Hacker News Reader

Comment by BryantD | Hacker News Reader

I think your basic point is good -- a free put option is always going to be a problem.

However, can you unpack "Everyone else would rather sell their home..."? At the core there are two factors at play in this decision. One is financial; anyone with the luxury of time will compare a realtor's comps with an ibuyer's offer. The second is certainty; an ibuyer offer is guaranteed, and can be executed without having to show a house over the course of 1 to X months.

It seems to me that certainty has value to some sellers in some situations. Right now, the certainty value of the traditional route is pretty good because the market is on fire. That is not always the case everywhere.

View on HN

It depends mainly on how much more money the homeowners believe they can fetch by listing the home versus selling it right away on the spot.

For example, if you're the homeowner and you think you can get, say, a few extra $100K's by listing your home instead of selling it right away on the spot, you would probably take your changes and list it. Even if you're under pressure to sell quickly, you might still try listing the home for a couple of months to see what happens. Only if you think your home is a lemon will you consider selling to Zillow.

That's why Zillow ended up buying all those lemons.

> Only if you think your home is a lemon will you consider selling to Zillow.

What if Zillow just makes an offer that’s high enough that you think it’s unlikely you’d do better if you went through the hassle of looking for other buyers?

Lets say P(h) is the price that a home fetches after being listed, O(h) is the price that an owner expects to get from selling the home, and Z(h) is the price that Zillow expects to get if they sell the home. An owner will sell to Zillow when O(h) < Z(h). They will not sell when O(h) > Z(h). Zillow's outcome would then be (P(h) - Z(h)) * (Z(h) >= O(h)).

The extremely important thing to note is that this is an asymmetric information game. Therefore O(h) < Z(h) is going to be self-selected such that O(h) < Z(h) because P(h) is closer to O(h) then Z(h) is to P(h). If Z(h) was actually able to be a reliable and better estimate of O(h) then it would mean that P(h) wasn't determined by information available to O(h) that was not also available to P(h). The market would already offer this value to O(h). So O(h) value is going to be reflective of Z(h). Its only if the non-public information changes the value that O(h) != Z(h).

Like the previous posts said, the advantages of selling to Zillow are price certainty and immediacy, so your model isn't quite right. But I agree with the adverse selection problem you highlighted.

Even if Zillow does, they still take a 12% fee. When I was selling my house a year ago in Texas, Zillow's offer is both lower than comp in the area AND has a hidden 12% fee. Did you know they also charge YOU the repair fee?

I had a chance to talk to an inspector who looked at my place who has previously worked with Zillow to inspect houses that they were buying. The gist is that Zillow are getting the worst houses (the ones with trash everywhere, burnt carpet, feces on the wall). For them to get a "normal" house is very rare. Nobody with a normal house (and better) under normal condition (and better) will sell to Zillow. You can get a 1%+3% fee full service (pro pix, pro staging, pro cleaning, ...) any day of the week and still sell your house in mere weeks. I was not even in Austin. I guess if you don't care about making tens of thousands in a month (or hundreds of thousands in nicer cities), then you have bigger things to worry about.

Zillow's offer was already higher than OfferPad and other iBuyer's services. After my experience on the sell side with Zillow, I am incredibly wary of ALL iBuyers on the buy side.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com