I recently came across a real estate product called LandGlide. It's an app that provides parcel boundaries and detailed property information for over 99% of the US population. It's also "available" in Canada, but it doesn't tell you much about properties here. In the US, you can easily access things like:
Owner’s name or legal entity
Mortgage balance and terms
Assessed value and tax amounts
Square footage and year built
Granular details (even down to whether the home has a fireplace)
The reason for this difference is that in the US, property data is generally considered public record, whereas in Canada, we have stricter privacy laws. But it's not like we make this information strictly private. We just gate it and make it more cumbersome and costly to obtain through services like GeoWarehouse.
I know that some of you will argue that it's better to "sort-of-kind-of" restrict this data from being freely displayed online. But hear me out: this philosophical data difference is an important one that hurts innovation.
In Canada, property data is monopolized and, therefore, cumbersome and expensive to access. It's an unnecessary barrier to innovation. In the US, the same kind of data has become commoditized. It's easy and cheap to access, and so the barriers to building new ideas on top of it are significantly lower.
For example, Paul Crowe, who is the CEO of a Toronto-based real estate company called House Beat, responded to one of my tweets by saying, "For what I can get in the US for $0.15 / API call from one provider, [it] would cost over $18 per call in Canada, across 2-3 integrations."
What this suggests to me is that we're okay allowing some/all of this data to get out there; we'd just like it to be harder and more expensive to access. Why?
Information, as the saying goes, wants to be free, which is why I'm so bullish on blockchain technologies. Blockchains are public databases that make information widely accessible and allow anyone to innovate on top of them. As the world continues to move on-chain, we are going to see the enormous benefits that this brings.
Already, we can see what happens when you don't have or allow it.
Cover photo by Jakub Żerdzicki on Unsplash
The morning I attended the release of Venturon's 2024 Sustainable Proptech Report. What's great is that it includes a list of all the (known) companies that are active in this space in Canada. It also summarizes venture funding by region. Interesting to see Alberta punching above its weight and coming in second behind Ontario. It has roughly half the population of Quebec.
As part of the event, the following companies also gave short presentations:
Panergy -- they make a prefabricated insulated wall system
Darabase -- they are creating an advertising ecosystem around augmented reality; one that will allow building owners to monetize in a new digital world
Axe Buildings -- they make simple, prefabricated homes; they are optimizing for speed and price, not quality
QEA Tech -- they use drones with thermal cameras to tell you where your building envelope is leaking and wasting energy
I don't know anything about these companies other than what I heard this morning, but all are working on important problems. Darabase is perhaps the most future oriented in that it appears to rely on AR / spatial computing becoming a thing. I believe this will happen, and so I found it particularly interesting.
The 2024 report is available online, here.
My most recent post about Opendoor, the so-called iBuying company, is about how it wants to become the "transaction layer for homes." What that means is they would like to start facilitating third-party transactions between buyers and sellers, and move away (either partially or completely) from actually owning homes for a period of time.
The company is still trying to sell homes that it purchased in Q2-2022, which, as we all know, was a very different kind of housing market. So by doing this, Opendoor would be both reducing the market risk that it takes on and making its business model less capital intensive.
Knowing this, I actually think that "iBuyer" is the wrong moniker for their business. As I see it, the long-term objective is not to just be an iBuyer of homes. The objective is to ultimately facilitate transactions in a capital efficient kind of way. The point of iBuying is/was to seed their two-sided marketplace with sellers.
As we have discussed before, two-sided marketplaces usually always have a chicken-and-egg problem. No sellers equals no buyers, and vice versa. So you have to figure out a clever way to attract one side. Of course, now that Opendoor has sellers, the company can start to aggregate the demand side (i.e. buyers). And that is exactly what it is doing with Opendoor Exclusives.
Exclusives works like this:
The inventory consists of "off-market" homes that have yet to be listed on MLS
The homes are discounted about 2-4%
They are available for 14 days
You can't negotiate the price -- it's first come, first served
If your appraisal comes in lower, Opendoor will price match
And finally, Opendoor will not pay any buyer commissions (which is reflected in the above discount)
As I understand it, if the home doesn't sell, it then gets listed on MLS and all of the normal terms and practices would apply. But before that happens, the key objective is to facilitate a quick transaction in one of two ways.
The first way is for the seller to request an offer from Opendoor's network of buyers. In this scenario, Opendoor never needs to own the home or perform any improvements (which is usually what it does when it iBuys). It is an intermediary earning some sort of take.
The second way is for Opendoor to do its usual thing and make an instant offer to buy the home. But here's the thing. With enough buyers on its platform and by creating a sense of urgency (hey, here's a lower price!), presumably the idea is that it may never need to close on a number of these homes. It just needs to find another buyer within 14 days.
If it works, this could be an interesting business.