4 ms·

And now I see several "app" companies are trying to push realtors out of their business entirely by using "algorithms" for private equity to buy up any and all

And now I see several "app" companies are trying to push realtors out of their business entirely by using "algorithms" for private equity to buy up any and all housing. And I guaran-damn-tee they don't give a shit.

astrange 4y ago
Good, realtors are awful. Those companies have already failed though (Zillow is practically about to go out of business because they failed so hard), probably can never succeed because of the adverse selection effect, and "investors are buying all the housing" is a myth propagated by NIMBYs.
- felizuno 4y ago
  Zillow is totally fine financially. Yeah they lost $10b which is bad news but they didn't bet the farm, and as they continue to invest r&d in renter/landlord oriented services they should be fine. It's the Expedia of houses, and people have to live somewhere. Can you put forward any proof at all that they are even struggling, let alone "about to go out of business"?
- wyre 4y ago
  > "investors are buying all the housing" is a myth propagated by NIMBYs. Is it? https://www.redfin.com/news/investor-home-purchases-q4-2021/ https://www.redfin.com/news/investor-home-purchases-q4-2021/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2022/housing-market-investors/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2022/hou...
  - astrange 4y ago
    They can’t buy “all” the housing and make money off that. You can simply defeat them by building more housing. Same reason car companies sell you cars instead of keeping them for themselves. They naturally depreciate, except we intervene in the market to help boomers’ retirements.
    - TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
      > They can’t buy “all” the housing and make money off that. You can simply defeat them by building more housing. And yet, in the very most-constrained markets, they are still NOT doing that, after DECADES of pressure to do so.
      - astrange 4y ago
        Yeah, because it's good-to-essential for boomers' retirements and they're the median voter. Young people are pretty bad at voting in general (they take any excuse to stop doing it) but unfortunately even besides that, wouldn't be the median voter because of population demographics. But if you're a young person who doesn't own a home, X corporation owning the homes isn't worse for you than random boomer landlords owning them. Corporate landlords at least don't take things personally when you ask them to do maintenance, and theoretically you can be part owners of them since they're publicly traded. And corporate landlords didn't defeat the social housing legislation in California just now, boomers did.
    - wyre 4y ago
      Except investors are buying more housing than is being built. Also, car companies are more than happy to lease their vehicles, but people would prefer to own.

astrange 4y ago

Good, realtors are awful. Those companies have already failed though (Zillow is practically about to go out of business because they failed so hard), probably can never succeed because of the adverse selection effect, and "investors are buying all the housing" is a myth propagated by NIMBYs.

felizuno 4y ago
Zillow is totally fine financially. Yeah they lost $10b which is bad news but they didn't bet the farm, and as they continue to invest r&d in renter/landlord oriented services they should be fine. It's the Expedia of houses, and people have to live somewhere. Can you put forward any proof at all that they are even struggling, let alone "about to go out of business"?
wyre 4y ago
> "investors are buying all the housing" is a myth propagated by NIMBYs. Is it? https://www.redfin.com/news/investor-home-purchases-q4-2021/ https://www.redfin.com/news/investor-home-purchases-q4-2021/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2022/housing-market-investors/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/interactive/2022/hou...
- astrange 4y ago
  They can’t buy “all” the housing and make money off that. You can simply defeat them by building more housing. Same reason car companies sell you cars instead of keeping them for themselves. They naturally depreciate, except we intervene in the market to help boomers’ retirements.
  - TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
    > They can’t buy “all” the housing and make money off that. You can simply defeat them by building more housing. And yet, in the very most-constrained markets, they are still NOT doing that, after DECADES of pressure to do so.
    - astrange 4y ago
      Yeah, because it's good-to-essential for boomers' retirements and they're the median voter. Young people are pretty bad at voting in general (they take any excuse to stop doing it) but unfortunately even besides that, wouldn't be the median voter because of population demographics. But if you're a young person who doesn't own a home, X corporation owning the homes isn't worse for you than random boomer landlords owning them. Corporate landlords at least don't take things personally when you ask them to do maintenance, and theoretically you can be part owners of them since they're publicly traded. And corporate landlords didn't defeat the social housing legislation in California just now, boomers did.
  - wyre 4y ago
    Except investors are buying more housing than is being built. Also, car companies are more than happy to lease their vehicles, but people would prefer to own.