7 ms·

Some quotes from the filing: > Discussing a different RealPage product, another landlord said: “I always liked this product because your algorithm uses proprie

by lukev 2y ago

Some quotes from the filing: > Discussing a different RealPage product, another landlord said: “I always liked this product because your algorithm uses proprietary data from other subscribers to suggest rents and term. That’s classic price fixing . . . .” > In fact, as RealPage’s Vice President of Revenue Management Advisory Services described, “there is greater good in everybody succeeding versus essentially trying to compete against one another in a way that actually keeps the entire industry down” > Its executives are blunt: They want landlords to “avoid the race to the bottom in down markets.” Sometimes RealPage is even more direct, acknowledging that its software is aimed at “driving every possible opportunity to increase price”

Carrok 2y ago
> industry The fact that providing people with housing is even seen as an "industry" is a big sign of what is wrong with the world right now. It is essential to living a decent life. It should not be a driver of lining the pockets of people who are already rich.
- diogocp 2y ago
  It being an industry is what allows people to live a decent life. Just like farming being an industry allows you to sit at a desk all day instead of being out there foraging.
- Manuel_D 2y ago
  Do you want to invest tens of millions of dollars into building an apartment with zero expectations of making a return? If there's no profit to be made in building housing, why would anyone want to build housing? This line of thinking is what leads to situations like San Francisco, where price controls on housing lead to few developers willing to build there. If it's proven that landlords colluded to fix prices, that should be addressed. But the reality is, prices are only going up in a select few metros. And it's because lots of people want to live in those areas, which leads to rising demand which has not been satisfied by new housing construction. People desperately want to believe that there's a silver bullet that will bring prices down without actually addressing the mismatch between supply and demand.
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    Profits are fine, excessive profits at the cost of people who need housing are not. There is no silver bullet, but increasing supply along with strong regulation to protect renters is welcome vs them being cattle to be squeezed by for profit entities. Human rights are a thing, there is no right to profit. > The six largest publicly traded apartment companies in the U.S. — all of which are linked to an alleged rental price-fixing scandal — experienced profit increases during the first three months of the year, according to an analysis from left-leaning watchdog group Accountable US exclusively shared with The Hill. > In the analysis, the companies earned a combined $300 million in profit during the first quarter of the year, in part, due to rent increases. Lots of profit to squeeze out with regulation, based on the evidence. The Vienna model is a proven model if for profit enterprises walk away from housing. https://thehill.com/business/housing/4718252-large-apartment-companies-rental-fixing-scheme-profits-analysis/ https://thehill.com/business/housing/4718252-large-apartment... https://accountable.us/report-top-corporate-landlords-see-profits-soar-amid-rent-hikes-and-fees/ https://accountable.us/report-top-corporate-landlords-see-pr...
    - itake 2y ago
      strong regulation increases costs (see all the permits and surveys required in SF). What are "excessive profits"? 10%? 15%? 25%? > experienced profit increases during the first three months of the year Does this even mean anything? This could mean their vacancy rate decreased and thus their business is more profitable. I don't see the issue with companies reducing vacancies and providing more housing to more people.
      - toomuchtodo 2y ago
        I cannot say, but experts can, and suggest to legislators and regulators implementation details. To operate a business in a jurisdiction is a privilege, not an entitlement.
        itake 2y ago
        I'd love to see the data on this. Usually when you increase construction costs, via additional regulation, you're going to increase the price of rent/sale. What expert thinks increasing costs will lower prices?
- bequanna 2y ago
  Well, housing needs to mostly be handled by the private sector if we want high quality. Government housing should absolutely exist, but only as a safety net as their management is incredibly inefficient. Private housing isn’t the issue here: collusion is. Collusion should generally not be tolerated in a well regulated capitalist system.
  - mistrial9 2y ago
    there are massive and documented scandals at the US Federal level with the departments assigned to regulate and serve those markets (HUD etc).. an easy and relevant start is the Savings and Loan collapse of the 80s, directly on top of mortgage monies
    - bequanna 2y ago
      I don’t disagree but not sure what point you’re trying to make here. Problems with regulation are the expected consequence of living in the real world and not a model. They should be fixed and we can do better. I just don’t see how any of this leads us to more regulation. More government control means less efficiency and likely MORE corruption.
- JackYoustra 2y ago
  I don't see why this is an important point: food is an industry and it's never been cheaper in human history than in developed capitalist countries with vibrant agribusiness.
  - RhodesianHunter 2y ago
    True but, look up the price fixing that's been going on in big AG via AgriStats. Similar story as OP.
    - JackYoustra 2y ago
      yup. Cartels always bad!
- legitster 2y ago
  Modern housing is a direct development of the industrial revolution. In that sense it is an industry. You could provide housing like undeveloped nations do, where large families live in cramped hovels without electricity or running water. In the sense that someone should want an apartment with 2 bathrooms, a fireplace, and a pool - it's easier to treat housing overall as a consumer good.
  - Carrok 2y ago
    This is quite the straw man you've constructed. You seem to be suggesting that either housing must be exploitatively expensive, or people must live in squalor.
    - legitster 2y ago
      You are strawmanning me. Nothing in my statement suggests that treating housing as a product means it has to be exploitatively expensive or given away for free. If anything, most industrial products are supposed to get cheaper over time.
      - kelnos 2y ago
        > If anything, most industrial products are supposed to get cheaper over time. And yet the cost of housing more or less always increases. Isn't that enough to suggest that there's something about this "industry" that doesn't quite make sense the way it's handled?
  - sangnoir 2y ago
    ...vs "providing" housing like developed nations in cramped shelters, in cars and on the street? FYI: multigenerational households are a cultural artifact, not an economic one. As one might assume, hovels without water or electricity don't break the bank, they aren't "provided" by anyone either. Yours is a false dichotomy, and is easily disproved by examples in other developed countries where shelter is considered a right.
    - 2y ago
- Alupis 2y ago
  > The fact that providing people with housing is even seen as an "industry" > It is essential to living a decent life. What troublesome phrasing. "Provide" implies people should get housing for free, and "decent" implies getting "decent" housing for free... Well, so who is actually paying for it then? Magical handwavy "government" money? Everyone knows where government money comes from, right? Right? Do we want more printed money and uncontrollable inflation? No? Oh so we should just steal this money from people who worked hard, because some others didn't? > It should not be a driver of lining the pockets of people who are already rich. Ah yes, the ol' "rich people bad" whipping horse. Despite the tens of millions of jobs created by "rich people" and the millions and millions of people who live in actually decent housing in exchange for market rates. The fact that some people actually truly believe "free government housing" is going to be "decent" is absolutely tragic. Yes, let's doom millions to the "projects" because it makes us feel better knowing those darn rich people aren't making money! If anyone wants a porthole view into what government housing looks like - take a look at the plethora of stories and pictures from our military barracks, across all branches. Mold, bugs, broken appliances, holes in walls, locks that don't work... and nobody cares despite the very vocal, highly visible complaints. There's a reason our service men and women scramble to off-base housing the moment they are allowed.
  - switch007 2y ago
    I'll totally accept you're speaking just in the context of the USA but... > The fact that some people actually truly believe "free government housing" is going to be "decent" is absolutely tragic Council houses are fairly highly regarded in the UK (i.e. the property, in terms of space, light, build quality. The estates/tenants, not so much...). They also have a track record of maintaining them far better than private/social landlords - I can personally attest to that. It is the large homebuilder companies that build truly awful, "tragic" homes, cutting every single possible corner imaginable for an extra penny of profit.
    - Alupis 2y ago
      Wikipedia indicates most of these Council Homes were built in the early 1900's - and are not modern construction. An additional average of a around 100 homes total were built per year from the 40's through 1980. So these don't appear to be helping a significant portion of the population. Wikipedia also indicates in the 1970's the UK government dramatically and suddenly cut back on funding for these homes (among other things), which led to some very poor living conditions. Your quality of life being dependent on the whims of politicians and budgets outside-your-control seems awful...
legitster 2y ago
[flagged]
- alpha_squared 2y ago
  I'm not sure I understand what politics have to do with this. Housing is essential. It's "politically charged" because of the lack of affordability. Part of that is due to lack of building and now, evidently, part of that is due to price-fixing.
  - legitster 2y ago
    But as evidence of price fixing, people claiming to get sellers the best possible price isn't a smoking gun in any other market - essential or not.
    - everforward 2y ago
      Most markets have many people making that claim, though. Those people have to compete against each other. Their pricing is also optional, where RealPage was basically forcing landlords to use their prices. RealPage’s big issue is market penetration, though. They control pricing for enough of the housing stock to artificially manipulate the cost of housing. It’s one thing to promise to get clients a sale price on the far end of the bell curve. It’s another thing entirely to move the entire bell curve.
    - kerkeslager 2y ago
      This isn't relevant. I'm don't want smoking guns, I want an economy where harming people isn't profitable. If I invest in a stock and the stock goes down, nobody looks at my intentions and decides whether I should make money off it. It's my responsibility to understand what I'm investing in. If I invest in harming consumers, nobody should look at my intentions and decide whether I should make money off it. It's my responsibility to understand what I'm investing in. Even if RealPage didn't know what they were doing was harming renters, they should have known that. Knowing how your actions affect people is a prerequisite to running a business in any market, but especially in a market where people's basic needs are at stake.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
trilobyte 2y ago
My concern with this is that it fundamentally undermines competition, which is a promise of the markets. Being more efficient means delivering products more cheaply than your competitors, which is good for the market. This sort of collusion completely undermines that and holds back innovation in the market. How would real estate developers feel if construction companies / subcontractors had a similar product for pricing their labor? Or how would any company feel if employees worked together to set the price of their labor? That sounds kind of familiar, and doesn't sound like something most companies would be happy about.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

by lukev 2y ago

Carrok 2y ago

> industry The fact that providing people with housing is even seen as an "industry" is a big sign of what is wrong with the world right now. It is essential to living a decent life. It should not be a driver of lining the pockets of people who are already rich.

diogocp 2y ago
It being an industry is what allows people to live a decent life. Just like farming being an industry allows you to sit at a desk all day instead of being out there foraging.
Manuel_D 2y ago
Do you want to invest tens of millions of dollars into building an apartment with zero expectations of making a return? If there's no profit to be made in building housing, why would anyone want to build housing? This line of thinking is what leads to situations like San Francisco, where price controls on housing lead to few developers willing to build there. If it's proven that landlords colluded to fix prices, that should be addressed. But the reality is, prices are only going up in a select few metros. And it's because lots of people want to live in those areas, which leads to rising demand which has not been satisfied by new housing construction. People desperately want to believe that there's a silver bullet that will bring prices down without actually addressing the mismatch between supply and demand.
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  Profits are fine, excessive profits at the cost of people who need housing are not. There is no silver bullet, but increasing supply along with strong regulation to protect renters is welcome vs them being cattle to be squeezed by for profit entities. Human rights are a thing, there is no right to profit. > The six largest publicly traded apartment companies in the U.S. — all of which are linked to an alleged rental price-fixing scandal — experienced profit increases during the first three months of the year, according to an analysis from left-leaning watchdog group Accountable US exclusively shared with The Hill. > In the analysis, the companies earned a combined $300 million in profit during the first quarter of the year, in part, due to rent increases. Lots of profit to squeeze out with regulation, based on the evidence. The Vienna model is a proven model if for profit enterprises walk away from housing. https://thehill.com/business/housing/4718252-large-apartment-companies-rental-fixing-scheme-profits-analysis/ https://thehill.com/business/housing/4718252-large-apartment... https://accountable.us/report-top-corporate-landlords-see-profits-soar-amid-rent-hikes-and-fees/ https://accountable.us/report-top-corporate-landlords-see-pr...
  - itake 2y ago
    strong regulation increases costs (see all the permits and surveys required in SF). What are "excessive profits"? 10%? 15%? 25%? > experienced profit increases during the first three months of the year Does this even mean anything? This could mean their vacancy rate decreased and thus their business is more profitable. I don't see the issue with companies reducing vacancies and providing more housing to more people.
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      I cannot say, but experts can, and suggest to legislators and regulators implementation details. To operate a business in a jurisdiction is a privilege, not an entitlement.
      - itake 2y ago
        I'd love to see the data on this. Usually when you increase construction costs, via additional regulation, you're going to increase the price of rent/sale. What expert thinks increasing costs will lower prices?
bequanna 2y ago
Well, housing needs to mostly be handled by the private sector if we want high quality. Government housing should absolutely exist, but only as a safety net as their management is incredibly inefficient. Private housing isn’t the issue here: collusion is. Collusion should generally not be tolerated in a well regulated capitalist system.
- mistrial9 2y ago
  there are massive and documented scandals at the US Federal level with the departments assigned to regulate and serve those markets (HUD etc).. an easy and relevant start is the Savings and Loan collapse of the 80s, directly on top of mortgage monies
  - bequanna 2y ago
    I don’t disagree but not sure what point you’re trying to make here. Problems with regulation are the expected consequence of living in the real world and not a model. They should be fixed and we can do better. I just don’t see how any of this leads us to more regulation. More government control means less efficiency and likely MORE corruption.
JackYoustra 2y ago
I don't see why this is an important point: food is an industry and it's never been cheaper in human history than in developed capitalist countries with vibrant agribusiness.
- RhodesianHunter 2y ago
  True but, look up the price fixing that's been going on in big AG via AgriStats. Similar story as OP.
  - JackYoustra 2y ago
    yup. Cartels always bad!
legitster 2y ago
Modern housing is a direct development of the industrial revolution. In that sense it is an industry. You could provide housing like undeveloped nations do, where large families live in cramped hovels without electricity or running water. In the sense that someone should want an apartment with 2 bathrooms, a fireplace, and a pool - it's easier to treat housing overall as a consumer good.
- Carrok 2y ago
  This is quite the straw man you've constructed. You seem to be suggesting that either housing must be exploitatively expensive, or people must live in squalor.
  - legitster 2y ago
    You are strawmanning me. Nothing in my statement suggests that treating housing as a product means it has to be exploitatively expensive or given away for free. If anything, most industrial products are supposed to get cheaper over time.
    - kelnos 2y ago
      > If anything, most industrial products are supposed to get cheaper over time. And yet the cost of housing more or less always increases. Isn't that enough to suggest that there's something about this "industry" that doesn't quite make sense the way it's handled?
- sangnoir 2y ago
  ...vs "providing" housing like developed nations in cramped shelters, in cars and on the street? FYI: multigenerational households are a cultural artifact, not an economic one. As one might assume, hovels without water or electricity don't break the bank, they aren't "provided" by anyone either. Yours is a false dichotomy, and is easily disproved by examples in other developed countries where shelter is considered a right.
  - 2y ago
Alupis 2y ago
> The fact that providing people with housing is even seen as an "industry" > It is essential to living a decent life. What troublesome phrasing. "Provide" implies people should get housing for free, and "decent" implies getting "decent" housing for free... Well, so who is actually paying for it then? Magical handwavy "government" money? Everyone knows where government money comes from, right? Right? Do we want more printed money and uncontrollable inflation? No? Oh so we should just steal this money from people who worked hard, because some others didn't? > It should not be a driver of lining the pockets of people who are already rich. Ah yes, the ol' "rich people bad" whipping horse. Despite the tens of millions of jobs created by "rich people" and the millions and millions of people who live in actually decent housing in exchange for market rates. The fact that some people actually truly believe "free government housing" is going to be "decent" is absolutely tragic. Yes, let's doom millions to the "projects" because it makes us feel better knowing those darn rich people aren't making money! If anyone wants a porthole view into what government housing looks like - take a look at the plethora of stories and pictures from our military barracks, across all branches. Mold, bugs, broken appliances, holes in walls, locks that don't work... and nobody cares despite the very vocal, highly visible complaints. There's a reason our service men and women scramble to off-base housing the moment they are allowed.
- switch007 2y ago
  I'll totally accept you're speaking just in the context of the USA but... > The fact that some people actually truly believe "free government housing" is going to be "decent" is absolutely tragic Council houses are fairly highly regarded in the UK (i.e. the property, in terms of space, light, build quality. The estates/tenants, not so much...). They also have a track record of maintaining them far better than private/social landlords - I can personally attest to that. It is the large homebuilder companies that build truly awful, "tragic" homes, cutting every single possible corner imaginable for an extra penny of profit.
  - Alupis 2y ago
    Wikipedia indicates most of these Council Homes were built in the early 1900's - and are not modern construction. An additional average of a around 100 homes total were built per year from the 40's through 1980. So these don't appear to be helping a significant portion of the population. Wikipedia also indicates in the 1970's the UK government dramatically and suddenly cut back on funding for these homes (among other things), which led to some very poor living conditions. Your quality of life being dependent on the whims of politicians and budgets outside-your-control seems awful...

legitster 2y ago

[flagged]

alpha_squared 2y ago
I'm not sure I understand what politics have to do with this. Housing is essential. It's "politically charged" because of the lack of affordability. Part of that is due to lack of building and now, evidently, part of that is due to price-fixing.
- legitster 2y ago
  But as evidence of price fixing, people claiming to get sellers the best possible price isn't a smoking gun in any other market - essential or not.
  - everforward 2y ago
    Most markets have many people making that claim, though. Those people have to compete against each other. Their pricing is also optional, where RealPage was basically forcing landlords to use their prices. RealPage’s big issue is market penetration, though. They control pricing for enough of the housing stock to artificially manipulate the cost of housing. It’s one thing to promise to get clients a sale price on the far end of the bell curve. It’s another thing entirely to move the entire bell curve.
  - kerkeslager 2y ago
    This isn't relevant. I'm don't want smoking guns, I want an economy where harming people isn't profitable. If I invest in a stock and the stock goes down, nobody looks at my intentions and decides whether I should make money off it. It's my responsibility to understand what I'm investing in. If I invest in harming consumers, nobody should look at my intentions and decide whether I should make money off it. It's my responsibility to understand what I'm investing in. Even if RealPage didn't know what they were doing was harming renters, they should have known that. Knowing how your actions affect people is a prerequisite to running a business in any market, but especially in a market where people's basic needs are at stake.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

trilobyte 2y ago

My concern with this is that it fundamentally undermines competition, which is a promise of the markets. Being more efficient means delivering products more cheaply than your competitors, which is good for the market. This sort of collusion completely undermines that and holds back innovation in the market. How would real estate developers feel if construction companies / subcontractors had a similar product for pricing their labor? Or how would any company feel if employees worked together to set the price of their labor? That sounds kind of familiar, and doesn't sound like something most companies would be happy about.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]