter2_ 5y ago
      Do you think education could also be a factor? More university degrees than in prior decades leading to relatively fewer people with low wages in cheap apartments and more high earners desiring luxurious housing, which takes more material and labor to construct? And of course the pandemic generated a desire to get into less-dense spaces with home offices.
brightstep 5y ago
As someone who just sold their home and is currently renting while waiting for a correction, I definitely want this to be true. Why are you confident those factors, absent a rate intervention, will produce a correction?
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  If inflation persists rising mortgage rates will push affordability to record lows. We're already close If inflation abates quickly, then current prices can maintain and become the new normal. The rate shock will price out pretty much every primary buyer. Investors will stop buying and even sell if they fear it's a peak. On top of this, huge amount of backlogged supply is about to come into market in a big way in southern cities. The majority of the building is concentrated there. I would be very worried about Phoenix for example
  - xnx 5y ago
    Why wouldn't housing prices drop if the mortgage rate increased and keep affordability about the same?
    - adam_arthur 5y ago
      Sure, it could. But it's better to buy a lower priced item at a higher rate. Just look how that worked out for homebuyers in the 80s paying 10%, who were able to refi at 2% later down the line.
Cd00d 5y ago
Sorry, I think I'm not following. I think you're saying that housing prices are too high. Then you're saying that if inflation continues housing prices will drop? I totally get that most home sales are based on the monthly mortgage bill, so when interest rates are high, house prices are lower. But, if we have 7% inflation why wouldn't rates increase AND prices increase? I don' think the outcome is obvious when high inflation is coupled with high rates - though I'm sure there are several experts ready to jump in with information about how the US 70's and 80's worked :)
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  It's a common misnomer. Inflation is good for assets once those assets have been valued using an inflation appropriate discount rate. Housing rate now is priced based on a 2% discount rate, not 7%. After the asset is priced appropriately for the current discount rate, then inflation is good for valuations. Median wages drive home prices in the long run. It's possible home prices can be sustained if we see median wage rapidly gain over the next few years. Gasoline going up and driving CPI inflation doesn't make housing more affordable. Only increase in incomes/buying power. Example: the 10y treasury was recently at 1%. If you bought that as an inflation hedge you would have lost a lot of money. Once people realize inflation is here to stay, they won't accept lower rates of returns. Now it yields 2%, and soon likely 3%. Holding cash is better than holding a treasury during the repricing phase. Same logic applies for other assets. Real home prices were super low in the 70s relative to today. Also wage inflation was very strong. I believe wages doubled over the decade. That alone implies a 2x gain in prices ignoring changes in discount rates. Not the same at all.
- UncleOxidant 5y ago
  When the Fed starts raising rates to try to counter inflation we'll see mortgage rates follow. If mortgage rates go up to, say, 7% (pretty close to the average mortgage rate over the last many decades) that's going to impact the monthly payment. If people are just barely able to afford a house at a certain price with 3% mortgage rates, they're not going to be able to afford it at 7% - it all comes down to monthly cash-flow. As fewer people can afford to buy at current prices with higher rates that limits demand at those prices and something has to give - either prices will fall to accommodate, or the market will just stagnate. Even so, a stagnant market can only last for so long before some sellers start lowering prices because they have to. This is essentially what happened in the early 80s when we had mortgage rates in the upper teens. If you look at home price sales history during that era there were some quarters where average selling price went down 10% or more.
marvin 5y ago
What is your argument on mortgate rates? That lenders will be unwilling to lend out at (still low) central bank rates due to inflation? I don't follow the reasoning.
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  Mortgage rates historically track the 10y treasury rate. This is market driven, not Fed driven (outside of QE impact) 10y treasury yields 2% while inflation is 7.5%. Ergo mortgages will almost certainly run to 5-6% within a few months once the market perceives that inflation is not transitory and start selling off the 10y treasury en masse. We have seen this move already starting. It's why mortgages have run from 3-4% in just two months. But not even close to pricing in inflation. Mortgages were 5% in 2018 when inflation was significantly lower. We may even get to 6-7% in a shorter period of time
  - marvin 5y ago
    Fascinating. Thanks for the info. I'm in northern Europe (Norway), and very curious how this could spread east of the Atlantic. Historically, our central bank has given everyone the impression that they decide the mortgage rate, but history has shown that foreign rates have much higher impact. In the previous 20 years, whenever rates have spiked abroad, the central bank has made interventions to prevent domestic rates from going up. But those interest rate spikes have been transistory, so I have no idea how things would play out this time.
erehweb 5y ago
Has building been accelerating in the areas where people want to live, though? e.g. lots of Californians wanting to move to MT or ID, but is building catching up there?
- atwebb 5y ago
  Are people making that move because they prefer the location if their current location had enough housing? I guess more "Are they moving b/c the building is happening there and not in CA?".
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  Most building is concentrated in the migration destinations. You can find the breakout on the FRED website for different metro areas. I would be particularly concerned about sustainability of prices for places like Boise or Phoenix. Lots of building there, and prices are far detached from local median wage. Also lots of land and few regulations preventing further building. Phoenix was one of the places hit hard in GFC. Prices fell 50-70%
nonameiguess 5y ago
Whether or not housing prices are in a "bubble" in the sense that the prices are going to correct and drop at some point, they're not a bubble in the Beanie Baby sense of seeing 10000% price appreciation in the span of a few years. Nobody's 4-bed condo is selling for $500 million. There needs to be some acknowledgement of the gap between probably mispriced and tulipmania. Conversely, if prices correct, they're still going to be back where they were in another decade because houses have actual value. You're never going to see a bag full of 150 4-bedroom condos being thrown away on an episode of hoarders because the owner can't even sell them for a few bucks each. There's a difference between "price is going to drop a bit for a while" and "will totally collapse and be worth marginally close to zero dollars for the rest of time."
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  Something with intrinsic value will never collapse to 0. A bubble to me is real prices far exceeding intrinsic value, particularly driven by psychology rather than fundamentals. Housing fits the bill to me. There's a good argument that crypto presents similar to beanie babies, given that there is no intrinsic value to the coins themselves. People buy crypto because they think they can sell it to somebody else for more later, not because it unlocks some value by holding it. But don't want to sidetrack the discussion.
- jurassic 5y ago
  I really appreciate this comment. The $1M house I bought last year at 2.75% (now supposedly valued $1.1M) might go down to $600-700k if we have some kind of major correction, but it's in a desirable area and never going to zero. I'm prepared for it to drop, but over the long term I expect to be fine. My house is a place to live for the long term, not something I'm looking to day trade. The only day I care what it's "worth" is the day I need to sell it. Thinking of your primary residence as a speculative investment seems so strange to me. If you buy something that is comfortably affordable for you now where you're willing to stay for the long term, with a fixed rate loan, I don't see the benefit of waiting until the peak comes. I'd rather be building equity than paying rent waiting for the market to peak. People have been predicting another crash every year for the last decade, and I'm sure it will go down again at some point, but I wouldn't plan my life around anybody's ability to call the top accurately. Just buy what you can afford and get on with your life.
pandaman 5y ago
I don't see the data about 1.1 homes per household in your links. What is accounted as a "home" whenever you are taking this number from? Given that the rate of home ownership is about 65% it is probably counting rentals, unless an average household owns 1.7 houses. On the other hand, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPU1USA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPU1USA shows that the number of SFHs completed in 2021 finally reached levels of 1994, when population had been 100M less than now. I might be just too dumb to see where there are enough houses.
- adam_arthur 5y ago
  Total Households: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TTLHH https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TTLHH Total Housing Units: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ETOTALUSQ176N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ETOTALUSQ176N Divide one by the other to get housing units per household. You can see ratio in 2020 is roughly the same as 2000. You have to consider multifamily construction too (which can include SFH-like duplexes, or full apartment buildings). Housing is fungible to a certain extent. If rents fall, that will reduce demand for purchasing and vice versa. Completions is a backwards looking metric. Look at pipeline, not completions to predict forward trajectory. Housing in pipeline now matches the 2000s peak, and looks to surpass the 70s peak within a few months
  - pandaman 5y ago
    Okay, so it does include rentals and the number seem pretty normal - the ratio of units to households will always stay close to 1. And yes, the housing is fungible to an extent: the dearth of SFHs cause the price of SFHs to rocket and pushes the rest of the market up as the people who are priced out of SFHs can as well go and buy a condo or a townhouse.
    - adam_arthur 5y ago
      Yeah, but SFH aren't the only housing type appreciating. This theory doesn't really hold when you consider both Condos, inner city locales, rural locales etc have also experienced rapid price appreciation. Rental or not doesn't really matter. Fundamentally people just need a place to live, and depending on locale will make the tradeoff between renting and buying. If rental stock doubles overnight, housing prices would decline too, as cost of a mortgage becomes relatively less appealing. In this sense it's fungible. But it's true there may be some subset of people who would only buy SFH regardless of price
ytjohn 5y ago
There's another factor going on in housing right now, which is corporate home ownership. There was some pressure on the market when landlords moved from long-term rentals to short-term airbnb style rentals. But last couple years saw an influxed of "iBuyers" like Zillow and OpenDoor. These companies have been purchasing homes at above market prices - which tends to move the market price in the process. Their goal was to get inventory without much regard for profitability. https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/08/homes/zillow-ibuyer-homes/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/08/homes/zillow-ibuyer-homes/ind...

thatfrenchguy 5y ago

> while building has been accelerating massively Nope, we have a decade of underproduction that led us to this crisis

adam_arthur 5y ago
Households to number of homes built is exactly the same as it was in year 2000. You can compute it yourself using FRED data. 1.1 homes per household (or vice versa). People who count from 2010 are cherrypicking the underbuilding decade while ignoring the overbuilding decade, 2000s. There is no "shortage" of homes, there's a shortage of homes listed currently.
- thatguy0900 5y ago
  Couldn't there also be a shortage of homes where people want them to be? A house in the city and a house in the boonies are not exchangeable
  - adam_arthur 5y ago
    That could apply to some local markets, sure. But we are seeing massive price increases rather universally, which implies it's a more widespread phenomena than just local undersupply. But it will be true for certain markets. Most homebuilding is concentrated in the SMILE states (southern, areas where people are migrating to)
brimble 5y ago
Builders have been working as fast as they can (and sometimes faster than they should) around here non-stop since maybe 2011 or 2012, and it's not enough. Tons of new neighborhoods, probably half the apartment buildings I know of were put up in the last ten years, and so on, but house prices and rent are nuts and still increasing faster than inflation anyway. We're at the end of what sure looks like about a decade-long housing construction boom, in my city, which is not trendy or growing very fast, and prices have done nothing but go up at 2-5x the rate of CPI the entire time. It's possible the under-supply was so bad that all the construction still isn't enough to catch up, but then why did prices not start higher than they did? I find it hard to believe that this city's gained new residents faster than it's gained new housing. Something else is going on.
- echelon 5y ago
  > Something else is going on. Growth. In the last 40 years, the US population has picked up 100 million people. 227M vs 329M [1]. By 2050, the US population is estimated to be 379 million (+50M), and by 2100, it will be 434 million (+ an additional 55M) [2]. That's a lot of housing need to fill. [1] Google "US population"; I'm not sure if these figures includes those here on non-permanent visas, but if not, it would probably increase the growth even more. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_grow...
  - hunter2_ 5y ago
    Do you think education could also be a factor? More university degrees than in prior decades leading to relatively fewer people with low wages in cheap apartments and more high earners desiring luxurious housing, which takes more material and labor to construct? And of course the pandemic generated a desire to get into less-dense spaces with home offices.

brightstep 5y ago

As someone who just sold their home and is currently renting while waiting for a correction, I definitely want this to be true. Why are you confident those factors, absent a rate intervention, will produce a correction?

adam_arthur 5y ago
If inflation persists rising mortgage rates will push affordability to record lows. We're already close If inflation abates quickly, then current prices can maintain and become the new normal. The rate shock will price out pretty much every primary buyer. Investors will stop buying and even sell if they fear it's a peak. On top of this, huge amount of backlogged supply is about to come into market in a big way in southern cities. The majority of the building is concentrated there. I would be very worried about Phoenix for example
- xnx 5y ago
  Why wouldn't housing prices drop if the mortgage rate increased and keep affordability about the same?
  - adam_arthur 5y ago
    Sure, it could. But it's better to buy a lower priced item at a higher rate. Just look how that worked out for homebuyers in the 80s paying 10%, who were able to refi at 2% later down the line.

Cd00d 5y ago

Sorry, I think I'm not following. I think you're saying that housing prices are too high. Then you're saying that if inflation continues housing prices will drop? I totally get that most home sales are based on the monthly mortgage bill, so when interest rates are high, house prices are lower. But, if we have 7% inflation why wouldn't rates increase AND prices increase? I don' think the outcome is obvious when high inflation is coupled with high rates - though I'm sure there are several experts ready to jump in with information about how the US 70's and 80's worked :)

adam_arthur 5y ago
It's a common misnomer. Inflation is good for assets once those assets have been valued using an inflation appropriate discount rate. Housing rate now is priced based on a 2% discount rate, not 7%. After the asset is priced appropriately for the current discount rate, then inflation is good for valuations. Median wages drive home prices in the long run. It's possible home prices can be sustained if we see median wage rapidly gain over the next few years. Gasoline going up and driving CPI inflation doesn't make housing more affordable. Only increase in incomes/buying power. Example: the 10y treasury was recently at 1%. If you bought that as an inflation hedge you would have lost a lot of money. Once people realize inflation is here to stay, they won't accept lower rates of returns. Now it yields 2%, and soon likely 3%. Holding cash is better than holding a treasury during the repricing phase. Same logic applies for other assets. Real home prices were super low in the 70s relative to today. Also wage inflation was very strong. I believe wages doubled over the decade. That alone implies a 2x gain in prices ignoring changes in discount rates. Not the same at all.
UncleOxidant 5y ago
When the Fed starts raising rates to try to counter inflation we'll see mortgage rates follow. If mortgage rates go up to, say, 7% (pretty close to the average mortgage rate over the last many decades) that's going to impact the monthly payment. If people are just barely able to afford a house at a certain price with 3% mortgage rates, they're not going to be able to afford it at 7% - it all comes down to monthly cash-flow. As fewer people can afford to buy at current prices with higher rates that limits demand at those prices and something has to give - either prices will fall to accommodate, or the market will just stagnate. Even so, a stagnant market can only last for so long before some sellers start lowering prices because they have to. This is essentially what happened in the early 80s when we had mortgage rates in the upper teens. If you look at home price sales history during that era there were some quarters where average selling price went down 10% or more.

marvin 5y ago

What is your argument on mortgate rates? That lenders will be unwilling to lend out at (still low) central bank rates due to inflation? I don't follow the reasoning.

adam_arthur 5y ago
Mortgage rates historically track the 10y treasury rate. This is market driven, not Fed driven (outside of QE impact) 10y treasury yields 2% while inflation is 7.5%. Ergo mortgages will almost certainly run to 5-6% within a few months once the market perceives that inflation is not transitory and start selling off the 10y treasury en masse. We have seen this move already starting. It's why mortgages have run from 3-4% in just two months. But not even close to pricing in inflation. Mortgages were 5% in 2018 when inflation was significantly lower. We may even get to 6-7% in a shorter period of time
- marvin 5y ago
  Fascinating. Thanks for the info. I'm in northern Europe (Norway), and very curious how this could spread east of the Atlantic. Historically, our central bank has given everyone the impression that they decide the mortgage rate, but history has shown that foreign rates have much higher impact. In the previous 20 years, whenever rates have spiked abroad, the central bank has made interventions to prevent domestic rates from going up. But those interest rate spikes have been transistory, so I have no idea how things would play out this time.

erehweb 5y ago

Has building been accelerating in the areas where people want to live, though? e.g. lots of Californians wanting to move to MT or ID, but is building catching up there?

atwebb 5y ago
Are people making that move because they prefer the location if their current location had enough housing? I guess more "Are they moving b/c the building is happening there and not in CA?".
adam_arthur 5y ago
Most building is concentrated in the migration destinations. You can find the breakout on the FRED website for different metro areas. I would be particularly concerned about sustainability of prices for places like Boise or Phoenix. Lots of building there, and prices are far detached from local median wage. Also lots of land and few regulations preventing further building. Phoenix was one of the places hit hard in GFC. Prices fell 50-70%

nonameiguess 5y ago

Whether or not housing prices are in a "bubble" in the sense that the prices are going to correct and drop at some point, they're not a bubble in the Beanie Baby sense of seeing 10000% price appreciation in the span of a few years. Nobody's 4-bed condo is selling for $500 million. There needs to be some acknowledgement of the gap between probably mispriced and tulipmania. Conversely, if prices correct, they're still going to be back where they were in another decade because houses have actual value. You're never going to see a bag full of 150 4-bedroom condos being thrown away on an episode of hoarders because the owner can't even sell them for a few bucks each. There's a difference between "price is going to drop a bit for a while" and "will totally collapse and be worth marginally close to zero dollars for the rest of time."

adam_arthur 5y ago
Something with intrinsic value will never collapse to 0. A bubble to me is real prices far exceeding intrinsic value, particularly driven by psychology rather than fundamentals. Housing fits the bill to me. There's a good argument that crypto presents similar to beanie babies, given that there is no intrinsic value to the coins themselves. People buy crypto because they think they can sell it to somebody else for more later, not because it unlocks some value by holding it. But don't want to sidetrack the discussion.
jurassic 5y ago
I really appreciate this comment. The $1M house I bought last year at 2.75% (now supposedly valued $1.1M) might go down to $600-700k if we have some kind of major correction, but it's in a desirable area and never going to zero. I'm prepared for it to drop, but over the long term I expect to be fine. My house is a place to live for the long term, not something I'm looking to day trade. The only day I care what it's "worth" is the day I need to sell it. Thinking of your primary residence as a speculative investment seems so strange to me. If you buy something that is comfortably affordable for you now where you're willing to stay for the long term, with a fixed rate loan, I don't see the benefit of waiting until the peak comes. I'd rather be building equity than paying rent waiting for the market to peak. People have been predicting another crash every year for the last decade, and I'm sure it will go down again at some point, but I wouldn't plan my life around anybody's ability to call the top accurately. Just buy what you can afford and get on with your life.

pandaman 5y ago

I don't see the data about 1.1 homes per household in your links. What is accounted as a "home" whenever you are taking this number from? Given that the rate of home ownership is about 65% it is probably counting rentals, unless an average household owns 1.7 houses. On the other hand, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPU1USA https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPU1USA shows that the number of SFHs completed in 2021 finally reached levels of 1994, when population had been 100M less than now. I might be just too dumb to see where there are enough houses.

adam_arthur 5y ago
Total Households: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TTLHH https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TTLHH Total Housing Units: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ETOTALUSQ176N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ETOTALUSQ176N Divide one by the other to get housing units per household. You can see ratio in 2020 is roughly the same as 2000. You have to consider multifamily construction too (which can include SFH-like duplexes, or full apartment buildings). Housing is fungible to a certain extent. If rents fall, that will reduce demand for purchasing and vice versa. Completions is a backwards looking metric. Look at pipeline, not completions to predict forward trajectory. Housing in pipeline now matches the 2000s peak, and looks to surpass the 70s peak within a few months
- pandaman 5y ago
  Okay, so it does include rentals and the number seem pretty normal - the ratio of units to households will always stay close to 1. And yes, the housing is fungible to an extent: the dearth of SFHs cause the price of SFHs to rocket and pushes the rest of the market up as the people who are priced out of SFHs can as well go and buy a condo or a townhouse.
  - adam_arthur 5y ago
    Yeah, but SFH aren't the only housing type appreciating. This theory doesn't really hold when you consider both Condos, inner city locales, rural locales etc have also experienced rapid price appreciation. Rental or not doesn't really matter. Fundamentally people just need a place to live, and depending on locale will make the tradeoff between renting and buying. If rental stock doubles overnight, housing prices would decline too, as cost of a mortgage becomes relatively less appealing. In this sense it's fungible. But it's true there may be some subset of people who would only buy SFH regardless of price

ytjohn 5y ago

There's another factor going on in housing right now, which is corporate home ownership. There was some pressure on the market when landlords moved from long-term rentals to short-term airbnb style rentals. But last couple years saw an influxed of "iBuyers" like Zillow and OpenDoor. These companies have been purchasing homes at above market prices - which tends to move the market price in the process. Their goal was to get inventory without much regard for profitability. https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/08/homes/zillow-ibuyer-homes/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/08/homes/zillow-ibuyer-homes/ind...