How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M

Re:How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M by gregable on Friday March 18, 2022 @02:56PM (#30726087)

Yes, and this would really be awful in the short term, but in the medium term medicine companies would just spin up more production until the "very wealthy people" demand has been met and medicine becomes available again at some reasonable price.

The fact that this is very likely prevents most of the speculation in the first place.

The difference with real estate is that the owners get to determine production levels, via local zoning laws.

Sure, there is some natural scarcity: Land cannot be created, but in most cases artificial scarcity is the issue.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M by davidw on Friday March 18, 2022 @07:42PM (#30729088)

> The difference with real estate is that the owners get to determine production levels, via local zoning laws.

I'm part of a local YIMBY group, and show up to hearings to try and get housing built, write letters, etc...

I have never, ever seen 'investors' write in or speak at these things. It's all our neighbors who show up and scream about not building homes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M by WindyLakeReturn on Friday March 18, 2022 @09:11PM (#30729844)

Could this be a side effect of efficiency? Much more efficient for the investors to push for the ideas that lead to local homeowners showing up to protest than to protest themselves.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:How Zillow's homebuying scheme lost $881M by davidw on Saturday March 19, 2022 @12:13AM (#30730925)

Investors don't have a voice locally. They don't write letters to the editor or post on Nextdoor. Pretty much all they have to do is sit back and reap the benefits of angry neighbors doing all the dirty work of preventing homes from being built. It's a pretty sweet gig. They even say this stuff straight up in their SEC filings.

[ Parent | on HN ]