Steven Levy over at Wired recently wrote a short piece comparing Opendoor’s iBuying approach to what Zillow was doing when it was in the space. (Thank you Robert Wright for forwarding me the article.)
As we have talked about before, the fundamental problem with Zillow’s model is that it couldn’t accurately predict where home prices were going. It was losing too much money and so they shut down that side of their business.
The article talks about Opendoor’s approach and how they’ve spent the last 8 years refining a valuation model/approach that is now apparently pretty accurate. That’s positive. But here’s another excerpt that I found particularly interesting:
There’s one controversial aspect of the business model that Wong didn’t bring up. It appears that when companies like Zillow and Opendoor can’t easily sell a home, the fallback is what’s called an “institutional sale.” All iBuyers sell a small but not insignificant percentage to institutional investors with aspirations of being “mega-landlords.” While the marketing materials of the iBuyers emphasize clean sunny rooms and frictionless transactions, that segment of the market involves hedge funds like KKR and Blackstone snapping up properties for rental, limiting the inventory available for families seeking homes. Even the Biden administration has weighed in on the evils of this trend: “Large investor purchases of single-family homes and conversion into rental properties speeds the transition of neighborhoods from homeownership to rental and drives up home prices for lower cost homes, making it harder for aspiring first-time and first-generation home buyers, among others, to buy a home,” said a recent
Steven Levy over at Wired recently wrote a short piece comparing Opendoor’s iBuying approach to what Zillow was doing when it was in the space. (Thank you Robert Wright for forwarding me the article.)
As we have talked about before, the fundamental problem with Zillow’s model is that it couldn’t accurately predict where home prices were going. It was losing too much money and so they shut down that side of their business.
The article talks about Opendoor’s approach and how they’ve spent the last 8 years refining a valuation model/approach that is now apparently pretty accurate. That’s positive. But here’s another excerpt that I found particularly interesting:
There’s one controversial aspect of the business model that Wong didn’t bring up. It appears that when companies like Zillow and Opendoor can’t easily sell a home, the fallback is what’s called an “institutional sale.” All iBuyers sell a small but not insignificant percentage to institutional investors with aspirations of being “mega-landlords.” While the marketing materials of the iBuyers emphasize clean sunny rooms and frictionless transactions, that segment of the market involves hedge funds like KKR and Blackstone snapping up properties for rental, limiting the inventory available for families seeking homes. Even the Biden administration has weighed in on the evils of this trend: “Large investor purchases of single-family homes and conversion into rental properties speeds the transition of neighborhoods from homeownership to rental and drives up home prices for lower cost homes, making it harder for aspiring first-time and first-generation home buyers, among others, to buy a home,” said a recent
First, these highly tuned valuation models are now being used to scale the acquisition of single family homes. No specific figures are given, but Levy speculates that some iBuyers could be feeding up to 20% of their homes to institutional buyers. Economies of scale are a challenge with this asset class. Here technology is helping.
Second, I don’t like the tone toward renters in the above White House dispatch: “[It] speeds the transition of neighborhoods from homeownership to rental.” This line in particular implies that renting is perceived as being suboptimal to homeownership and that “speeding”’ towards the former is something that should be avoided for reasons of social good.
Even the words that are used here suggest biases. A single-family home is called, well, a home. But a rented one is a rental property. I reckon that a home is a home regardless of whether it’s low-rise, high-rise, rented, or owned.
If you've been following the housing market (in most cities) over the last year, this chart likely won't surprise you. It is from a recent City Observatory article by Joe Cortright talking about the "k-shaped housing market" that we have seen emerge over the last year. The above is for the US, but I would imagine that the chart would look similar for Canada, as well as for other countries. Here's an excerpt from the article:
There’s an obvious explanation for the different trajectories of house prices and rents: Low income workers rent; high income workers own and buy homes. High income households have been barely grazed by the Covid-19 recession. In fact, the combination of low interest rates and enforced savings (because many kinds of consumption spending, including dining, entertainment, travel and even much retail have been constrained by lockdowns), mean higher income households may find housing a much more attractive spending item. If you can’t go out to dinner, or take a vacation, you have more money to spend on a new home. Low wage workers are in the opposite situation. Low wage workers have borne the brunt of the recession; they are also much more likely to be renters than higher income households.
First, these highly tuned valuation models are now being used to scale the acquisition of single family homes. No specific figures are given, but Levy speculates that some iBuyers could be feeding up to 20% of their homes to institutional buyers. Economies of scale are a challenge with this asset class. Here technology is helping.
Second, I don’t like the tone toward renters in the above White House dispatch: “[It] speeds the transition of neighborhoods from homeownership to rental.” This line in particular implies that renting is perceived as being suboptimal to homeownership and that “speeding”’ towards the former is something that should be avoided for reasons of social good.
Even the words that are used here suggest biases. A single-family home is called, well, a home. But a rented one is a rental property. I reckon that a home is a home regardless of whether it’s low-rise, high-rise, rented, or owned.
If you've been following the housing market (in most cities) over the last year, this chart likely won't surprise you. It is from a recent City Observatory article by Joe Cortright talking about the "k-shaped housing market" that we have seen emerge over the last year. The above is for the US, but I would imagine that the chart would look similar for Canada, as well as for other countries. Here's an excerpt from the article:
There’s an obvious explanation for the different trajectories of house prices and rents: Low income workers rent; high income workers own and buy homes. High income households have been barely grazed by the Covid-19 recession. In fact, the combination of low interest rates and enforced savings (because many kinds of consumption spending, including dining, entertainment, travel and even much retail have been constrained by lockdowns), mean higher income households may find housing a much more attractive spending item. If you can’t go out to dinner, or take a vacation, you have more money to spend on a new home. Low wage workers are in the opposite situation. Low wage workers have borne the brunt of the recession; they are also much more likely to be renters than higher income households.
Here's a cogent argument by Dror Poleg about how urban economics can be used to explain the evolution of Web3, and also why it's all a bit of a ponzi scheme, but that when it works, it works.
His argument revolves around ownership and participation. If you own real estate in a city, you could say that you are both a part owner of said city and a participant. You participate by virtue of living and/or doing other things there, but beyond that you also have a vested interest in the city doing well. Because if the city continues to do well and grow, there should be more demand for real estate, including yours, and that likely means your wealth will increase over time.
This same force could be said to apply when existing property owners oppose new development. It restricts supply and increases the value of people's existing "ownership" in a city. It's kind of like being a company and not issuing new shares so as to not dilute your existing shareholders.
This connection between ownership and participation is similarly a hallmark of Web3. In the world of crypto, users buy tokens (some fungible and some non-fungible) and those tokens provide access and rights to various things.
For example, owning tokens might allow you to vote on key decisions affecting the overall organization. And if the organization does well and continues to grow, all token holders should, in theory at least, see their wealth increase. More people will want those same tokens. Ownership and participation.
Web2 companies, on the other hand, do not typically offer this automatic connection between ownership and participation. That is, of course, unless you're a shareholder. If you're just a regular user of a platform like Instagram (which I am), but you don't own any shares in Meta (I do not), then you're only a participant.
If you happen to be a widely followed influencer then you can certainly benefit indirectly from the platform, but you do not benefit from any sort of direct ownership in the organization. Pretty much everything accrues to the house.
In fact, you also don't own your followers, from which you derive your indirect benefit. Not to pick on Meta, but if Meta decided that your content was suddenly inappropriate for the platform, perhaps too salacious, then it could choose to close you down and your indirect benefits.
This, of course, is one of the great promises of crypto and Web3. If you're a part owner and you have some say in the way things are being run, you can maybe avoid this kind of outcome. And if things really aren't working out, one should have the flexibility to take their followers and be extra salacious somewhere else.
We shall see if this is ultimately how Web3 plays out, but the connection between ownership and participation is an interesting one and, if things do end up working out as planned, maybe it can be harnessed to improve our cities. Because we know the problems: inequality, housing supply and affordability, and many others. The system is clearly far from perfect.
It is perhaps worth reiterating that our fixation on homeownership is not universal. If you live in Switzerland -- a very wealthy country -- you're more likely to rent than own. And if you live in Germany, you're more likely to live in an apartment than in a low-rise house. Still, that doesn't change the fact that the impacts of COVID-19, and our lockdowns, have been felt unequally. This chart is an example of that.
Here's a cogent argument by Dror Poleg about how urban economics can be used to explain the evolution of Web3, and also why it's all a bit of a ponzi scheme, but that when it works, it works.
His argument revolves around ownership and participation. If you own real estate in a city, you could say that you are both a part owner of said city and a participant. You participate by virtue of living and/or doing other things there, but beyond that you also have a vested interest in the city doing well. Because if the city continues to do well and grow, there should be more demand for real estate, including yours, and that likely means your wealth will increase over time.
This same force could be said to apply when existing property owners oppose new development. It restricts supply and increases the value of people's existing "ownership" in a city. It's kind of like being a company and not issuing new shares so as to not dilute your existing shareholders.
This connection between ownership and participation is similarly a hallmark of Web3. In the world of crypto, users buy tokens (some fungible and some non-fungible) and those tokens provide access and rights to various things.
For example, owning tokens might allow you to vote on key decisions affecting the overall organization. And if the organization does well and continues to grow, all token holders should, in theory at least, see their wealth increase. More people will want those same tokens. Ownership and participation.
Web2 companies, on the other hand, do not typically offer this automatic connection between ownership and participation. That is, of course, unless you're a shareholder. If you're just a regular user of a platform like Instagram (which I am), but you don't own any shares in Meta (I do not), then you're only a participant.
If you happen to be a widely followed influencer then you can certainly benefit indirectly from the platform, but you do not benefit from any sort of direct ownership in the organization. Pretty much everything accrues to the house.
In fact, you also don't own your followers, from which you derive your indirect benefit. Not to pick on Meta, but if Meta decided that your content was suddenly inappropriate for the platform, perhaps too salacious, then it could choose to close you down and your indirect benefits.
This, of course, is one of the great promises of crypto and Web3. If you're a part owner and you have some say in the way things are being run, you can maybe avoid this kind of outcome. And if things really aren't working out, one should have the flexibility to take their followers and be extra salacious somewhere else.
We shall see if this is ultimately how Web3 plays out, but the connection between ownership and participation is an interesting one and, if things do end up working out as planned, maybe it can be harnessed to improve our cities. Because we know the problems: inequality, housing supply and affordability, and many others. The system is clearly far from perfect.
It is perhaps worth reiterating that our fixation on homeownership is not universal. If you live in Switzerland -- a very wealthy country -- you're more likely to rent than own. And if you live in Germany, you're more likely to live in an apartment than in a low-rise house. Still, that doesn't change the fact that the impacts of COVID-19, and our lockdowns, have been felt unequally. This chart is an example of that.
