4 ms·

You're comparing the rental occupancy rate for the entire country to a specific market? That doesn't make any sense. SF (and another of other cities) is in a ho

You're comparing the rental occupancy rate for the entire country to a specific market? That doesn't make any sense. SF (and another of other cities) is in a housing market crisis, whereas detroit (and another of other cities) has extremely high amounts of vacancy. Obviously you have to consider this market by market. This product is being used to maximize revenue in specific markets, by telling landlords to hold apartments vacant by listing them at higher than market prices. By doing that across the market, they artificially increase scarcity, which forces people to rent those apartments at inflated prices. That's collusion by proxy, because you have a single actor that's coordinating actions. It's collusion because all of these companies are sharing their private pricing data with a central entity, who's using that private data to provide coordinated actions.

pandaman 4y ago
Seeing how the market is not specified in the article it's rational to compare to the the national average. But if you have the data for the market where the unnamed company from the article operates I am all ears. Your claim was that 95% "is quite low" even though it's higher than the national average. > By doing that across the market, they artificially increase scarcity, which forces people to rent those apartments at inflated prices. Yes, this is how the product works, it tells the price that will maximize the revenue. >That's collusion by proxy There is no such thing. If the agreement on prices exists then it's just collusion, if it does not - there is no collusion. Price fixing, which I suppose you mean by collusion is outlawed. Following market trends is not. The agreement on prices is the key element, without it there is no collusion. Nobody is coordinating anything, there is no agreement to set prices according to the marketing data. This is why stock advisors, appraisers, reports and any other pricing sources are not "collusion by proxy" since they are missing the collusion per se.
- ryan_lane 4y ago
  > Seeing how the market is not specified in the article it's rational to compare to the the national average. But if you have the data for the market where the unnamed company from the article operates I am all ears. Your claim was that 95% "is quite low" even though it's higher than the national average. The national average is going to be lower than cities with housing crisis, because the country is large, and it's skewed by areas that are effectively ghost towns. My friends in New Orleans have had a 100% occupancy rate since the last major hurricane. > There is no such thing. If the agreement on prices exists then it's just collusion, if it does not - there is no collusion. Price fixing, which I suppose you mean by collusion is outlawed. Following market trends is not. The agreement on prices is the key element, without it there is no collusion. Nobody is coordinating anything, there is no agreement to set prices according to the marketing data. This is why stock advisors, appraisers, reports and any other pricing sources are not "collusion by proxy" since they are missing the collusion per se. I'm assuming you don't have a real estate license, because there are specific national laws (and often stricter state-level laws) related to collusion, and they differ and are considerably stricter than price fixing laws.
  - pandaman 4y ago
    >The national average is going to be lower than cities with housing crisis, How do you know the unnamed company in the article is in a city witch such a crisis? To me it appears there was not enough demand so it had to discount its rents by a lot to get to the target 97%-98% occupancy and thus lost revenue. And yes, I don't have a real estate license in Louisiana, so can you please name the specific laws you had in mind?
    - ryan_lane 4y ago
      > To me it appears there was not enough demand so it had to discount its rents by a lot to get to the target 97%-98% occupancy and thus lost revenue. This quote is specifically from a company that had 50k units, normally ran with 100% occupancy, did some trials with the pricing company, which showed they could increase revenue by running at an occupancy of 98%, and has now pushed that lower to 95%. By lowering their occupancy rate, they're increasing housing pressure, which forces renters to accept their higher rates. > And yes, I don't have a real estate license in Louisiana, so can you please name the specific laws you had in mind? You don't have one at all, or you'd know the laws. Based on your responses I can tell you didn't read the article, and aren't debating in good faith, so I don't plan on continuing this.
      - pandaman 4y ago
        I see. You won't tell the laws that define "collusion by proxy", somehow I expected this. I'd imagine a real lawyer (or a hundred of them) and not a real estate agent from Louisiana and other redditros would be all over these deep-pocketed companies if they had been in such a text book violation.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  > no collusion I hear this a lot from certain quarters

pandaman 4y ago

Seeing how the market is not specified in the article it's rational to compare to the the national average. But if you have the data for the market where the unnamed company from the article operates I am all ears. Your claim was that 95% "is quite low" even though it's higher than the national average. > By doing that across the market, they artificially increase scarcity, which forces people to rent those apartments at inflated prices. Yes, this is how the product works, it tells the price that will maximize the revenue. >That's collusion by proxy There is no such thing. If the agreement on prices exists then it's just collusion, if it does not - there is no collusion. Price fixing, which I suppose you mean by collusion is outlawed. Following market trends is not. The agreement on prices is the key element, without it there is no collusion. Nobody is coordinating anything, there is no agreement to set prices according to the marketing data. This is why stock advisors, appraisers, reports and any other pricing sources are not "collusion by proxy" since they are missing the collusion per se.

ryan_lane 4y ago
> Seeing how the market is not specified in the article it's rational to compare to the the national average. But if you have the data for the market where the unnamed company from the article operates I am all ears. Your claim was that 95% "is quite low" even though it's higher than the national average. The national average is going to be lower than cities with housing crisis, because the country is large, and it's skewed by areas that are effectively ghost towns. My friends in New Orleans have had a 100% occupancy rate since the last major hurricane. > There is no such thing. If the agreement on prices exists then it's just collusion, if it does not - there is no collusion. Price fixing, which I suppose you mean by collusion is outlawed. Following market trends is not. The agreement on prices is the key element, without it there is no collusion. Nobody is coordinating anything, there is no agreement to set prices according to the marketing data. This is why stock advisors, appraisers, reports and any other pricing sources are not "collusion by proxy" since they are missing the collusion per se. I'm assuming you don't have a real estate license, because there are specific national laws (and often stricter state-level laws) related to collusion, and they differ and are considerably stricter than price fixing laws.
- pandaman 4y ago
  >The national average is going to be lower than cities with housing crisis, How do you know the unnamed company in the article is in a city witch such a crisis? To me it appears there was not enough demand so it had to discount its rents by a lot to get to the target 97%-98% occupancy and thus lost revenue. And yes, I don't have a real estate license in Louisiana, so can you please name the specific laws you had in mind?
  - ryan_lane 4y ago
    > To me it appears there was not enough demand so it had to discount its rents by a lot to get to the target 97%-98% occupancy and thus lost revenue. This quote is specifically from a company that had 50k units, normally ran with 100% occupancy, did some trials with the pricing company, which showed they could increase revenue by running at an occupancy of 98%, and has now pushed that lower to 95%. By lowering their occupancy rate, they're increasing housing pressure, which forces renters to accept their higher rates. > And yes, I don't have a real estate license in Louisiana, so can you please name the specific laws you had in mind? You don't have one at all, or you'd know the laws. Based on your responses I can tell you didn't read the article, and aren't debating in good faith, so I don't plan on continuing this.
    - pandaman 4y ago
      I see. You won't tell the laws that define "collusion by proxy", somehow I expected this. I'd imagine a real lawyer (or a hundred of them) and not a real estate agent from Louisiana and other redditros would be all over these deep-pocketed companies if they had been in such a text book violation.
anigbrowl 4y ago
> no collusion I hear this a lot from certain quarters