We replaced rental brokers with software and filled 200 vacant apartments(caretaker.com)
caretaker.com
We replaced rental brokers with software and filled 200 vacant apartments
https://caretaker.com/blog/we-replaced-rental-brokers-with-software-and-filled-200-vacant-apartments
592 comments
All states should operate like Oregon that stipulates the maximum lease break fee of 1.5 months. I think that's totally fair considering it's been a landlords market for the past 20 years. There's no reason in any state to keep someone on the hook for potentially 12 months when that landlord can just tell someone "hey we're still advertising it but we haven't found anyone yet". By the way, if any of you find yourself in that position, have your parents email them and ask for a unit - if they say they have none and are keeping you on the hook, you may be entitled to 2 months rent back in court.
In Germany, the tenant usually has a 3 month termination notice requirement.
The landlord just CANT terminate the lease, ever. (Unless he is going to live in the place herself or the tenant stopped paying. And even then, it takes a long time to get a tenant out.
It works just fine.
The landlord just CANT terminate the lease, ever. (Unless he is going to live in the place herself or the tenant stopped paying. And even then, it takes a long time to get a tenant out.
It works just fine.
> Unless he is going to live in the place herself
Can just lie. My last landlord said he was moving back in because of family circumstances. As soon as he kicked me out he renovated it and put it up for sale.
Didn’t get an offer he was happy with and was asking me if I wanted to move back in 12 months later.
Can just lie. My last landlord said he was moving back in because of family circumstances. As soon as he kicked me out he renovated it and put it up for sale.
Didn’t get an offer he was happy with and was asking me if I wanted to move back in 12 months later.
Happened to my mom too and a friend of mine.
Tenant said "he moves back, of family"
But that never happened, just rented out to the next person for a higher rent.
Tenant said "he moves back, of family"
But that never happened, just rented out to the next person for a higher rent.
"Works just fine" not actually. That's one of the reasons you see a lot of places going into airbnb (where they get paid more).
I'll give you it works better than some other places because the rights are balanced.
But 3 month termination notices are just an anachronism. German "bureaucracy" still think contracts are forever when they're getting shorter with time.
Yes, I'm giving you the 3 months notice when you could terminate the lease, let's say, with 1 month then have a queue of 10 people ready to rent it again (were you not petty)
I'll give you it works better than some other places because the rights are balanced.
But 3 month termination notices are just an anachronism. German "bureaucracy" still think contracts are forever when they're getting shorter with time.
Yes, I'm giving you the 3 months notice when you could terminate the lease, let's say, with 1 month then have a queue of 10 people ready to rent it again (were you not petty)
Most landlords are fine with the tenant leaving early, if he provides a follow-up tenant. OP is really describing a non-issue in a landlords market.
Oh man, don't get me started. The 3 _calendar_ month notice that needs to be sent in writing (or faxed) is so ridiculous and I wonder if it is done to make it more difficult to get out of contracts. In my case, I had no idea that the written notice receive date matters (unlike the US, where you typically use the postmark date), due to mail delay because of a holiday my notice arrived 2 days late and that was enough to make them pay for another month despite there being an incredible amount of demand in Berlin for apartments.
> unlike the US, where you typically use the postmark date)
I'd wager that it's really up to you to familiarize yourself with local laws and customs.
I'd wager that it's really up to you to familiarize yourself with local laws and customs.
[deleted]
As with most things: it’s complicated.
When you sign a lease agreement, you get a guarantee that your rent will not go up during the term of that agreement.
So, if you sign a lease for $1000 a month on Monday, and on Tuesday the market rent for that area spikes to $10,000 a month, you’re locked in with a lower rate.
If I were a landlord in Oregon, given the above law, I would just only rent month to month. Breaking a lease becomes easy, but you also lose the pricing guarantee.
When you sign a lease agreement, you get a guarantee that your rent will not go up during the term of that agreement.
So, if you sign a lease for $1000 a month on Monday, and on Tuesday the market rent for that area spikes to $10,000 a month, you’re locked in with a lower rate.
If I were a landlord in Oregon, given the above law, I would just only rent month to month. Breaking a lease becomes easy, but you also lose the pricing guarantee.
That doesn't make any sense, the Oregon law works very well for the landlord in that case.
Tenant is locked in at $1000/mo. 6 months in, decides they want to move. Tenant pays $1500 to break lease, and landlord can charge $10000/mo immediately to the next tenant.
Yes, but the point is that the tenant doesn’t want to break the lease then, but the landlord does. 12 month leases protect the tenant from rent hikes as much as they protect the landlord from losing a tenant. If legislating easy breaking of the leases results in removing landlord protection, the landlords will stop offering 12 month leases as they confer no benefit to them, and will only offer month to month lease. Then, you’ll be able to break lease easily too, but so will the landlord be able to kick you out on the month notice.
In the UK, all leases are legally for at least 6 months; 12 months obviously is common.
So you could combine that with Oregon law. Or use the German system someone mentioned.
Basically anything but the unfettered free market is going for home tenancy, given the obvious and large power imbalance between renters and landlords.
So you could combine that with Oregon law. Or use the German system someone mentioned.
Basically anything but the unfettered free market is going for home tenancy, given the obvious and large power imbalance between renters and landlords.
Why on earth would the tenant spend $1500 to break their lease, just so they can go find a new place for $10000/month?
They’ve bought a house, moving out of state, moving in with their boyfriend, lost their job and moving in with their parents, been convicted and going to jail, etc, etc.
Except 99% of people wont accept month to month due to the instability.
Another option is for landlords to price the additional risk into the rent itself.
But there’s no way you’re going to add risk into the market without that having some effect on pricing.
But there’s no way you’re going to add risk into the market without that having some effect on pricing.
Which is why, if there's any possibility of a sudden 10x price hike, the rents will start going crazy in advance. Because rent prices don't hike like that unless there's some disaster event, the existing system works well.
Housing is a policy area with a lot of unintended consequences. I honestly don't know how I feel about the Oregon law.
Yes playing with regulations might help some renters to the detriment of others, but on average landlords will probably make the same.
In Seattle (a couple years ago at this point) the highest lease break fee I saw was 1/2 month which already seemed quite high to me. 1.5x seems crazy.
2 months + concession claw-back is pretty standard on Seattle Eastside now and was couple years ago.
I believe my lease is 3 months + concessions. It's definitely at least 2 months + concessions. This is in downtown Seattle.
The landlord is under no obligation to accept anyone this service finds, so this startup guarantees an outcome they cannot control. It might be a way to build awareness and goodwill, but they are burning VC capital to offer a service that is either fundamentally unsustainable or mispriced.
Aren't people obliged to minimize their own and the other part's loss in contracts in the US?
In my country, me moving out and saying I won't continue to pay, while the contract end date is still far in the future would of course be a breach of the contract. But that doesn't mean the landlord then can let the house sit empty for the rest of the contract time and force me to cover their loss. Landlord would instead have to try and minimize their losses by finding a new tenant, and what I would owe the landlord would be their costs to do so and the time the apartment stood empty.
Edit: "mitigation of damage" might be the US term for it. From Cornell: The mitigation of damages doctrine, also known as the doctrine of avoidable consequences, prevents an injured party from recovering damages that could have been avoided through reasonable efforts. The duty to mitigate damages is most traditionally employed in the areas of tort and contract law. To me that reads like if you want to void the contract, and the landlord doesn't accept a reasonable tenant to take over, the landlord might have to carry their losses themselves. My guess (given laws about renting being very in favor of tenants) is that there most places even might be explicit laws allowing the tenant to do this.
In my country, me moving out and saying I won't continue to pay, while the contract end date is still far in the future would of course be a breach of the contract. But that doesn't mean the landlord then can let the house sit empty for the rest of the contract time and force me to cover their loss. Landlord would instead have to try and minimize their losses by finding a new tenant, and what I would owe the landlord would be their costs to do so and the time the apartment stood empty.
Edit: "mitigation of damage" might be the US term for it. From Cornell: The mitigation of damages doctrine, also known as the doctrine of avoidable consequences, prevents an injured party from recovering damages that could have been avoided through reasonable efforts. The duty to mitigate damages is most traditionally employed in the areas of tort and contract law. To me that reads like if you want to void the contract, and the landlord doesn't accept a reasonable tenant to take over, the landlord might have to carry their losses themselves. My guess (given laws about renting being very in favor of tenants) is that there most places even might be explicit laws allowing the tenant to do this.
Yes, that's right. The landlord is required to seek a new tenant.
USA is a big place, but OP is talking about NYC specifically before COVID. At that time you were liable for the full amount until the end of the lease. Landlords could sit on empty boxes and sue you for the entire amount. Whether they want the hassle is up to them, but you couldn't compel them to do anything.
It does sound unfair, but see here for supporting sources https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/tenants-right-break-...
It does sound unfair, but see here for supporting sources https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/tenants-right-break-...
Your own link says that NYC landlords are required to mitigate damages by seeking a new tenant.
That is a recent change in NY law, until last year landlords werent required to mitigate and rerent, it was on the tenant to sublet
They could put an ad on Craigslist and deny all applicants or get non either way sought a new tenant.
And doing so would be illegal, and you could sue them for it (and win). It's pretty easy to determine if a landlord is actually trying to rent out a given apartment -- just have your friends apply.
Your “pretty easy” sounds extremely onerous to me. If my friend said, “hey, apply for my old apartment so I can prove in court that my landlord is fielding/dodging applications.” I think I’d tell them, unkindly, to go F themself. (Yes, That’s how I talk to my friends, but also because I think it’s preposterous that that even asked.)
Going into court you have no/low knowledge of what your landlord has actually done. If they pull out their ads they posted on the internet or on some zero readership newspaper. The judge will see they have made an effort and you probably are grasping at straws because you have nothing in the way of proof. If you’re lucky, judge would hear some expert testimony (realtor) that says the apartment/market/etc should have been filled within 1-2 months and they feel it’s highly unusual the unit would remain unfilled for 6 months. But even still, if the law says the landlord is required to market the property it might not imply they have to be good at marketing the property. So there’s a grey area where it could go either way, and he can proof that you can’t match.
Going into court you have no/low knowledge of what your landlord has actually done. If they pull out their ads they posted on the internet or on some zero readership newspaper. The judge will see they have made an effort and you probably are grasping at straws because you have nothing in the way of proof. If you’re lucky, judge would hear some expert testimony (realtor) that says the apartment/market/etc should have been filled within 1-2 months and they feel it’s highly unusual the unit would remain unfilled for 6 months. But even still, if the law says the landlord is required to market the property it might not imply they have to be good at marketing the property. So there’s a grey area where it could go either way, and he can proof that you can’t match.
Yes, as of July 2019, which is not the context of the OP discussion and why I said "at the time..."
[deleted]
Obviously you're not going to use it if your landlord doesn't allow subleases, and landlords are also usually pretty upfront about approval requirements for a sublease.
I've never heard of a landlord not allowing a subletter to convert to a full lease upon original lease expiration.
I mean, the alternative is to forego a month or two of rent while you find a new tenant. Unless there's a horrible problem with the existing subletter's credit, but then they probably wouldn't have gotten the sublease in the first place.
I'm not saying it's never happened, but it's going to be rare. I don't really see anything unsustainable or mispriced about this at all. There are already other companies doing it as well in NYC, e.g.:
https://doorkee.com/
I've never heard of a landlord not allowing a subletter to convert to a full lease upon original lease expiration.
I mean, the alternative is to forego a month or two of rent while you find a new tenant. Unless there's a horrible problem with the existing subletter's credit, but then they probably wouldn't have gotten the sublease in the first place.
I'm not saying it's never happened, but it's going to be rare. I don't really see anything unsustainable or mispriced about this at all. There are already other companies doing it as well in NYC, e.g.:
https://doorkee.com/
> Obviously you're not going to use it if your landlord doesn't allow subleases,
In many jurisdictions, including New York, the law requires that landlords allow subleases. Tenants have a lot more rights than you might think.
In many jurisdictions, including New York, the law requires that landlords allow subleases. Tenants have a lot more rights than you might think.
Subleasing is kind of a red herring. There are particular reasons landlords might want to avoid letting that happen willy-nilly. But if the company finds a tenant that conforms to the landlord's requirements, the landlord can agree to a transfer of the lease, or just agree to break the lease and start a new one with the new tenant.
What do you mean a red herring?
In NYC, it's usually required for a subletter to take over the remainder of a lease and then have the option of signing a new lease. The option to simply immediately break the old lease and start a new one usually doesn't exist. (Or if it does, it's only with a penalty for the lease-breaker.)
I don't know why this is, however -- if it's for administrative convenience, legal reasons, or financial reasons. But your idea that "the landlord can agree to the transfer of a lease", well it's true they can, but as a general rule they won't.
In NYC, it's usually required for a subletter to take over the remainder of a lease and then have the option of signing a new lease. The option to simply immediately break the old lease and start a new one usually doesn't exist. (Or if it does, it's only with a penalty for the lease-breaker.)
I don't know why this is, however -- if it's for administrative convenience, legal reasons, or financial reasons. But your idea that "the landlord can agree to the transfer of a lease", well it's true they can, but as a general rule they won't.
The difference from Doorkee, or any matchmaking service, is that they do not guarantee to pay your rent for six months if a) they can't find someone within a month or b) your landlord doesn't like them. This bet is highly asymmetric - they can win 1 month fee (if you sublease tomorrow) but lose 6x that. I'm also in NYC, and wouldn't underwrite this gamble two years ago, and absolutely not today.
It doesn't seem that crazy to me. They say:
> We were able to prove that we could make the financials work so long as we were able to fill the apartment within around 45 days of taking it over.
They're prescreening apartments/leases so they're not going to take on an apartment they can't turn around in a month. And honestly, modeling NYC rental supply and demand according to a number of factors (neighborhood, price, condition, amenities, etc.) is pretty straightforward. It's a relatively liquid market.
And like I said, landlords generally have explicit rules about tenant qualifications. They're not going to reject tenants on a whim. Why would they ever say no to a qualified tenant? That's like McDonald's refusing to sell you a quarter pounder.
There's nothing about this that seems obviously unsustainable at all.
> We were able to prove that we could make the financials work so long as we were able to fill the apartment within around 45 days of taking it over.
They're prescreening apartments/leases so they're not going to take on an apartment they can't turn around in a month. And honestly, modeling NYC rental supply and demand according to a number of factors (neighborhood, price, condition, amenities, etc.) is pretty straightforward. It's a relatively liquid market.
And like I said, landlords generally have explicit rules about tenant qualifications. They're not going to reject tenants on a whim. Why would they ever say no to a qualified tenant? That's like McDonald's refusing to sell you a quarter pounder.
There's nothing about this that seems obviously unsustainable at all.
"Why would they ever say no to a qualified tenant?"
I agree with the rest of your comment, but in my experience landlords in hot markets can be pretty capricious. If they know they'll have a steady stream of applicants, many will definitely reject qualified tenants based on personal whims or to hold out for someone they see as "more" qualified or more likely to stay long term. That said, as long as the apartment still gets turned around quickly then it's not really a threat to this business model.
I agree with the rest of your comment, but in my experience landlords in hot markets can be pretty capricious. If they know they'll have a steady stream of applicants, many will definitely reject qualified tenants based on personal whims or to hold out for someone they see as "more" qualified or more likely to stay long term. That said, as long as the apartment still gets turned around quickly then it's not really a threat to this business model.
That's not rejecting (all) qualified tenants though so much as they are merely using some kind of algorithm to pick one of the many prospective qualified tenants. They can only choose one anyway, and FIFO is not necessarily the best strategy.
So a better way to phrase the question would be "Why would they ever say no to all qualified prospective tenants?"
So a better way to phrase the question would be "Why would they ever say no to all qualified prospective tenants?"
In California my understanding is they are required to accept the first qualified tenant due to anti-discrimination laws. I thought NY was similar in that regard (and hence the income=3*rent or whatever the popular advertised rules are there).
That's been my experience as well, in practice (I don't if there's a legal reason).
Yes they'll sometimes pick the most qualified applicant, but only if you submit your application the same day or same weekend, which is often the case with open houses. It really depends on the landlord however -- for a lot, it's literally the first qualified person to apply, which is why you want to be the first person to the open house and have all your documents ready to apply on the spot, since it might be gone 30 minutes later.
Yes they'll sometimes pick the most qualified applicant, but only if you submit your application the same day or same weekend, which is often the case with open houses. It really depends on the landlord however -- for a lot, it's literally the first qualified person to apply, which is why you want to be the first person to the open house and have all your documents ready to apply on the spot, since it might be gone 30 minutes later.
[deleted]
As a small ll I absolutely do not want this in my building. I negotiate lease break fees into my leases; if a tenant is unhappy, I'd rather charge them an appropriate amount rather than have them hire a broker whose sole goal is to find a tenant that can pay the first month of rent
They are "guaranteeing" in that they are putting themselves in high but limited liability in case they can't fulfill that "guarantee".
As long as they can find tenants for at least 6/7 (~85%) of their apartments, they're breaking even. Clearly, they think that's an easy target to hit.
(Another way to think of it: one service they provide is amortization of the risk of not filling the apartment over their entire catalog of apartments.)
As long as they can find tenants for at least 6/7 (~85%) of their apartments, they're breaking even. Clearly, they think that's an easy target to hit.
(Another way to think of it: one service they provide is amortization of the risk of not filling the apartment over their entire catalog of apartments.)
In San Francisco at least I'm not sure this is a true statement at ALL.
San Francisco law is that tenants may sublet / add roommates etc. Landlord has 14 days to object. Objection has to be for a good reason. At least that's how I've always understood it.
Can you cite the rule in San Francisco that landlords are under no obligation to allow subletting?
https://sfrb.org/topic-no-151-subletting-and-replacement-roo....
San Francisco law is that tenants may sublet / add roommates etc. Landlord has 14 days to object. Objection has to be for a good reason. At least that's how I've always understood it.
Can you cite the rule in San Francisco that landlords are under no obligation to allow subletting?
https://sfrb.org/topic-no-151-subletting-and-replacement-roo....
The OP is talking about passing over the lease and the entire unit. Your own link says that is prohibited even in SF.
> nothing in the Rent Ordinance allows a tenant to sublet or assign the entire unit to a new tenant in violation of a lease
> nothing in the Rent Ordinance allows a tenant to sublet or assign the entire unit to a new tenant in violation of a lease
The way it works is that just as this software says, the original tenant remains responsible for the rent through end of lease term.
In San Francisco, once all original tenants have left, landlord can reset the rent to market rate.
So you can sublet through end of your lease (which is what most people want to do). After that, you don't care.
In San Francisco, once all original tenants have left, landlord can reset the rent to market rate.
So you can sublet through end of your lease (which is what most people want to do). After that, you don't care.
This probably depends on local laws / lease details, but doesn't the landlord generally have an obligation to make a fair effort of filling the vacancy?
At least with the leases I've signed, if they didn't intentionally fill a vacancy with a decent candidate they would be opening themselves up to some contractual legal exposure
At least with the leases I've signed, if they didn't intentionally fill a vacancy with a decent candidate they would be opening themselves up to some contractual legal exposure
Are you sure about that?
It looks to me like they check the current lease for subletting stipulations.
It’s literally the first step under “Sublet your place” on the website.
This is correct. Also NYC leases are pretty standard, and NYC laws are tenant friendly at least as far as subletting goes.
This is not correct for the current context. You are thinking about subleasing today. Yes, this is now friendly. The scenario for OP was handing over the entire lease in NYC in 2019. At the time, this was entirely up to the landlord's discretion, and you were legally on the hook for the full amount. Landlords were not required to find a new tenant. See explanations here -> https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/tenants-right-break-...
That is not what this link says. The landlord is legally required to mitigate damages - it says so clearly in the text. That means that they must try to find another tenant. If you hand the landlord applications from several qualified tenants, and they don’t rent to them, then you can successfully win in court if the landlord tries to sue you for unpaid rent. New York housing court is known to be very tenant-friendly as well.
Now, in the midst of a COVID-fueled exodus and wave of unemployment, you might legit be screwed…
(Source: former NYC landlord here)
Now, in the midst of a COVID-fueled exodus and wave of unemployment, you might legit be screwed…
(Source: former NYC landlord here)
I don't agree. The startup is guaranteeing that the customer won't pay more than one month's rent, which they very much can control. The company is on the hook in cases where they can't find a replacement, but that's not the customer's problem.
It's very possible that the service is priced too low in order to get traction, but there's nothing inherently unsustainable about taking on risk (with a reasonable cap no less); it just comes down to what the company's placement rate ends up being.
It's very possible that the service is priced too low in order to get traction, but there's nothing inherently unsustainable about taking on risk (with a reasonable cap no less); it just comes down to what the company's placement rate ends up being.
As a former landlord, I can say, one of the biggest parts of the stability of your business is the tenant.
If someone brought me a tenant with good credit scores, income, and references, there's no way I would turn them down.
Why would they?
If someone brought me a tenant with good credit scores, income, and references, there's no way I would turn them down.
Why would they?
It might be a way to build awareness and goodwill, but they are burning VC capital to offer a service that is either fundamentally unsustainable or mispriced.
I'm clutching my pearls so hard after reading this, I may have uttered a "I do declare..." and wiped sweat from my brow as well. :)
I'm clutching my pearls so hard after reading this, I may have uttered a "I do declare..." and wiped sweat from my brow as well. :)
If the service is finding reasonable tenants as defined by a credit check/ maybe a reference check then the landlord may not be interested in turning down the new tenant and in some locales may not be able to.
This is no more complicated or evil a business model than insurance, where you make money in aggregate despite some individual outliers.
I would assume that if they weren't able to negotiate it with the landlord, they wouldn't accept the contract.
>they are burning VC capital to offer a service that is either fundamentally unsustainable or mispriced
this is like half of all businesses in SV
this is like half of all businesses in SV
Money is the new fuel. The money barons are stoking their investments with cash.
On a similar note, real estate agents need to be knocked down a level.
Their job is to unlock a door.
Why they can make a hundred thousand dollars a year is criminal.
Their job is to unlock a door.
Why they can make a hundred thousand dollars a year is criminal.
I think the home purchasing system can and should be streamlined radically, and good real estate agents can make too much money for their actual contribution in many cases, but there's a bit more involved than merely unlocking a door and giving a tour of the kitchen and living room.
For instance, merely putting together an offer to buy a house can be ultra complex. Once you've dealt with viewing the house and deciding to go for it, you have to deal with inspections and financing and insurance and other legal things. If there's a problem with the house, you have to know the right questions to ask and how to take the problems into account when making an offer. You have to know the local market well and what kind of offer to make or you could overpay by thousands or miss out on a dream home.
On top of that, client contracts aren't worth the paper they're printed on for a real estate agent. A real estate agent can in theory luck out showing a client one home, they love it, buy it without a hitch, and come away with thousands of dollars for a few hours of work. A real estate agent can also work with a client for weeks/months, show them dozens of houses, but then they go off and buy that exact house with another agent and lose out on the commission with basically no real recourse after investing many hours working for somebody for free. For every good financial thing that happens to an agent, they end up getting taken for a ride by others.
Disclosure: I do have my own biases here as a friend is a real estate agent and I see some of the good and bad parts of the job.
For instance, merely putting together an offer to buy a house can be ultra complex. Once you've dealt with viewing the house and deciding to go for it, you have to deal with inspections and financing and insurance and other legal things. If there's a problem with the house, you have to know the right questions to ask and how to take the problems into account when making an offer. You have to know the local market well and what kind of offer to make or you could overpay by thousands or miss out on a dream home.
On top of that, client contracts aren't worth the paper they're printed on for a real estate agent. A real estate agent can in theory luck out showing a client one home, they love it, buy it without a hitch, and come away with thousands of dollars for a few hours of work. A real estate agent can also work with a client for weeks/months, show them dozens of houses, but then they go off and buy that exact house with another agent and lose out on the commission with basically no real recourse after investing many hours working for somebody for free. For every good financial thing that happens to an agent, they end up getting taken for a ride by others.
Disclosure: I do have my own biases here as a friend is a real estate agent and I see some of the good and bad parts of the job.
Similar to www.nobroker.in (India) ?
This was really well written, such a good read.
It somehow made the phrase "Everything that can be automated is automated." less... I don't know... scary I guess. I can't put my finger on it, but giving all this up to some algorithms seems wrong/worrisome for some reason, but seeing exactly how it was done made it less so.
It somehow made the phrase "Everything that can be automated is automated." less... I don't know... scary I guess. I can't put my finger on it, but giving all this up to some algorithms seems wrong/worrisome for some reason, but seeing exactly how it was done made it less so.
> This was really well written, such a good read.
The author's extreme user empathy, attention to detail, and willingness to do whatever it takes to reach a standard makes this a comforting read. You know it's going to end without disappointment, because he does whatever it takes to get good results for all stakeholders.
The author's extreme user empathy, attention to detail, and willingness to do whatever it takes to reach a standard makes this a comforting read. You know it's going to end without disappointment, because he does whatever it takes to get good results for all stakeholders.
Using the algorithm to eliminate leeching middlemen was one of the promises of the future.
Real estate in general is full of middlemen looking for a cut and providing little to no value. The whole industry is overdue for a shakeup.
Real estate in general is full of middlemen looking for a cut and providing little to no value. The whole industry is overdue for a shakeup.
Sadly, our experience shows that 'the algorithm' becomes very centralized (because of the network effect), and suddenly this new middleman starts extracting fees comparable to the previous middlemen.
Please see: ticket sales: Ticketmaster, Stubhub, etc.
In theory, these make sense and reduce anti-consumer inefficiency like scalping that individual venues are not equipped to deal with. In practice, they extract fees. It's not that they are bad, per se, just that if the opportunity exists, someone with a spreadsheet will spot it, likely with the best intentions but no eye to the overall impact.
EDIT: To be clear, I think these services are a net good. Stubhub allows me to get sports tickets at a reduced price if someone can't go to the game. Ticketmaster stops people from spamming the system to gobble up tickets, it's just that these industries are now going to want a fee for that and we end up back where we started. I'm sure at one time brokers were helpful as well (a landlord free way to compare properties).
In theory, these make sense and reduce anti-consumer inefficiency like scalping that individual venues are not equipped to deal with. In practice, they extract fees. It's not that they are bad, per se, just that if the opportunity exists, someone with a spreadsheet will spot it, likely with the best intentions but no eye to the overall impact.
EDIT: To be clear, I think these services are a net good. Stubhub allows me to get sports tickets at a reduced price if someone can't go to the game. Ticketmaster stops people from spamming the system to gobble up tickets, it's just that these industries are now going to want a fee for that and we end up back where we started. I'm sure at one time brokers were helpful as well (a landlord free way to compare properties).
Not sure about Stubhub, but Ticketmaster exists to be the bad guy. Lots of Ticketmaster fees are shared with the promoter and venue operator.
I'm dubious about that line. It always read like Ticketmaster trying to deflect blame to me.
But I do note that "the artist" isn't even mentioned in that list.
But I do note that "the artist" isn't even mentioned in that list.
Now it's just used to eliminate the poor and unemployed.
Great writeup.
Some of this software is pretty terrible. I don't remember what for but the new CRM software at my apartment required that I fill some form that I couldn't find so I went down stairs to the office and the person working for the land lord didn't know either.
We ended up figuring it out together.
We ended up figuring it out together.
Would love something like this to kill (or at least severely maim) the broker industry in NYC. 0 value added at the cost of 10-15% of yearly rent.
The assumption that software can solve this problem is simply wrong. It's the regulation change that needs to happen if you don't want that renter pay the broker "services".
For example, a new law in Germany to apply the "who hires pays" principle for brokers in the renting market basically made the renting "broker fee free" for renters. Previously, the landlords would hire a broker that needed to be paid by the renter. Why not, it doesn't cost them anything, and at least they don't need to have a contact with the potential renters. Now, that they have to pay for the brokers service themselves, it's suddenly not that valuable to them.
For example, a new law in Germany to apply the "who hires pays" principle for brokers in the renting market basically made the renting "broker fee free" for renters. Previously, the landlords would hire a broker that needed to be paid by the renter. Why not, it doesn't cost them anything, and at least they don't need to have a contact with the potential renters. Now, that they have to pay for the brokers service themselves, it's suddenly not that valuable to them.
No, in the case of NYT brokers, software would solve the problem of NYC brokers, by putting them out of a job.
If you're from Germany, you have nothing to compare these people to, they run a racket that would be illegal there to begin with. They're nothing like the kind of rental agencies in Germany, they are individuals who basically figured out how to scalp entire buildings worth of apartments.
If you're from Germany, you have nothing to compare these people to, they run a racket that would be illegal there to begin with. They're nothing like the kind of rental agencies in Germany, they are individuals who basically figured out how to scalp entire buildings worth of apartments.
Op suggested regulation. I.e. making certain practices illegal. You responded:
> they run a racket that would be illegal there to begin with.
Perhaps making it illegal in nyc as well, as op suggested, is the solution? Rather than letting a tech company replace the scalpers with a scalping monopoly
> they run a racket that would be illegal there to begin with.
Perhaps making it illegal in nyc as well, as op suggested, is the solution? Rather than letting a tech company replace the scalpers with a scalping monopoly
And how realistic, exactly, do you think getting regulation pushed through in NYC is, exactly? Unless there is true citizen outrage (and there will never be, given what market we're talking about), you're going to need lobbied buy-in from currently sitting politicians and their successors. So if you're lucky, maybe you'll get something tentative in 2040.
In the mean time: software can solve this problem now. Now sounds good.
In the mean time: software can solve this problem now. Now sounds good.
> software can solve this problem now.
Software can displace a middle man, and replace it with a monopoly. Once monopoly power is in place, Software will then become more and more expensive until it is as bad or worse than what it supplanted. Investors will get rich, there will be a brief bubble where some people will get a VC-funded good deal, and then nobody else wins.
Software can displace a middle man, and replace it with a monopoly. Once monopoly power is in place, Software will then become more and more expensive until it is as bad or worse than what it supplanted. Investors will get rich, there will be a brief bubble where some people will get a VC-funded good deal, and then nobody else wins.
You're going to have to work a lot harder to argue the connection between the first and second part of that first sentence, because one does not lead to the other. You might be right --I don't think you are, but you might be-- but right now that sentence means nothing, and that fully undermines whatever point you're trying to argue.
VCs don't invest in a product that won't pay dividends. Of course they'll drive prices up once they've monopolised the market.
Are you saying that you don't think startups seek to displace middle men and create monopolies? or are you saying companies with monopolies don't exploit those to overcharge people as much as possible?
Because neither of those statements is exactly controversial.
Because neither of those statements is exactly controversial.
What I think, and what you think, is irrelevant. Back up your claims, or they're just you trying to convince yourself you know something you don't.
Cutting out the middle man does not by definition lead to monopolies, especially not when the market has tens of thousands of sellers (if not orders of magnitude more), and tens of thousands of buyers (or, renters, in this case. And again, if not orders of magnitudes more).
Cutting out the middle man does not by definition lead to monopolies, especially not when the market has tens of thousands of sellers (if not orders of magnitude more), and tens of thousands of buyers (or, renters, in this case. And again, if not orders of magnitudes more).
It’s not cutting out the middle man - it’s replacing the middle man with a software middle man. The only way that doesn’t lead to a monopoly is if there are multiple software middle men competing. Like, do you actually believe that uber is just a platform connecting buyers (riders) with sellers (drivers)? It’s a taxi company. It replaced a dozen taxi companies in each city with a monopoly or an duopoly (when lyft is also present).
do you think NYC making a law or regulation is going to lead to less corruption? This is NYC we are talking about after all.
maybe we can find a software solution to the selective enforcement problem.
;)
;)
> Why not, it doesn't cost them anything
It can't be quite this simple. If your renter is paying $X to you plus $Y to your broker, then their willingness to pay for the apartment was at least $X+Y, and you're leaving at least $Y on the table. In theory there should be a lot of market pressure to shrink Y. So the question becomes, what transaction costs are getting in the way of that? Or maybe, is the $Y actually buying something that's of value to the landlord?
It can't be quite this simple. If your renter is paying $X to you plus $Y to your broker, then their willingness to pay for the apartment was at least $X+Y, and you're leaving at least $Y on the table. In theory there should be a lot of market pressure to shrink Y. So the question becomes, what transaction costs are getting in the way of that? Or maybe, is the $Y actually buying something that's of value to the landlord?
In Europe the broker/agency usually takes a flat fee at the contract signature. It's not a recurring payment.
Sure it buys some value for the landlord, but that value is very low and can be replaced by software for 1/100 of the current cost.
Rent control...
> "who hires pays" principle for brokers in the renting market basically made the renting "broker fee free" for renters.
How can that work? Landlord (absent regulation) set the rents as high as they want/can get away with. What's the difference between 100/month rent + 50/month broker fee, and 150/month rent + "zero"/month broker fee?
How can that work? Landlord (absent regulation) set the rents as high as they want/can get away with. What's the difference between 100/month rent + 50/month broker fee, and 150/month rent + "zero"/month broker fee?
In Germany, the broker fee is a one time payment. That makes for an complicated calculation, as rentals are usually not fixed-term, and people will expect to stay for several years or decades. Is 900 EUR per month + 1,800 Euro one time payment better or worse than 1,000 Euro per month without a broker fee? Most people do not think like that. 900 < 1,000 Euro, end of story.
Of course, the real problem was that the landlords did not both to negotiate the brokers fee. There was a maximum broker fee defined by law, and everyone just charged the maximum. Not anymore!
Of course, the real problem was that the landlords did not both to negotiate the brokers fee. There was a maximum broker fee defined by law, and everyone just charged the maximum. Not anymore!
The broker fee IME is usually an extra month of rent due at the time of signing the lease. Because in certain cities the vast majority of apartments will follow this convention, and it's not really something that will be mentioned until you're in the process of formally applying (unless you ask), I don't see it having a market effect in the same way that raising the rent would.
Landlord already charges as much as they can. Increasing his cost will not magically mean that they can suddenly charge more than they can.
German landlords can't set the rent as high as they want, for starters. At least not in Berlin with the Mietpreisbremse capping how high rent can be relative to the past, and to the neighbourhood.
I find that German law idiotic. Of course it costs the landlord something to hire a broker, even if the renter is supposed to pay the fee. It still eats into the overall budget of the renter, that could otherwise have gone to the landlord.
You can find it idiotic, but finding a tenant is quite easy in popular places, so instead of finding a way to increase the overall price (which is also regulated), the landlords often just do it themself. In unpopular places, it is hard to increase the price.
The Marklers are such parasites.
So the landlords just make the rent more expensive to account for having to pay the broker, what changed?
> So the landlords just make the rent more expensive to account for having to pay the broker, what changed?
Nothing.
Clearly brokers are doing something or else people wouldn't pay for them.
My theory is the broker fee has positive selection for wealthier tenants, which for every property - low or high rent - makes for an economically better tenant. Raising the rent has the same effect. We care that there's cheap rent because shelter is a basic human right, and we appreciate that spending tons of money on rent couldn't possibly be good in a positivist economic sense, but of course raising the rent also selects for a wealthier tenant.
Replacing the brokers with software has a similar effect. If your users feel comfortable using a complicated website with no human beings involved, they are going to be wealthier.
This comes up everywhere. For example Oscar selects for a healthier insurance pool by being a complicated app - old people want real human beings to talk to and are turned off by apps, and they are also more expensive for insurance to carry, so it's a "win" for Oscar. Credit card only restaurants with lines make higher revenue because lower-ticket cash paying customers are substituted by higher-ticket credit card paying ones. And the iPhone is a $800 phone versus a $300 Android one, no wonder iPhone users spend 2-5x as much on IAP.
Nothing.
Clearly brokers are doing something or else people wouldn't pay for them.
My theory is the broker fee has positive selection for wealthier tenants, which for every property - low or high rent - makes for an economically better tenant. Raising the rent has the same effect. We care that there's cheap rent because shelter is a basic human right, and we appreciate that spending tons of money on rent couldn't possibly be good in a positivist economic sense, but of course raising the rent also selects for a wealthier tenant.
Replacing the brokers with software has a similar effect. If your users feel comfortable using a complicated website with no human beings involved, they are going to be wealthier.
This comes up everywhere. For example Oscar selects for a healthier insurance pool by being a complicated app - old people want real human beings to talk to and are turned off by apps, and they are also more expensive for insurance to carry, so it's a "win" for Oscar. Credit card only restaurants with lines make higher revenue because lower-ticket cash paying customers are substituted by higher-ticket credit card paying ones. And the iPhone is a $800 phone versus a $300 Android one, no wonder iPhone users spend 2-5x as much on IAP.
> Clearly brokers are doing something or else people wouldn't pay for them.
They were, pre-internet. It actually made sense then in NYC with such complicated and massive amounts of inventory.
They don't make sense anymore. The only reason they still exist is because lazy landlords just want to stick with the system they've always known, because it feels "free" to them. In reality they get lower rents, but that's harder for them to see. And it's a problem of coordination -- as long as most other properties use brokers, you really don't have a reason to change.
The slow increase of no-fee listings has changed that. But it's still slow, and a lot of it is new buildings. It's hard to get landlords who have done things the same way for 40 years to change.
They were, pre-internet. It actually made sense then in NYC with such complicated and massive amounts of inventory.
They don't make sense anymore. The only reason they still exist is because lazy landlords just want to stick with the system they've always known, because it feels "free" to them. In reality they get lower rents, but that's harder for them to see. And it's a problem of coordination -- as long as most other properties use brokers, you really don't have a reason to change.
The slow increase of no-fee listings has changed that. But it's still slow, and a lot of it is new buildings. It's hard to get landlords who have done things the same way for 40 years to change.
> Clearly brokers are doing something or else people wouldn't pay for them.
In many cases (not talking about NYC here), what they're doing is simply blocking access to an apartment. You see an apartment, you have to deal with the broker / real-estate agent / makelaar. Or - you don't even see it in the first place, since it's only available via an agency.
This is similar to setting up a roadblock and collecting a transit tax; or the "troll under the bridge" from folk tales.
That being said - In some cases and some places brokers can help apartment seekers filter relevant apartments, and can help convince both the seeker and the landlord to compromise, agree to some arrangements to seal the deal. Another benefit of such type of apartment brokerage is that a broker with a minimum of reputation would not try to scam you (rent contract scams are a thing in some countries); and may be able to exert some pressure if, say, some serious problem is revealed right after you move in and the landlord doesn't want to address it.
In many cases (not talking about NYC here), what they're doing is simply blocking access to an apartment. You see an apartment, you have to deal with the broker / real-estate agent / makelaar. Or - you don't even see it in the first place, since it's only available via an agency.
This is similar to setting up a roadblock and collecting a transit tax; or the "troll under the bridge" from folk tales.
That being said - In some cases and some places brokers can help apartment seekers filter relevant apartments, and can help convince both the seeker and the landlord to compromise, agree to some arrangements to seal the deal. Another benefit of such type of apartment brokerage is that a broker with a minimum of reputation would not try to scam you (rent contract scams are a thing in some countries); and may be able to exert some pressure if, say, some serious problem is revealed right after you move in and the landlord doesn't want to address it.
I am also under the impression that one of the purposes of brokers/agents is to serve as plausible deniability against accusations of discrimination.
It also solves the problem of having to source tenants and do all the legwork around that which is a pain in the ass part of owning property. Especially if you own many properties.
It's not unlike the role a recruiter plays for jobs.
It's not unlike the role a recruiter plays for jobs.
> Clearly brokers are doing something or else people wouldn't pay for them.
There's a great Joel Spolsky comment[0] that explains why landlords use brokers. They perform work that would otherwise be done by the landlord.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9961727
There's a great Joel Spolsky comment[0] that explains why landlords use brokers. They perform work that would otherwise be done by the landlord.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9961727
Thanks!
I've personally advised/warned a couple startup founders trying different variations of this. All failed
> Clearly brokers are doing something or else people wouldn't pay for them.
Just like the real estate agent business. Sellers have the option to sell it themselves, or use an agent. Agents do better and more organized marketing, handle the paperwork for the transaction, and offer help in prepping/staging the house. Etc.
Just like the real estate agent business. Sellers have the option to sell it themselves, or use an agent. Agents do better and more organized marketing, handle the paperwork for the transaction, and offer help in prepping/staging the house. Etc.
They're also creating an implicit discount for longer-term tenants (which is good for landlords).
When I rented my place in NYC some years ago, the broker fee was meaningful to me. Once I paid it, I was less likely to want to move since I'd have to pay it again vs renewing my existing lease which did not involve another broker fee.
When I rented my place in NYC some years ago, the broker fee was meaningful to me. Once I paid it, I was less likely to want to move since I'd have to pay it again vs renewing my existing lease which did not involve another broker fee.
This is a fallacy, at least in NY. I asked my last landlord about this. I asked "if brokers can't charge renters their fee will you pay it instead?". He replied immediately, "no way, I'll just ask my nephew to show the apartments instead". I had just paid a 12% fee to a broker a year earlier with this same landlord! Thousands of dollars. The broker did very little for this exorbitant fee, they opened a door for a dozen people maybe, and uploaded a few pictures online. They were simply the gate-keeper and I had no choice in the matter.
The only reason landlords deal with them is that it's easier for them to do so, so why not. It's pervasive enough, as a quirk of history, that it's tolerated. They certainly do not provide value that matches up with their fees in most cases.
Rents may go up, but it will be only a fraction of the insane fees retail brokers in NY charge. It needs to change.
The only reason landlords deal with them is that it's easier for them to do so, so why not. It's pervasive enough, as a quirk of history, that it's tolerated. They certainly do not provide value that matches up with their fees in most cases.
Rents may go up, but it will be only a fraction of the insane fees retail brokers in NY charge. It needs to change.
That's exactly what happened in Germany. As soon as the landlords had to pay the brokers out of their pockets, they quickly realized that the "service" is not worth that much for them, so many went without brokers, and the ones that still kept brokers had to pay them much less than before, and the price was related to actual service provided.
It addresses the principle-agent problem[0]. Yes, renters that want a broker may simply raise the rent to pay for it, but doing so affects their own bottom line because either (1) it's harder to find a renter at that higher price or (2) they could have found a renter without a broker and pocketed the higher rent themselves.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_proble...
Both of those things happen regardless of who formally pays the fee: one side of the transaction has a desirable good (apartment) the other side only has money to bargain with, so it's obvious from who's pocket the fee will come from. Many times the buyer would openly raise that argument in negotiations: "You know, I have all those fees to pay, can you lower the rent a bit?". It's not like sellers are completely oblivious to fees paid by a buyer.
> so it's obvious from who's pocket the fee will come from.
Yes. The problem is that the one whose pocket the money comes from is not the one who selects the broker. Thus the person with the financial incentive to make that choice wisely is not the one making the choice. This is why it's a principle-agent problem.
Yes. The problem is that the one whose pocket the money comes from is not the one who selects the broker. Thus the person with the financial incentive to make that choice wisely is not the one making the choice. This is why it's a principle-agent problem.
My point is that landlords still do realize that "more money for the broker == less money for me", even if this money is not coming directly from their pocket. So they still have incentive to choose a cheap one.
I'm honestly not sure to what extent that is true. I definitely don't think it is 1 to 1. Apartments are advertised at $X rent per month. The broker fee is just an extra month of rent due at signing, it is not reflected in the main list price.
The majority of apartments in certain cities charge this fee, so if you care to find one that doesn't you'd have to look for advertisements explicitly mentioning "no agent/broker fee". Maybe it's just my circle, but even the people I know that will look in less desirable locations for cheaper rent do not bother to look for this. It's also not far off from various psychological tricks seen in business - consumers do not behave rationally.
I'd argue it's even a bit worse than other sticker price bait and switch situations, because how many people know to look for this? Mostly only people that have signed a lease in one of these cities before, which for a place with a lot of transplants and subletting can be a surprisingly small number.
At some point I wouldn't even call it irrational to ignore the fee. Once you've decided on a place and receive the rental app to fill out, are you really going to turn back because you found out about the agent fee? Especially as time runs out to find a place and you realize more than half of them do the exact same thing?
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if some landlords have come to an agreement with the agent they use to get a bit of a kickback from the broker fee, unbeknownst to the buyer.
The majority of apartments in certain cities charge this fee, so if you care to find one that doesn't you'd have to look for advertisements explicitly mentioning "no agent/broker fee". Maybe it's just my circle, but even the people I know that will look in less desirable locations for cheaper rent do not bother to look for this. It's also not far off from various psychological tricks seen in business - consumers do not behave rationally.
I'd argue it's even a bit worse than other sticker price bait and switch situations, because how many people know to look for this? Mostly only people that have signed a lease in one of these cities before, which for a place with a lot of transplants and subletting can be a surprisingly small number.
At some point I wouldn't even call it irrational to ignore the fee. Once you've decided on a place and receive the rental app to fill out, are you really going to turn back because you found out about the agent fee? Especially as time runs out to find a place and you realize more than half of them do the exact same thing?
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if some landlords have come to an agreement with the agent they use to get a bit of a kickback from the broker fee, unbeknownst to the buyer.
When the person choosing the broker is the same one that pays, it creates competition on fees. The renter cannot choose to change the agent to a cheaper one. They have to deal with whatever agent the landlord has chosen.
It works similarly when software is chosen by people who have to use it versus those who do not. IDEs and text editors are usually chosen by the users, so there is competition on usability between different options. Timesheet and other HR software are usually chosen by upper management, and the people actually using them cannot switch, so there is not the same kind of competition on usability. Instead, they compete on other things that make them more appealing to those who can make the decision.
It works similarly when software is chosen by people who have to use it versus those who do not. IDEs and text editors are usually chosen by the users, so there is competition on usability between different options. Timesheet and other HR software are usually chosen by upper management, and the people actually using them cannot switch, so there is not the same kind of competition on usability. Instead, they compete on other things that make them more appealing to those who can make the decision.
In the UK we banned letting agent (broker) fees charged to the prospective tenant for exactly this reason.
Tenants can't "shop around" for a different letting agent that won't charge them £250 for a £50 credit check. Landlords can.
Tenants can't "shop around" for a different letting agent that won't charge them £250 for a £50 credit check. Landlords can.
It has a real effect on the advertised price, and landlords are generally in a better position to reduce the cost or eliminate it altogether.
Actually the brokers' prices fell drastically in response to this law. Probably because the landlords now have an incentive to take the cheapest broker.
The rent price depends on supply and demand, not on landlords costs.
It isn't quite as simple as that in many cases. Kickbacks from brokers and other dubious jiggery-pokery can make quite a difference.
Doesn’t it stand to reason that without broker fees the landlord margins would increase bringing more landlords (supply) into the market?
That's like saying rent prices depend on the will of god. Retroactively, you can justify this claim regardless of what happened: "It was god's will" or "You had to adapt your price to the demand".
[deleted]
Less admin for the tenant? More up-front pricing (assuming the broker fee was not required to be obviously disclosed) for them too?
I liked the idea of that law, but in high-density areas, it didn't change anything. The renters are now implicitly expected to cover the broker fee for thee landlord. If they don't offer that in advance, they won't get the apartment.
I have never heard of such a thing, but before 2015 Makler fees were ubiquitous. I live in Berlin.
That and the entire rental background check industry. $30-$50 fees for each submission of the same report on what is effectively your own data.
It’s necessary in many markets IMO. Otherwise people would just spam applications at every apartment that satisfies their broad filters.
So charge per application, with the money going towards first month's rent, if successful.
That’s how it usually works
I've never seen it go towards first month's rent, but that's not the point. The money isn't going to the landlord or the tenant, but to the data aggregators.
A lot of it is highly manual on the back end, calling and faxing random state agencies. It’s not like it’s a 90% operating margin business or a lot of companies would be getting in and driving pricing down.
Pretty sure it's infinite% margin when the same report is sent again for another application fee.
If you believe this you should get into the business
That's what a lot of places do
Nonsense. Spamming applications is strictly better than spamming low-information contact requests, and nobody seems to mind that. Instead you'll get structured applicant information that can be filtered against.
Yes this law came in 2015 and it indeed made a big difference. I saw zero downsides thus far.
Yeah it's pretty atrocious. They're so useless. It's such a feel-bad experience working with them, knowing they're not helping at all, and knowing you have to pay them thousands of dollars if you want the apartment - for nothing.
What's worse is when they try to pretend like you're actually getting value for the crazy fee they charge.
"Now, I'm you're broker so if there are any problems throughout the lease, feel free to contact me. This isn't just a one time thing!"
We literally emailed/called him two weeks later and he ghosted us.
When we were moving out of our apartment when our lease was up, he was around showing another unit, introduced himself, asked us how long we lived there, etc
"Now, I'm you're broker so if there are any problems throughout the lease, feel free to contact me. This isn't just a one time thing!"
We literally emailed/called him two weeks later and he ghosted us.
When we were moving out of our apartment when our lease was up, he was around showing another unit, introduced himself, asked us how long we lived there, etc
Yeah, last year it had briefly seemed that broker's fees had become illegal, but this year that was "clarified" and now they're definitively legal again. [1] [2]
Previously it had seemed like nothing could get rid of them -- landlords mostly didn't care since it was mostly tenants who paid them in the end.
But COVID suddenly made everyone a bit more willing to consider other options (like virtual tours), and with some rents down landlords are perhaps a bit more willing to realize that if there's no broker's fee, tenants can pay a little more.
I'm actually really excited about this lockbox technology, I genuinely think it could be the key to "unlocking" competition again.
My only concern is that a lot of buildings don't have anything obvious in the front to lock it to, as well as plenty of buildings prohibiting tenants from storing keys in lockboxes in front, both because anyone can take a hammer to one and smash it to get the building key, and also because they don't trust it's not someone running an AirBNB.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/27/nyregion/broker-fees-real...
[2] https://www.timeout.com/newyork/news/you-will-still-have-to-...
Previously it had seemed like nothing could get rid of them -- landlords mostly didn't care since it was mostly tenants who paid them in the end.
But COVID suddenly made everyone a bit more willing to consider other options (like virtual tours), and with some rents down landlords are perhaps a bit more willing to realize that if there's no broker's fee, tenants can pay a little more.
I'm actually really excited about this lockbox technology, I genuinely think it could be the key to "unlocking" competition again.
My only concern is that a lot of buildings don't have anything obvious in the front to lock it to, as well as plenty of buildings prohibiting tenants from storing keys in lockboxes in front, both because anyone can take a hammer to one and smash it to get the building key, and also because they don't trust it's not someone running an AirBNB.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/27/nyregion/broker-fees-real...
[2] https://www.timeout.com/newyork/news/you-will-still-have-to-...
What's worse is they also employ high pressure sales tactics to get tenants to settle asap. Young professionals and students moving to the city for the first time are their bread and butter, along with people who decided to end their current lease and have 30 short days to find a new spot.
While searching for my current apartment, I was month-to-month on my previous NYC lease and was therefore 1) not a complete noob to the city and 2) could be super picky and I kept getting the sense brokers had no patience for someone like me.
While searching for my current apartment, I was month-to-month on my previous NYC lease and was therefore 1) not a complete noob to the city and 2) could be super picky and I kept getting the sense brokers had no patience for someone like me.
Not sure why you are surprised or annoyed by this. It doesn't matter what you sell, aren't you going to avoid the self-described "super picky" customer? Salespeople work on volume, a customer like you is a time suck with limited probability of resulting in a sale. You're welcome to be as selective as you like, but certainly don't expect salespeople to want to deal with you.
"Customer" is an interesting word choice for someone who receives literally 0 value from the agent. Especially now with the internet, but even before with school/work connections, the majority of students/transplants will find their own apartment. They then have to pay the broker fee to whatever agent their chosen landlord has decided to use, in exchange for being a middleman with paperwork.
Many of the prospective tenants do not even find out about this until it is time to officially apply! Since there is usually a deadline to find an apartment, and most apartments will have (proportionally) the same exact fee, the "customer" is really a captive.
Ironically, the person you are replying to tried to actually be a customer with the agent, but since these people have no need to sell apartments (they will sell themselves in NYC and Boston), you're right - why bother? The real key is to become buddies with a few landlords, that's where to spend time.
Many of the prospective tenants do not even find out about this until it is time to officially apply! Since there is usually a deadline to find an apartment, and most apartments will have (proportionally) the same exact fee, the "customer" is really a captive.
Ironically, the person you are replying to tried to actually be a customer with the agent, but since these people have no need to sell apartments (they will sell themselves in NYC and Boston), you're right - why bother? The real key is to become buddies with a few landlords, that's where to spend time.
"Especially now with the internet," can you show me a service that doesn't extract its own fee when connecting buyers and sellers?
The agent isn't the one doing the connecting, that's my point. Most landlords I know "write" their own listings using a standard template and reusing old photos. Circulating this is trivial, especially in a hot housing market. A few of the landlords I know are older and will pass the info to an agent to paste into popular sites. But I'd hardly call that "connecting" and certainly not worth thousands of dollars.
Additionally, the landlords will often give first dibs to internal housing sites for local universities or to other current tenants to spread to their network. So it frequently doesn't even require posting on a public site, and in these cases the agent only becomes involved in the situation when it is time to fill out the rental app. This is especially common when people move for grad school or choose to stay after undergrad and want to live near their peers/friends. So you can imagine the sheer amount of money that gets collected for 0 return in Boston.
I'm not against real estate agent commissions in general obviously, but the way rental brokerage fees work is an absolute scam in parts of the US.
Additionally, the landlords will often give first dibs to internal housing sites for local universities or to other current tenants to spread to their network. So it frequently doesn't even require posting on a public site, and in these cases the agent only becomes involved in the situation when it is time to fill out the rental app. This is especially common when people move for grad school or choose to stay after undergrad and want to live near their peers/friends. So you can imagine the sheer amount of money that gets collected for 0 return in Boston.
I'm not against real estate agent commissions in general obviously, but the way rental brokerage fees work is an absolute scam in parts of the US.
This whole discussion is so bizarre to me, since I've only been a tenant in the SF Bay Area. We don't seem to have brokers here, or at least I've never heard of them. If the landlord pays a property manager or realtor to show the place, that's, on their end and not an additional fee (in fact, non-refundable deposits are illegal in SF). Some people who are used to this broker system seem to assume it *must" be adding some value but I can attest that it doesn't.
> it *must" be adding some value but I can attest that it doesn't
And yet, landlords keep using it. A $2500/month apt in NYC will cost $34,500 the first year -- but only $30,000 goes to the landlord. Can you help explain why a landlord would freely give up $4500 (standard 15% fee) in potential revenue?
And yet, landlords keep using it. A $2500/month apt in NYC will cost $34,500 the first year -- but only $30,000 goes to the landlord. Can you help explain why a landlord would freely give up $4500 (standard 15% fee) in potential revenue?
As I understand it, the difference between the broker system in NYC and the one I'm familiar with is that the tenant is obliged to pay the broker some amount directly. I've seen rental condos shown by realtors and property managers - presumably landlords pay these people although I'm not familiar with the standard rate.
Yes you are right about NYC, and the same is true in Boston - it's been explained repeatedly in this thread why the broker fee is not at all equivalent to a landlord giving up that money, but for some reason there are commenters that just keep repeating the same line about a perfectly rational market instead of engaging with the actual arguments presented.
For someone new to the market it is essentially a hidden fee you find out about at buy time. Since 90% of places do this it would be a huge hassle for a tenant to try to avoid the fee, especially with the pressures surrounding shopping for housing. It's not the same at all as changing a list price.
For someone new to the market it is essentially a hidden fee you find out about at buy time. Since 90% of places do this it would be a huge hassle for a tenant to try to avoid the fee, especially with the pressures surrounding shopping for housing. It's not the same at all as changing a list price.
> Most landlords I know "write" their own listings using a standard template and reusing old photos
So, like Airbnb? Last I checked, that platform -- without a person -- also charges renters about 15% or more. And you don't even get to actually visit the place before you commit to paying the fee!
So, like Airbnb? Last I checked, that platform -- without a person -- also charges renters about 15% or more. And you don't even get to actually visit the place before you commit to paying the fee!
The landlords are the ones writing the listing, the agent is the one collecting the money for supposedly "connecting" someone, when AT MOST all they did was post it onto a couple websites like AirBnB. I have no problem with the fee a website collects for listings. They provided a service that allowed the listing to be spread. But the agent is now just an unnecessary middleman between the landlord and such services. 9 times out of 10 real estate agents don't meaningfully contribute to the matching of landlord/tenant in the NYC or Boston markets, yet they continue to collect a fee. And as I mentioned this happens even when it is provable that the prospective tenant found the apartment via a source 100% unrelated to the real estate agent (such as a friend in a different unit).
Before you try to argue that landlords wouldn't pay them if they didn't contribute - the landlord doesn't pay! In cities where the landlord has to pay, you will find agents are used much less often and charge cheaper prices for these sort of rental services. The problem is when the landlord chooses the agent but the tenant has to pay. Every agent just charges the max allowable fee, and the majority of landlords stick with this scheme, whether out of stubbornness, loyalty, or kickbacks I don't know - but it hurts tenants far more than landlords. Otherwise you are correct, landlords would stop using them unless their prices went down!
Let me know when a real estate agent makes their own website that gains traction across the city.
Before you try to argue that landlords wouldn't pay them if they didn't contribute - the landlord doesn't pay! In cities where the landlord has to pay, you will find agents are used much less often and charge cheaper prices for these sort of rental services. The problem is when the landlord chooses the agent but the tenant has to pay. Every agent just charges the max allowable fee, and the majority of landlords stick with this scheme, whether out of stubbornness, loyalty, or kickbacks I don't know - but it hurts tenants far more than landlords. Otherwise you are correct, landlords would stop using them unless their prices went down!
Let me know when a real estate agent makes their own website that gains traction across the city.
It'd be interesting to see if that fixed the problem or just replaced one parasite with another.
Many software companies fix the problem, disrupt rent-seekers with reduced costs, only to later become rent-seekers that have the market power to increase costs.
Many software companies fix the problem, disrupt rent-seekers with reduced costs, only to later become rent-seekers that have the market power to increase costs.
If evictions didn’t take 3-6 months minimum in NYC (even pre-COVID), landlords could afford to be a lot less picky about who they rent to. Brokers or other middlemen also benefit the landlord by keeping the landlord at arms length from tenant selection and therefore possible discrimination lawsuits.
Yup. And people wonder why landlords are so picky...
10 years ago I would have entertained owning rental properties. I'm so glad with todays climate I didn't go down that path!
10 years ago I would have entertained owning rental properties. I'm so glad with todays climate I didn't go down that path!
Lettings fees were banned in Scotland a while back, I think they're now also illegal in England and Wales too.
Yup, also banned in England now. It shouldn't have been, but it was very refreshing when I last renewed my lease not to be charged several hundred pounds for the privilege of emailing back a signed copy of the document with the end date changed.
If I’m not mistaken, didn’t NYC enact a law last year that bans landlords from charging tenants the broker fee?
It was a state law that capped application fees at $20 or something, and some authority interpreted that as broker's could no longer charge fees to tenants, but then the real estate brokers association was granted a stay + the court eventually decided in their favor.
It's good that there's no surprise fees, but they're still being paid. It's like anything, the value is just hidden in the price of the product now, rent in this case.
The landlord can decide if it's worth paying them then
That's not how anything works. The money doesn't just come from nowhere, or from the landlord's profits. It is accounted for as an increase to rent. That's what I meant by "surprise fees", you're still paying them, they're just not a surprise anymore. Maybe the increased transparency in the market will push out brokers that aren't adding value, but that's more of a hope.
It's not a hope, it's reality in other countries, like the UK.
We banned letting agent fees charged to the tenant. Miraculously, landlords didn't find paying £250 for a contract renewal value for money.
Rents continue to go up and down, but now tenants know they are spending money on their flat or house, rather than paying inflated fees to a letting agent/broker.
We banned letting agent fees charged to the tenant. Miraculously, landlords didn't find paying £250 for a contract renewal value for money.
Rents continue to go up and down, but now tenants know they are spending money on their flat or house, rather than paying inflated fees to a letting agent/broker.
If the landlord pays a fee equal to a percentage of the rent you will be paying them if you rent there. If they are pervasively popular in your market you wont have much choice but to pay them as well.
That is not how economics work...
All fees are passed on to the consumer in some way, it is either a line item or hidden
All fees are passed on to the consumer in some way, it is either a line item or hidden
Not quite; some of this is about moving wealth around, changing the captured value to favor the buyer instead of the seller.
But that’s just the “efficient market” part of this. A fee like this could very well be an inefficient rent-capture that has managed to make its removal more expensive in the short-term than the short-term cost of allowing it to remain. Said less charitably, it’s a racket.
I would have thought that on HN of all places, where so many folks are attempting “disruption” (ie finding these unnecessary market inefficiencies and stepping around their cultural/legal/systemic barriers in order to reap some of the otherwise captured value), this would be better understood.
But that’s just the “efficient market” part of this. A fee like this could very well be an inefficient rent-capture that has managed to make its removal more expensive in the short-term than the short-term cost of allowing it to remain. Said less charitably, it’s a racket.
I would have thought that on HN of all places, where so many folks are attempting “disruption” (ie finding these unnecessary market inefficiencies and stepping around their cultural/legal/systemic barriers in order to reap some of the otherwise captured value), this would be better understood.
lol - one way or another the buyer is paying for it. If sellers operate at a loss for too long, they won't have that thing to sell any more :p
Overhead is overhead. Trying to pretty it up with fancy language like "moving wealth around" and "changing captured value" doesn't alter the fundamental economics.
Overhead is overhead. Trying to pretty it up with fancy language like "moving wealth around" and "changing captured value" doesn't alter the fundamental economics.
No, they are not.
The consumer price depends only on supply and demand. Fees don't influence none of it, only the cost of the selling party and thus his profit.
The consumer price depends only on supply and demand. Fees don't influence none of it, only the cost of the selling party and thus his profit.
This is correct in almost all cases (outside of highly commoditized goods) and it's crazy how people don't understand it. It's why the price of McDonalds doesn't increase when minimum wage does. McDonalds is already charging as much as they can for a Big Mac (where stores averages a 40% margin). Increasing minimum wage means that margin goes down a bit, not that prices increase. If they could increase prices they already would have.
McDonalds is a bit of an outlier here; they have incredibly predictable food costs due to high levels of standardization and a worldwide inventory network. The franchisees have a certain amount of leeway on pricing, some of which is dictated at the corporate level down, but it's based on bona fide expenses.
If local regulatory conditions cause your labor cost to go up, they are absolutely allowed to (and will) raise prices to compensate.
If local regulatory conditions cause your labor cost to go up, they are absolutely allowed to (and will) raise prices to compensate.
> This is correct in almost all cases (outside of highly commoditized goods) and it's crazy how people don't understand it.
What are you on about? Of course McD will change prices relative to input expenditure. You can even see this across all the countries they serve. If there were to be a significant impact on margin, they can increase prices.
All fees are passed onto customers, that’s how you calculate profit margins.
What are you on about? Of course McD will change prices relative to input expenditure. You can even see this across all the countries they serve. If there were to be a significant impact on margin, they can increase prices.
All fees are passed onto customers, that’s how you calculate profit margins.
You're not really right at all. The percentage of fees that are passed on is completely dependent on elasticity.
>All fees are passed onto customers
is not even close to correct.
>All fees are passed onto customers
is not even close to correct.
Most business only absorb the minimum amount of margin loss they can, and for very short terms. No business aims to operate at a loss unless propped up by outside investments.
All businesses will increase prices to maintain the profits they need, up until what the market will bear - which is why taxes will also not end up pushing it too far, the gov isn’t stupid.
All businesses will increase prices to maintain the profits they need, up until what the market will bear - which is why taxes will also not end up pushing it too far, the gov isn’t stupid.
Again, it depends on elasticities. Businesses can't just raise prices and expect demand to remain at old levels. People quickly substitute goods and services in the face of price changes. In the case of mcdonalds price increases cause people to cook or eat food that doesn't need to be prepared. In the case of rent, supply is fixed, so landlords are already charging monopoly prices. There is very close to zero wiggle room for landlords to raise prices.
> There is very close to zero wiggle room for landlords to raise prices.
This is disproved very easily by reality - most places have increasing rent YoY. Same goes for house prices.
Because of low supply and large demand, like you say, landlords can charge monopoly prices. Not sure why you claim they don’t go up?
This is disproved very easily by reality - most places have increasing rent YoY. Same goes for house prices.
Because of low supply and large demand, like you say, landlords can charge monopoly prices. Not sure why you claim they don’t go up?
Rental demand in desirable areas keeps going up as wealth inequality increases and yuppies continue to want to live in urban areas.
> This is disproved very easily by reality - most places have increasing rent YoY. Same goes for house prices.
All this proves is that evolving market conditions lead to changes in price. Try charging 2030's market-rate rent in 2021, and see how many offers you get.
All this proves is that evolving market conditions lead to changes in price. Try charging 2030's market-rate rent in 2021, and see how many offers you get.
Except is does.. and no they do not charge "as much as they can" for the big mac. Prices go up all the time, just in the last year the price of the Big Mac has increased a lot due to input costs, including labor, going up
you are simply wrong
you are simply wrong
Fast food prices have increased greater than inflation for some time: https://www.delish.com/food/news/a39265/fast-food-menu-price...
Thinking that labor costs do not impact product costs is grossly ignorant.
Thinking that labor costs do not impact product costs is grossly ignorant.
> Thinking that labor costs do not impact product costs is grossly ignorant.
No one is arguing that labor cost doesn't impact product cost, but the fact is that in general it doesn't impact product price.
Or to put it the other way: can you imagine a business not increasing product price as much as they can, regardless of the product cost, as long as the supply is matched?
If they can increase the price, why would they wait for cost to rise before doing so?
The outcome is that business/landlord already charge as much as they can, and increased cost doesn't change the product price, since they already chareg as much as they can.
No one is arguing that labor cost doesn't impact product cost, but the fact is that in general it doesn't impact product price.
Or to put it the other way: can you imagine a business not increasing product price as much as they can, regardless of the product cost, as long as the supply is matched?
If they can increase the price, why would they wait for cost to rise before doing so?
The outcome is that business/landlord already charge as much as they can, and increased cost doesn't change the product price, since they already chareg as much as they can.
You seem to be missing the fundmental problem here
Sure not all prices are infinitely elastic, but if Labor costs out strip the ability to prices to absorb them that do not mean the business simply magically makes them go away, no that business goes bankrupt and wages go to $0.
Owners / Investors demand a return on investment, if the market average is 8%, and business x is only returning 4% why would an investor continue to keep their capital there?
Worse still if inflation is 3% and the business is only returning 2% the investor is LOSING MONEY by keeping their capital in the business, better to cut their losses and move on
This mythical position where by businesses just "absorb the cost" because the prices are not elastic is pure fantasy
Sure not all prices are infinitely elastic, but if Labor costs out strip the ability to prices to absorb them that do not mean the business simply magically makes them go away, no that business goes bankrupt and wages go to $0.
Owners / Investors demand a return on investment, if the market average is 8%, and business x is only returning 4% why would an investor continue to keep their capital there?
Worse still if inflation is 3% and the business is only returning 2% the investor is LOSING MONEY by keeping their capital in the business, better to cut their losses and move on
This mythical position where by businesses just "absorb the cost" because the prices are not elastic is pure fantasy
So you just reject the field of economics entirely?
Like, lets say that the government adds a 20$ tax/fee on fast food, per burger sold. Clearly McDonalds would no longer be able to sell burgers for 4 dollars.
Thus price would increase. Or supply of burgers would go down (thereby only leaving higher priced burgers in the market).
Like, lets say that the government adds a 20$ tax/fee on fast food, per burger sold. Clearly McDonalds would no longer be able to sell burgers for 4 dollars.
Thus price would increase. Or supply of burgers would go down (thereby only leaving higher priced burgers in the market).
True, except in this case NY is one of the few places in the world that requires such nonsense.
0 value added for the tenant, but brokers typically serve the landlord.
Software serves both parties with a win. Faster for LL, cheaper for Tenant.
Is it though? Airbnb is essentially a rental broker, it charges a high fee, and still hasn't turned an annual profit. Plus the landlords add on "cleaning fees" and more that the tenant must agree to pay.
I don't really get where brokers fit in. Most landlords should have the time/employees to take care of such things themselves. An absentee landlord would need a whole property management service to take care of everything, not just one small part.
Brokers should be a niche service at best.
Brokers should be a niche service at best.
Not really. My parents used a broker for their rental. They manage the maintenance and rent collection themselves, but did not have the time or energy to do marketing/showing/vetting of new tenants.
And the broker they used basically does all the listings in the condo complex, so he has a steady flow of interested and vetted renters as well as standard leases that cover the specifics of the condo complex, as well as a relationship with the management office to get the renters approved quickly and get them keys for amenities and such.
In our case we pay the broker, but I can see a lot of value in their services for the landlord.
And the broker they used basically does all the listings in the condo complex, so he has a steady flow of interested and vetted renters as well as standard leases that cover the specifics of the condo complex, as well as a relationship with the management office to get the renters approved quickly and get them keys for amenities and such.
In our case we pay the broker, but I can see a lot of value in their services for the landlord.
Do you know how much it would cost to have an actual employee, just to show the apartments and answer questions? You're paying them hourly or salary, plus payroll tax, unemployment, all of the other added expenses that a blue state throws on top of that. Plus liability, you now have to comply with every blue state law- oops did you not give the employee their exact mandated lunch time under California's very complex, tough to parse lunch rules? Get ready for a six to seven figure fine. The employee could always invent a discrimination lawsuit, wrongful termination, claim they were injured on the job, etc.
The broker is an independent third party to whom you pay a fixed fee, and have no extra cost or regulatory liability beyond that. A no brainer
The broker is an independent third party to whom you pay a fixed fee, and have no extra cost or regulatory liability beyond that. A no brainer
> Most landlords should have the time/employees to take care of such things themselves.
Do they have to have their own fulltime electrician on staff or are they allowed to contract it out? Why the insistence that the work be done by their own employees instead of contractors?
Do they have to have their own fulltime electrician on staff or are they allowed to contract it out? Why the insistence that the work be done by their own employees instead of contractors?
In NYC, there are often two brokers—one for the landlord, and one for the tenant.
They serve themselves, really.
Similar situation in Boston. The value add is that the brokers are regulated and in theory this means no one gets scammed. For context, over the past few years of crazy rental market, many people have gotten scammed by finding a fake listing online, sending off a deposit, and never hearing from the "landlord" again.
It's a huge hassle in Boston as well. Pretty boy hustle brokers deserve easy work that doesn't require real education so I can pay more to find a domicile - said no one ever...
Had to deal with this in Boston back in 2007. Some bro driving me around. Took this massive fee. Made no sense.
I don't use brokers, but rent control enshrines them. More housing->fewer brokers, so join open ny
Glad they didn't go with virtual viewings - scam players here (UK) do that and just run away with the deposit.
Super rampant here in CA with Craigslist. Scammer will post a rental ad for a house that is currently for sale in Zillow. You know it's a scam pretty easily, but not everyone does. If someone other than Craigslist can get in this market and do a better job, one that verifies the Lister owns the property, and there is no funny business about who gets the property, that would be excellent.
I ran into this yesterday. It wasn't entirely clear it was a scam, well to me, at first. The first clue was "sorry, no in house viewing, we had son and 2 friends die from COVID, please understand". Yes, that's a big red flag but sounded like a legit excuse to me. But, at least it got me suspicious. Next was in their email they claimed to be working for somecompany.com but their email address was soomecompany.com. Finally the location was on redfin as having been sold only 4 month ago and the rental price was arguably 20% lower than it should have been. I can't prove it was a scam but I passed. It was frustrating to me that there is apparently no public online way to look up the owner of a property. I suppose there's some reason for that.
This one in Cali: I am in Philadelphia in the Military Camp, you can go by and view the inside of the house through the window, if you like it, you get back to me so we can proceed with the rentals.. then at the end of the email...
Thanks will be looking forward to your reply.
United State Army
General SCAPARROTTI
In the UK, you can look up the owner of a property. You pay £4 though.
Woah as a former landlord, this software is awesome.
I lived in a UDR apartment property for the past 3+ yrs. They first had 2 full-time sales persons on site. That went down to one, then to zero. Now they lease based on GOOD 3d drawings of apartments, virtual showings, and easy Docusign based lease agreements. You can check it out here: https://www.udr.com/washington-dc-apartments/arlington/cresc...
No value seems to have been lost in going from humans to software. Yes, vacancies are up, but that is probably due to the 15-20% rent increases and general migration away from the city. I'm sure they are also saving a mint on the two fewer on-site sales FTEs. Seems like a big win for both the tenant and landlord (hopefully the savings are being split.)
EDIT: I dont think virtual showings are a replacement for a physical walk-thru. However, it is a great way to filter out obviously mismatching apartments and a way to not waste time visiting apartments way out of your requirements. For example, if I just want to see the size of closets (a big deciding factor for me), i can do that on a floorplan easily. I can easily filter out apartments w/o walk-in closets.
No value seems to have been lost in going from humans to software. Yes, vacancies are up, but that is probably due to the 15-20% rent increases and general migration away from the city. I'm sure they are also saving a mint on the two fewer on-site sales FTEs. Seems like a big win for both the tenant and landlord (hopefully the savings are being split.)
EDIT: I dont think virtual showings are a replacement for a physical walk-thru. However, it is a great way to filter out obviously mismatching apartments and a way to not waste time visiting apartments way out of your requirements. For example, if I just want to see the size of closets (a big deciding factor for me), i can do that on a floorplan easily. I can easily filter out apartments w/o walk-in closets.
Virtual viewing is not a full solution for me. The plus is it helps me weed out places I'm sure I'm not interested in but I still need to see the real place before I rent.
The virtual version of the place might not represent the actual place. There's no easy way to check noise levels, lighting, ambiance, etc. And further, it's far easier to scam people with virtual showings. I had one yesterday where they sent a matterport tour link and claimed I couldn't see the place for real because they had a son and 3 friends die from COVID so "please understand, no in person showings". After looking into details it became clear it was a scam.
The virtual version of the place might not represent the actual place. There's no easy way to check noise levels, lighting, ambiance, etc. And further, it's far easier to scam people with virtual showings. I had one yesterday where they sent a matterport tour link and claimed I couldn't see the place for real because they had a son and 3 friends die from COVID so "please understand, no in person showings". After looking into details it became clear it was a scam.
As a tenant I want to personally inspect the unit I’m renting. A 3D virtual tour won’t tell me if there’s low water pressure, a slow hot water heater, a stinky garbage bin outside the window or creaky floors.
Yes, but this highlights a very tenant-unfriendly side effect of "the algorithm" that I noticed during a recent apartment hunt: monthly rent estimates vary, sometimes wildly, day to day. It's really silly to me that selecting a move in date for next Friday results in a monthly rent $100/month cheaper than a move in date the following week. I mean, I understand some of the variables: length of vacancy, estimated market conditions at the end of the lease, etc, etc, could all contribute to slightly different market conditions or costs to the landlord that they want to pass on to the tenant. But it strikes me as intentionally opaque and hostile to renters.
I lived in DC and NOVA for 8+ years (including at UDRs Shirlington property) and never felt I needed a broker when apartment hunting.
Now that was about 5 years ago, so the market might have changed.
Now that was about 5 years ago, so the market might have changed.
> Renters would pay us to take over the remainder of their lease obligation, we'd find a new qualified tenant and get the landlord's approval for a lease transfer or sublease. If we weren't able to find a new tenant, we'd pay the rent until the end of the lease.
Also pretty nice that you do that, but one thing I would recommend is immediately not allow any landlords that require such evil practices and be banned from your system.
Also pretty nice that you do that, but one thing I would recommend is immediately not allow any landlords that require such evil practices and be banned from your system.
What is the evil practice?
Well, it's either requiring rent to be paid throughout the entire lease term or not allowing leases to be randomly transferred to unqualified tenants. Does it really matter at that point which one GP meant?
A lease is a contract where you agree to pay throughout the entire term. That's evil?
Most municipalities at least in the USA also have tenant-friendly laws on that books that mandate either or both of:
a) landlords are disallowed from refusing reasonable sublease (e.g. one that passes the same credit check etc that you did)
b) landlords must release you from the remainder of a lease if you leave and a reasonably suitable replacement tenant is found
Most municipalities at least in the USA also have tenant-friendly laws on that books that mandate either or both of:
a) landlords are disallowed from refusing reasonable sublease (e.g. one that passes the same credit check etc that you did)
b) landlords must release you from the remainder of a lease if you leave and a reasonably suitable replacement tenant is found
In Oregon they realized how evil it was and made this law:
ORS 90.302 E
The abandonment or relinquishment of a dwelling unit during a fixed term tenancy without cause. The fee may not exceed one and one-half times the monthly rent.
ORS 90.302 E
The abandonment or relinquishment of a dwelling unit during a fixed term tenancy without cause. The fee may not exceed one and one-half times the monthly rent.
great, now replace landlords.
With what?
communism
The Singapore system purportedly works pretty well.
Does Singapore do anything in particular with regard to landlords?
Singapore has “social housing” except the government builds the housing and sells it to people for cheap: https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/a-singapore-plan-for-publi...
My understanding is that the median condo in Singapore costs $1M USD. Is this not true, and if it is, then how is $1M USD for a condo considered cheap?
You can get condos next to The Four Seasons in Beverly Hills for that price...
You can get condos next to The Four Seasons in Beverly Hills for that price...
That's for private condos. 80% of people in Singapore live in government built public housing. The cost of the average public apartment is more like $300k which is not that bad for a city like Singapore.
As far as I can tell most comparisons for "the price of housing between Singapore and X" only look at private condos, probably because X doesn't have anything like Singapore's public flats to compare with for almost all values of X.
(When you "buy" a public apartment from the government, you get a 99 year lease, which you can resell. There are restrictions on buying public apartments, if I remember right you have to be a citizen or PR, and you have to be married or 35+. They cannot be bought by corporations.)
As far as I can tell most comparisons for "the price of housing between Singapore and X" only look at private condos, probably because X doesn't have anything like Singapore's public flats to compare with for almost all values of X.
(When you "buy" a public apartment from the government, you get a 99 year lease, which you can resell. There are restrictions on buying public apartments, if I remember right you have to be a citizen or PR, and you have to be married or 35+. They cannot be bought by corporations.)
Is your figure for private condos or government built?
Keep in mind Singapore has a higher PPP per capita than the US.
Keep in mind Singapore has a higher PPP per capita than the US.
It bars corporate landlords from 80% of the housing stock, which is public. However they can buy and rent out the other 20% much like anywhere else, I guess.
[deleted]
In Singapore the state builds housing and sells it to citizens cheaply.
10000000 million
Landlords being able to require proof of no evictions in rent history makes sense (even though it absolutely makes life worse for people who fell on any form of hardship), but why are landlords even allowed to demand proof of no felonies?!
Probably for the same reason your employer does. Not saying it's fair to discriminate against people who have paid their debt to society but I wouldn't be crazy about having a rapist or murderer neighbor.
I'm German. Landlords here aren't allowed to check criminal backgrounds as are employers (with the exception of jobs dealing with children and valuable objects).
The idea behind that is that recidivism is best prevented by letting people be normal parts of society (=being able to work and live in peace) once they have served their term.
The idea behind that is that recidivism is best prevented by letting people be normal parts of society (=being able to work and live in peace) once they have served their term.
Because they write the laws and not renters
Because sometimes felons use their place of residence as the center of the location of their felonies? And sometimes those felonies are against nearby people? If you had an apartment complex, you wouldn't want to rent to a breaking-and-entering specialist, or even a car thief. You wouldn't want to rent to a meth manufacturer or distributor. And you wouldn't want to rent to a serial rapist.
Eventually it just becomes easier to just say "no felons" than to try to figure out whether this particular brand of felony is going to negatively impact you or your other residents.
On the other hand, felons have to live somewhere...
Eventually it just becomes easier to just say "no felons" than to try to figure out whether this particular brand of felony is going to negatively impact you or your other residents.
On the other hand, felons have to live somewhere...
> but why are landlords even allowed to demand proof of no felonies?!
As someone who has worked on tenant screening software, landlords typically care about a criminal history involving sex offenses or drug manufacturing. In case of recidivism, the former creates liability from other tenants if issues arise during tenancy, and the latter has potential for property destruction and/or harm to neighboring units.
There are also typically time limits on how far "back" they can look, typically 5-7 years at the most.
As someone who has worked on tenant screening software, landlords typically care about a criminal history involving sex offenses or drug manufacturing. In case of recidivism, the former creates liability from other tenants if issues arise during tenancy, and the latter has potential for property destruction and/or harm to neighboring units.
There are also typically time limits on how far "back" they can look, typically 5-7 years at the most.
How does bankruptcy sound? The discovery phase of the civil lawsuit will uncover that you allowed a convicted sex offender/drug dealer/murderer to move in next door and you are now financially responsible for the victim's damages, pain and suffering.
We started Seam (YC S20) a year ago to take on the problem of programmatic access to physical spaces (apartments, single-family homes, commercial buildings...etc).
Basically one API that can open any door (smart locks, elevators, commercial buildings...etc). We're still in private beta but feel free to reach out if you're struggling with programmatic access.
tbh, it's baffling that in 2021, this problem is still so difficult to solve. As a last point, we generally recommend against key-exhange solutions. From our experience at Sonder, people forget to return the keys and it creates a lot logistical headaches. You then have to re-key the doors...etc.
Basically one API that can open any door (smart locks, elevators, commercial buildings...etc). We're still in private beta but feel free to reach out if you're struggling with programmatic access.
tbh, it's baffling that in 2021, this problem is still so difficult to solve. As a last point, we generally recommend against key-exhange solutions. From our experience at Sonder, people forget to return the keys and it creates a lot logistical headaches. You then have to re-key the doors...etc.
Whether someone returned the keys or not is largely irrelevant. The prior occupants could have made extra copies.
I disagree. Whether the prior occupant or the property management company has extra sets of keys, you generally don't want some random prospective tenant out there to have the keys to a unit that you will eventually want to rent out to another individual. For Airbnb's/STR's, same problem; guests returning to a unit much later to carry out illegal activities is rather well documented at this point. Across the board, it's not worth the logistical pain and/or liability risk. In the case of a prior tenant, you generally know who the person is...etc. There are edge cases for sure (e.g. evictions) but it's generally less risky.
You agree with the person you replied to. They are saying guests may return to carry out illegal activity even if they returned the keys because they could have just made copies.
My initial comment only said that, in our experience, it's a bad idea to use physical key-exchange system for short-term visits of a physical space. Key copies & key returns being two examples of problematic cases. I only brought up key returns in my initial comment because that's the one that caused the most headaches at Sonder. Most people, it turns out, are honest but also forgetful :) The key-copy potentially exposes you to a lot more liability though...
Yep. Bad actors will still find a way circumvent the system, either by copying keys or other means. It's a matter of risk and liability mitigation, not prevention.
I'd be curious to know if you're building a reputation system for renters/rentees (users), since that would provide value in such a market to fight it.
I'd be curious to know if you're building a reputation system for renters/rentees (users), since that would provide value in such a market to fight it.
We are not. This is mostly because we are an infrastructure company that takes care of bridging the air-gap between the devices out there and the software applications that want to use them. Whether the locks are used for hospitality, self-storage access, or rentals is somewhat dependent on the context, and there's a lot of complexity that is unique to each vertical. We think our (beta) customers do a better job at this than we could.
I know very large REITs that use Kwikset Smart Keys. They have a dozen keys and just reset to a different of the dozen after every move out. Tens of thousands of homes and never had a problem. It’s security through obscurity. Plus locks are easy to break/bypass for someone that’s motivated to do so. It’s the casual crime of opportunity that you can guard against.
Are you referring to smart locks with unique codes or the Kwikset solution that consists of pulling out the cylinder and putting a new one in?
SmartKey is a mechanical lock that is rekeyable without removing the cylinder. You unlock with the old key, insert a tool to release the internal wafers, then insert the new key and it repositions the wafers to match the key.
oh right! Yeah it's pretty neat actually (for anyone interested[1]). Unfortunately, it does require physical presence/labor (i.e. $$$) by whoever has the master reset tool. For Airbnb's or even self-tours, that's kind of a non-starter.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5MQz3JjZl8&ab_channel=Kwiks...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5MQz3JjZl8&ab_channel=Kwiks...
When you perform a move out or move in inspection, you change the key. It's super easy. The reset tool can fit in your wallet or glove compartment. It's a big change versus having to change the cylinder as in the past. Having to manage a load of electronic locks is likely more costly. Again, this is long-term rentals not short-term.
As for self-tours, they make electronic lockboxes. They've been around forever and used by every MLS.
As for self-tours, they make electronic lockboxes. They've been around forever and used by every MLS.
I'm not going to try to convince you that key-exchanges are bad for short-lived visits (whether electronic lockboxes or not). We just know from experience doing millions of these for a large company that this is very problematic at times and you're better off with a remote controlled solutions that doesn't involve anyone having any physical key.
I'm not arguing with you. I'm referring to long-term rentals. Your initial post doesn't make such a distinction.
[deleted]
Nope - as Kevin points out all you need is a new key and their tool that basically "blanks" the lock, then the next key you insert resets the lock to operate with that key. It's pretty slick.
[deleted]
Do you have a recommendation on a quality smart lock for home use? Some ideal mix of security, style, open/compatible software.
The same company that provided the lockboxes from the original article has smart locks that use the same rotating one time code mechanism - and the locks don't require internet connectivity. A huge plus!
https://www.igloohome.co/en-us/
I have had zero interest in using other smart locks - especially ones that require network connectivity of any sort, but this might be one that would be worth considering.
https://www.igloohome.co/en-us/
I have had zero interest in using other smart locks - especially ones that require network connectivity of any sort, but this might be one that would be worth considering.
> I have had zero interest in using other smart locks - especially ones that require network connectivity of any sort
I think I used to agree with that sentiment, but then I realized that I can remotely control stuff for things like grocery deliveries (which as you point out Igloo can do while technically offline!). To be clear though, just because igloohome's lock is technically offline, it does not mean it's necessarily secure if there is a hole in their API auth.
I think I used to agree with that sentiment, but then I realized that I can remotely control stuff for things like grocery deliveries (which as you point out Igloo can do while technically offline!). To be clear though, just because igloohome's lock is technically offline, it does not mean it's necessarily secure if there is a hole in their API auth.
> To be clear though, just because igloohome's lock is technically offline, it does not mean it's necessarily secure if there is a hole in their API auth.
Sure! But it sure cuts down on implementation complexity, and complexity is where security goes to die :)
Sure! But it sure cuts down on implementation complexity, and complexity is where security goes to die :)
This is interesting. Thx. The problem we've always had with smart locks at scale is connectivity headaches, which require a technical person as advanced or more than a locksmith.
We've gone through a bunch (including the Igloohome locks mentioned in the post) and landed on Yale's Assure line, specifically the YRD216 model with a physical keypad (not the touchscreen). Deployed in 100s of homes now (we're also property managers) with really no issue. We use Z-Wave to control but their modular system allows for Zigbee as well.
I would avoid the Schlage "Smart Deadbolt" model. At least when it comes to remote control they're pretty awful. (They're also hideous imo)
I would avoid the Schlage "Smart Deadbolt" model. At least when it comes to remote control they're pretty awful. (They're also hideous imo)
I agree 110% with this! The touchscreens confuse new people not used to it. As far as Schlage, yeah... let's just say there's a few folks in the Home Assistant community (and us too) who are not super impressed with their protocol implementation.
btw which z-wave controller do you guys use for the Assure?
btw which z-wave controller do you guys use for the Assure?
We're using Smartthings, specifically the old graph API that gives somewhat easy programmatic access. Very interested in what yall are doing with Seam (we spoke for a little bit at the virtual event YC had earlier this year). With Samsung I'm always worried some new VP is going to going to get shuffled in and decide that Smartthings has had its day in the sun.
Yes I remember our convo! Also, i really don't like to be the bearer of bad news, but I was talking to their Venture team and unfortunately that ship has already sailed. They've sold the hardware business to Aeotek and are progressively scaling down the team :(
Ping me at [email protected] and lets see if I can get you going with some beta units.
Ping me at [email protected] and lets see if I can get you going with some beta units.
lol, no. We're hiring as fast as we can right now for software devs: https://smartthings.pinpointhq.com/
ah! I stand corrected. I swear I had two calls in the last 3-4 months with some Samsung Next folks where it was like, "yeah, we're kind of outta this game."
Probably just a miscommunication, we definitely seem to have gotten completely out of hardware (I wouldn't really know, I was never really involved in any of the hardware side of things), but the software side of things is going stronger than ever.
hm, it's a good question. I (personally) really like Yale devices, but I hate the touchscreens and would prefer something with physical key buttons. I'm also generally against locks that connect directly to wifi because the batteries run out so quickly. As far as the type of lock, mortise locks are so cool but super expensive and most U.S. homes would need to change their doors to have one. Maybe a level lock or a simple dead-bolt does the trick.
I thought a bit more about your question. There's surprisingly not much unbiased research out there that correctly points out the pros/cons of each system. I'll try to write something soon and post it.
Speaking of logistical headaches, what happens with your system when the power goes out in a building?
Right now we have a multi-protocol hub with cellular and battery back-up. So the short answer is... nothing?
How much is the technology around this mentioned in the lease agreement?
My current complex specified that I had to supply internet and some other things for their smart hub service, although that turned out to not be the case (it's not on my network and works), but it was really weird to have that clause but it not match reality because I was effectively signing a document saying I was responsible for it.
My current complex specified that I had to supply internet and some other things for their smart hub service, although that turned out to not be the case (it's not on my network and works), but it was really weird to have that clause but it not match reality because I was effectively signing a document saying I was responsible for it.
is this with SmartRent? My hunch is that they're trying to lower their cellular data costs by having you connect their units to wifi. I had no heard of this being surfaced as a lease-agreement clause though.
Fwiw, we haven't run into cases yet where landlords want to leave our hub inside a unit once it has been rented out. I think there are pros/cons to it from a security/privacy standpoint. It can also be very convenient and reduce certain OPEX costs (e.g. insurance). But there are horror stories out there of some of the cheap OEM hubs that get deployed [1] and we (Seam) would want to have a solid conversation internally first to see what's the right approach here.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/02/smart-home-hub-flaws-unloc...
Fwiw, we haven't run into cases yet where landlords want to leave our hub inside a unit once it has been rented out. I think there are pros/cons to it from a security/privacy standpoint. It can also be very convenient and reduce certain OPEX costs (e.g. insurance). But there are horror stories out there of some of the cheap OEM hubs that get deployed [1] and we (Seam) would want to have a solid conversation internally first to see what's the right approach here.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/02/smart-home-hub-flaws-unloc...
Yeah, SmartRent
Here's the wording if you're interested:
https://i.imgur.com/qF22wG9.jpg
Plus even though it says "If you elect to purchase..." half-way down, I basically had no option but to walk away from the lease entirely. They wouldn't remove them, turn them off and replace with a physical lock, or anything else.
Here's the wording if you're interested:
https://i.imgur.com/qF22wG9.jpg
Plus even though it says "If you elect to purchase..." half-way down, I basically had no option but to walk away from the lease entirely. They wouldn't remove them, turn them off and replace with a physical lock, or anything else.
Nothing until the battery runs out. I'm just thinking of situations like Texas, the East Coast hurricane season, the West Coast fire season, etc where power cuts can last up to a week.
Or what happens when GCP/AWS/Azure have a bad day and you lose connectivity with your API servers?
Or what happens when GCP/AWS/Azure have a bad day and you lose connectivity with your API servers?
yeah the battery only lasts 24 hours, though I suspect we could eventually implement a low-power mode in our firmware to stretch that quite a bit. To be honest, I'm also not sure to what extend we want to over index black-swan events [1] as part of our product roadmap.
Your second point about GCP/AWS/Azure going down is really valid. When we started the company, we saw a few off-the-shelf gateways that relied on a permanent MQTT connection to function correctly, and from our Sonder experience, we knew that this was a non-starter for some of our early customers. Instead, we ended up creating our own hub and we run a ton of logic that runs entirely locally. For example, if an Airbnb reservation comes in, the hub immediately receives the door lock programming instructions even if the reservation is far out in the future. Our hub doesn't program the lock yet, but when the reservation time window arrives, the lock gets programmed by the hub irrespective of whether the internet or AWS is up/down.
[1] well at this point, it's questionable whether we should refer to, for example, wildfires as Black Swan events. But I think you'll agree that most people aren't interested in touring a new home or staying at an Airbnb when the town next door is on fire...
Your second point about GCP/AWS/Azure going down is really valid. When we started the company, we saw a few off-the-shelf gateways that relied on a permanent MQTT connection to function correctly, and from our Sonder experience, we knew that this was a non-starter for some of our early customers. Instead, we ended up creating our own hub and we run a ton of logic that runs entirely locally. For example, if an Airbnb reservation comes in, the hub immediately receives the door lock programming instructions even if the reservation is far out in the future. Our hub doesn't program the lock yet, but when the reservation time window arrives, the lock gets programmed by the hub irrespective of whether the internet or AWS is up/down.
[1] well at this point, it's questionable whether we should refer to, for example, wildfires as Black Swan events. But I think you'll agree that most people aren't interested in touring a new home or staying at an Airbnb when the town next door is on fire...
Oh does your company only work with short term rentals (airbnb) and showings? I checked your website and came away with the impression that you might have landlords installing these units on long term rentals as well as business locations potentially. That does lower the stakes here significantly than what I was thinking.
And yeah props for that solution to intermittent connectivity issues :)
And yeah props for that solution to intermittent connectivity issues :)
24 hour power outages are not a black swan event anywhere in the world.
If you have a smart lock that doesn't require Internet connectivity then power or network availability is not an issue. From the OP: https://www.igloohome.co/en-us/
It's the most innovative approach to smart locks I have ever seen and for this one nugget along I'm very grateful for the link to the original story!
It's the most innovative approach to smart locks I have ever seen and for this one nugget along I'm very grateful for the link to the original story!
Just a quick caveat that for non-consumer contexts, completely offline stuff doesn't cut it. The enterprise customers we have do want to get status reports for the devices (e.g. battery level, lock/unlocked status, which code was punched in...etc). There are good reasons for this, especially considering some operate fleets of 10K+ door locks across 3 continents.
Absolutely. For smaller/medium sites where you want some accountability but real time isn't required there are solutions out there like CyberLock - to get historical information you wait for keys to either check in as they charge or you can run around and touch the locks with a key and the system will do a status update.
It's not as convenient as wired/connected systems, but it's also a fraction of the price too. You can pick what's more important - real time or price :)
It's not as convenient as wired/connected systems, but it's also a fraction of the price too. You can pick what's more important - real time or price :)
Breather tried to do that out of Montreal and went bankrupt this year, not sure how much overlap there is with your system.
Yes I spoke to Julien (their founder) back when we started the company. Nice guys. He gave us a lot of insightful tips and frankly wished we would have existed back when they got started. Their business legitimately got killed by covid.
ps: your personal site is really interesting.
ps: your personal site is really interesting.
How exactly do you guys connect to the locks?
Depends a bit on the lock or access system. As of right now, most smart locks out there are still using a combination of zigbee, zwave, or bluetooth. This means that if you want remote control, you need to bridge them over to TCP/IP. We have a multiprotocol hub that we've developed for this. The hub itself isn't always required per say. For example, we're starting to see wifi locks. They generally have much lower battery life, but they eliminate the need for additional hardware, which is great. For bluetooth locks (e.g. August), we're looking at also building a single mobile SDK that would work with the various brands. This is really tricky because this requires a lot of reverse engineering.
Ironically the company that produces the lockboxes used in the story for this item also has door locks that use the same one time code mechanism (similar to Google Auth). No network connectivity required. I was never interested in putting a lock that had any kind of Internet requirement, but now I'm very interested in this one.
Their site if you didn't pick it up from the original article: https://www.igloohome.co/en-us/
Their site if you didn't pick it up from the original article: https://www.igloohome.co/en-us/
Code locks?
Yeah that's one option and does present the advantage of knowing which exact individual may have entered the premises (assuming one person = one code). We support most brands/model of smart locks (Yale, Schlage...etc) and standardize code programming across them despite differences that may exist at the protocol layer. Here's our API doc on it if you want to learn more: https://docs.getseam.com/#access-codes
Maybe I'm old school, but I like to make sure I meet my tenants face to face during a showing before renting a property out. I guess it depends on if your tenants are all shorter term and you have high turnover.
I don't feel the paperwork part of it is a huge hassle anymore, with screening services and document signing all being online now.
I don't feel the paperwork part of it is a huge hassle anymore, with screening services and document signing all being online now.
This is the classic pet vs cattle problem. It isn't aimed at the person who is renting their precious second apartment.
It's for investors with 50+ rentals where every unit is simply a number in a spreadsheet.
It's for investors with 50+ rentals where every unit is simply a number in a spreadsheet.
That might make sense if you're in town, I rent out a house of mine that's far away from where I live most of the year and this seems like it might be worth a shot in that type of case.
I’ve had this urge lately after dealing with idiotic and incompetent property rental managers to automate their entire industry away. I’m glad I’m not the only one
Had a very similar idea 10 years ago. Just proves that ideas are easy. Execution is where the value is created.
This is what I enjoyed most about this article. It's an idea I've thought about in the past (who hasn't) and their approach seems so much better than anything I thought up.
How would one automate away the fixing of toilets and performing routine maintenance?
I don't think you would (and that would be a terrible idea), more the 'organising' and booking of those maintenance items. I can count more than I'd like to the amount of times I've had double-handling, miscommunication and downright rude behaviour from rental managers trying to either refute that you need maintenance, call the wrong person or don't chase anything up and get things fixed.
Submit maintenance on an app and then boom someone is contacted to fix something
Submit maintenance on an app and then boom someone is contacted to fix something
My point is automation is not going to fix the problem of an owner who is trying to squeeze every last cent of profit by skimping on maintenance, and hiring rude rental managers, or not paying enough for qualified people to come fix the problem.
IoT pressure sensor on toilet. Make agreements with cleaning and maintenance companies to service your buildings.
Is this not already automated? I log into my apartments tenant portal, file a maintenance request, and tomorrow there's a dude at my door to fix my stuff.
Yes, my point was that the problem of a penny pinching owner trying to skimp on maintenance will not be solved by automating the maintenance request system.
It’s also unlikely they will pay for expensive sensors unless it directly impacts them :)
The blog mentions they used Charles to intercept traffic and reverse engineer the digital lock [0]. How does a tool like that decode HTTPS traffic? I thought HTTPS was encrypted end to end by the browser.
[0] https://www.charlesproxy.com/
[0] https://www.charlesproxy.com/
You add its root cert, and it re-encrypts: https://www.charlesproxy.com/documentation/proxying/ssl-prox...
I'm a huge fan of Rezi which has a very similar experience to my knowledge. They are able to reduce broker fee/rents because they can assure a reduced time where apartments are unrented.
https://www.rentrezi.com/
https://www.rentrezi.com/
Realtors are truly the scum of the earth, hustle culture, gate keeping, maligned incentives for clients, lazy industry in general. Only second to tech recruiters.
Please keep up the good work!
Please keep up the good work!
Wonderful writeup with a great balance of readability and detail. Thank you for sharing!
TBH, this would work very well as an introduction to modern tech product development for a general audience - you could pitch this to the digital edition of the Atlantic, say, and probably get it in without much editing. It helps that the domain is so broadly relatable!
TBH, this would work very well as an introduction to modern tech product development for a general audience - you could pitch this to the digital edition of the Atlantic, say, and probably get it in without much editing. It helps that the domain is so broadly relatable!
The illustrations were solid too.
Making being a landlord easier and more disconnected from people and your tenants etc for the investor class. What a great product for society and wealth inequality. Love it!!! Put an algorithm on judging if someone deserves shelter, we have never seen any problems with this in past studies!! Maybe one of the most evil things I seen on here in awhile tbh.
why is this voted down?
Maybe because it presents a false dichotomy where one’s desire to profit from an asset must also accommodate those unable to afford it?
Commiting a felony seems to be a life sentence in the United States even after you have served your time. The algorithm can easily just disqualify them with no nuance.
The description on this was even funny "When you rent a place for 1 or 2 years". Just wait till it caretakes rent collecting, rent raising, and eviction services.
The description on this was even funny "When you rent a place for 1 or 2 years". Just wait till it caretakes rent collecting, rent raising, and eviction services.
If the algo disqualifies them with no nuance, great, that means there’s probably a market for those who do want to take the time to understand the actual risk profile of a tenant. Also, society as a whole does not owe a clean slate to anyone who has committed a felony. Perhaps we can codify it into law but that is not the case right now and the market has decided that we do care.
I asked the same without the sarcasm, and it got down voted instantly.
About fifteen years ago, I set up a student rental website at the behest of the rental management. The list of things they wanted to automate, even then, was astonishing. I have seen this in other situations and it has led to a kind of maxim for me -- never underestimate the number of people who think that you can automate their jobs on their behalf and that they will still have those jobs at the end of the process.
I don't like putting people out of work but that bit about replacing someone with a shell script is not entirely inaccurate at times.
I don't like putting people out of work but that bit about replacing someone with a shell script is not entirely inaccurate at times.
Now do it for real estate agents.
I really hope software will replace realtors.
In my country at least, the ratio of professionalism, accountability, value-added to fees/earnings is the lowest of any occupation I can think of. It would be really low-hanging fruit for tech to disrupt, but unfortunately the real estate boards recognize this, and hold the critical data with an iron fist (from what I understand).
It would probably take some serious legal battles to pry that industry open.
In my country at least, the ratio of professionalism, accountability, value-added to fees/earnings is the lowest of any occupation I can think of. It would be really low-hanging fruit for tech to disrupt, but unfortunately the real estate boards recognize this, and hold the critical data with an iron fist (from what I understand).
It would probably take some serious legal battles to pry that industry open.
I believe both Zillow and Redfin are trying…
Apartment hunting is the most inefficient "purchasing" decision I have ever had to make, and the one most likely to end up with a severely sub-optimal outcome. There's some good ideas here that would at least facilitate efficiently viewing more apartments. But there's still so much extremely basic information that potential renters either cannot get about a unit or have to jump through hoops to get. Noise issues, pest issues, construction and renovation details, information about how the management company operates, light levels, info about neighbors and on and on. Ninety percent of the important information about a rental unit isn't discovered until the weeks and months after a lease has been signed, and I am desperate for someone to fix this problem.
The property management company often doesn't even know. It took me a week to find out which car park number was mine which took building management to tell the property manager.
There is no way the management companies know anything about noise levels or neighbors. Larger buildings tend to have reviews online but outside of that its a gamble.
There is no way the management companies know anything about noise levels or neighbors. Larger buildings tend to have reviews online but outside of that its a gamble.
"There is no way the management companies know anything about noise levels or neighbors"
They actually do, because they receive complaints from tenants. They should be required to document that information and provide it to potential renters.
They actually do, because they receive complaints from tenants. They should be required to document that information and provide it to potential renters.
You have to convince the property managers because they are purposefully gating that information. They want you to ask questions so they can gauge your interest and deny you early, also the benefit of not excluding the "right" people. And yes there is a lot of room for discrimination here
During my apartment search in San Francisco I found that it was basically impossible to know whether a unit was covered by rent control or not. You'd have to explicitly ask the landlord, and even then they'd be cagey about it.
you can just ask when the building was built. any building built before 1978 in LA and 1979 in SF (iirc) is rent-controlled. you can also look up the build date via parcel maps on the county assessor's website (e.g., https://portal.assessor.lacounty.gov/ ).
I just moved to SF and I just used craigslist and always asked if it was rent controlled in my intro mail. What’s the point of visiting a place if it’s not?
Agreed. There's not enough disincentive for wasting potential renters time filtering through listings or even touring apartments.
This is a bit of a tangent, but finding reliable ratings for apartments is a complete quagmire. Many many apartments have extremely poor ratings, or boosted ratings that are not believable.
I wonder how much of this is due to the fact that a significant portion of rental situations end with a major conflict and even uneventful apartment living has some portion of minor conflict due to yearly rent increases.
I wonder how much of this is due to the fact that a significant portion of rental situations end with a major conflict and even uneventful apartment living has some portion of minor conflict due to yearly rent increases.
why not build software that finds quality renters and sends them better deals on apartments similar to what they are renting? people pay too much rent in tech metros.
Even though this begins with a pitch for empowering tenants, the customers are the landlords. The value for landlords comes at the expense of tenants in several ways.
* It prevents tenants who don't meet income or other requirements from even looking at the unit.
* It makes tenants liable for noting damage as soon as they view a unit to avoid it being attributed to them, a daunting task.
* And it removes a face to face interaction that forces some accountability on landlords who don't provide a clean/cared for unit.
Notably absent is a mechanism for tenants to provide feedback to landlords on the listing. The Questions feature is helpful, but not designed for concerns/praise.
* It prevents tenants who don't meet income or other requirements from even looking at the unit.
* It makes tenants liable for noting damage as soon as they view a unit to avoid it being attributed to them, a daunting task.
* And it removes a face to face interaction that forces some accountability on landlords who don't provide a clean/cared for unit.
Notably absent is a mechanism for tenants to provide feedback to landlords on the listing. The Questions feature is helpful, but not designed for concerns/praise.
> it removes a face to face interaction that forces some accountability on landlords who don't provide a clean/cared for unit.
I do not think face to face interactions with landlords help when the landlord knows they are providing a poorly kept property to begin with.
I’ve had a landlord that would use various manipulative techniques to get people to sign leases.
Promises of future fixes, charm, references to the difficulty of finding a place, hints toward other interest.
Landlords can not be trusted to be benevolent. They are like the pre-Uber taxi drivers.
Landlords lack accountability and provide services to people in positions of vulnerability. They take advantage of the asymmetric power differentials and do it in the name of profit.
Anything to remove this person and unify terms is advantageous.
Jerry.ai is doing this with insurance, and various startups have made attempts to do this with car dealerships. CarWoo back in the day.
Bad algorithms can be improved overnight. Greedy, careless people are here to stay.
I do not think face to face interactions with landlords help when the landlord knows they are providing a poorly kept property to begin with.
I’ve had a landlord that would use various manipulative techniques to get people to sign leases.
Promises of future fixes, charm, references to the difficulty of finding a place, hints toward other interest.
Landlords can not be trusted to be benevolent. They are like the pre-Uber taxi drivers.
Landlords lack accountability and provide services to people in positions of vulnerability. They take advantage of the asymmetric power differentials and do it in the name of profit.
Anything to remove this person and unify terms is advantageous.
Jerry.ai is doing this with insurance, and various startups have made attempts to do this with car dealerships. CarWoo back in the day.
Bad algorithms can be improved overnight. Greedy, careless people are here to stay.
The big question in San Francisco is “what does the parking cost?” Very few complexes disclose this; you must give a human your name, number, and expected move date before they will say. It’s a scummy, car dealership-like experience. I would love for stuff like this to be online but the fact is savvy landlords with very high quality websites withhold it intentionally, in order to start a human relationship.
I really want to see the lockpicking lawyer pick that lock now, darn...
I don’t get leases. In Europe I can get out of my apartment any time. In the US I’m stuck with my place for a year.
A lease is also a plus for the renter that the rent will not change for the duration of the lease. Some places rent month to month but they may up the rent every month if the market suggests they can. Of course that could be solved by regulation I guess if a landlord was only allowed to change the rent between tenants and or once a year or so.
Yeah I guess rent control is bad enough in the US that not having a lease could be worse.
If you want to get out at any time look for month to month rentals. You will likely pay more for the flexibility...
I never had the luxury to limit my research to these places only. Actually I ran into one of these places once in 5 moves and it was a coliving space. I’m convinced they don’t even exist or you’d be looking at 1-2 places for an absurd price.
Not surprising. The biggest expense for a landlord is finding reliable tenants. Churn is HIGHLY undesirable, and thus the market adjusts accordingly.
I may need something temporary - at this point I'll just stay in an extended stay hotel vs. trying to find a place to rent. Anything under a year is, as you note, problematic.
I may need something temporary - at this point I'll just stay in an extended stay hotel vs. trying to find a place to rent. Anything under a year is, as you note, problematic.
Bless airbnb for that, no idea how I would have managed when I was looking for apartments
How will this system work for those
- who do not have a smart phone,
- who do not have a smart phone with Biometric identity verification,
- who do not have a credit card to provide?
If I was landlord, I would definitely what to automate everything. But, this feels like it would exclude people who cannot fulfill all of the above.
If I was landlord, I would definitely what to automate everything. But, this feels like it would exclude people who cannot fulfill all of the above.
People like that are generally not going to be desirable tenants for landlords. And in a high cost city like NYC, they very likely wouldn't be able to pass the income and credit verification anyway.
Caretaker: The redfin of brokers. Take all the value for themselves freeze out the brokers (who provide a service but are universally disdained). Ride that wave of positive news for a couples years. Eventually everyone will hate the fraction of the market Caretaker has as they raise prices to make investors happy and people realize there are problems.
It's like the same idea of Uber and Lyft. Less human involvement = better world /S.
It's like the same idea of Uber and Lyft. Less human involvement = better world /S.
> It's like the same idea of Uber and Lyft. Less human involvement = better world /S.
It's interesting how everyone conveniently forgot about the medallion system Uber and Lyft disrupted.
Pre-Uber, either the driver rented the car to a middleman who rented the medallion from a rich owner, or said owner was selling and financing (most banks won't touch these medallions!) a medallion at a ridiculous interest rate to a driver that planned to use it as his retirement savings (an extremely volatile asset and not very liquid).
The more I spoke to cab drivers the more it seemed their industry was a pyramid scheme aimed at helping established rent-seeker take advantage of often poor new immigrants. Uber brought a breeze of fresh air: Someone could simply buy a car, calculate the depreciation and it's value on the market (since unlike medallions cars are relatively liquid assets!) do rideshare and calculate their profits or loss. They can get out of the game at anytime, and they know exactly how much they are going to get for the car they have should they sell it.
And I'm not even touching the usual pain points and often discriminatory practices of medallion drivers (refusing card payments, refusing rides to non-white passengers and to non-white neighborhoods...).
It's interesting how everyone conveniently forgot about the medallion system Uber and Lyft disrupted.
Pre-Uber, either the driver rented the car to a middleman who rented the medallion from a rich owner, or said owner was selling and financing (most banks won't touch these medallions!) a medallion at a ridiculous interest rate to a driver that planned to use it as his retirement savings (an extremely volatile asset and not very liquid).
The more I spoke to cab drivers the more it seemed their industry was a pyramid scheme aimed at helping established rent-seeker take advantage of often poor new immigrants. Uber brought a breeze of fresh air: Someone could simply buy a car, calculate the depreciation and it's value on the market (since unlike medallions cars are relatively liquid assets!) do rideshare and calculate their profits or loss. They can get out of the game at anytime, and they know exactly how much they are going to get for the car they have should they sell it.
And I'm not even touching the usual pain points and often discriminatory practices of medallion drivers (refusing card payments, refusing rides to non-white passengers and to non-white neighborhoods...).
Uber and Lyft are 100% a win though.
- It is now cheaper for the average person to get a ride to an airport/bar than it was before. It is safer, more predictable with timing, and more predictable with pricing.
- Uber drivers make more money today than taxi drivers used to/or do today. There are also way more job openings in this than there used to be, with less friction to get involved.
The world is not a zero sum game. Technology made this a win-win long-term although there were already some people caught in the middle with old business models. However, that really cant be a reason for us not to move on.
- It is now cheaper for the average person to get a ride to an airport/bar than it was before. It is safer, more predictable with timing, and more predictable with pricing.
- Uber drivers make more money today than taxi drivers used to/or do today. There are also way more job openings in this than there used to be, with less friction to get involved.
The world is not a zero sum game. Technology made this a win-win long-term although there were already some people caught in the middle with old business models. However, that really cant be a reason for us not to move on.
> It is now cheaper for the average person to get a ride to an airport/bar than it was before.
On average, in certain locations. In others, not so much. And let's not forget surge pricing. Or people living, or wanting to get to a place, along low-profit routes. Or people with disabilities.
> more predictable with pricing
Depends. Regular taxis tended to cost a bit more, but had much lower variance.
> Uber drivers make more money today than taxi drivers used to/or do today.
That seems implausible at best.
> There are also way more job openings in this than there used to be
These aren't jobs, though. They're gigs. And highly unpredictable ones, wrt. your take-home pay.
> The world is not a zero sum game. Technology made this a win-win long-term
Absolutely true.
The problem isn't technology, it's businesses - particularly businesses that purposefully play a negative-sum game, where the losing side is society at large. Externalizing risk, costs, performing regulatory arbitrage. Making owners much better off, customers a bit better off, at the cost of making everyone else slightly worse off. And much like with greenhouse emissions - a bit here, a bit there, barely measurable puff, up until it adds up to a global crisis - these companies are killing civilized society, one VC-subsidized shiny app at a time.
On average, in certain locations. In others, not so much. And let's not forget surge pricing. Or people living, or wanting to get to a place, along low-profit routes. Or people with disabilities.
> more predictable with pricing
Depends. Regular taxis tended to cost a bit more, but had much lower variance.
> Uber drivers make more money today than taxi drivers used to/or do today.
That seems implausible at best.
> There are also way more job openings in this than there used to be
These aren't jobs, though. They're gigs. And highly unpredictable ones, wrt. your take-home pay.
> The world is not a zero sum game. Technology made this a win-win long-term
Absolutely true.
The problem isn't technology, it's businesses - particularly businesses that purposefully play a negative-sum game, where the losing side is society at large. Externalizing risk, costs, performing regulatory arbitrage. Making owners much better off, customers a bit better off, at the cost of making everyone else slightly worse off. And much like with greenhouse emissions - a bit here, a bit there, barely measurable puff, up until it adds up to a global crisis - these companies are killing civilized society, one VC-subsidized shiny app at a time.
> On average, in certain locations. In others, not so much. And let's not forget surge pricing. Or people living, or wanting to get to a place, along low-profit routes. Or people with disabilities.
You can always take a regular cab. Low profit routes were pretty much impossible to get pre-Uber. I am almost certain that Uber is more likely to obey disability laws than "Joe's taxi" with a few cars.
> Depends. Regular taxis tended to cost a bit more, but had much lower variance.
My experience with cabs is calling a dispatcher while in route and getting a price. I was charged $30 for a two mile trip to the train station before. No reasoning. Also they were much less likely to pick up minority passengers, or people in poorer neighborhoods. Also "credit card machine was broken" very often. Also you don't know the route the driver will take. I guess my experience with cabs pre-Uber was different from yours, but it was incredibly high variance.
> That seems implausible at best.
Many places you had a gatekeeper. You can't just ride a taxi, and would have to purchase a medallion or sign on to an existing vendor where there's much less competition. They would also be much less flexible with hours
You can always take a regular cab. Low profit routes were pretty much impossible to get pre-Uber. I am almost certain that Uber is more likely to obey disability laws than "Joe's taxi" with a few cars.
> Depends. Regular taxis tended to cost a bit more, but had much lower variance.
My experience with cabs is calling a dispatcher while in route and getting a price. I was charged $30 for a two mile trip to the train station before. No reasoning. Also they were much less likely to pick up minority passengers, or people in poorer neighborhoods. Also "credit card machine was broken" very often. Also you don't know the route the driver will take. I guess my experience with cabs pre-Uber was different from yours, but it was incredibly high variance.
> That seems implausible at best.
Many places you had a gatekeeper. You can't just ride a taxi, and would have to purchase a medallion or sign on to an existing vendor where there's much less competition. They would also be much less flexible with hours
> I am almost certain that Uber is more likely to obey disability laws than "Joe's taxi" with a few cars.
Knowing the lawsuits from people who've been refused rides from a regular Uber because they have a service dog, or their wheelchair 'probably won't fit' (I think I can tell you whether the wheelchair I usually put in the trunk of a car is likely to fit in your trunk, thank you), I am not.
But there are also specific accessible taxis. How do I call an Uber that will take a powered wheelchair?
Knowing the lawsuits from people who've been refused rides from a regular Uber because they have a service dog, or their wheelchair 'probably won't fit' (I think I can tell you whether the wheelchair I usually put in the trunk of a car is likely to fit in your trunk, thank you), I am not.
But there are also specific accessible taxis. How do I call an Uber that will take a powered wheelchair?
UberWAV (wheelchair accessible vehicle) is a thing in “select markets”: https://www.uber.com/us/en/ride/uberwav/
No idea how it works in practice but it’s a thing in Toronto.
No idea how it works in practice but it’s a thing in Toronto.
Because people can actually sue Uber and they can get a lot of money and publicity. You can't sue Joe's taxi. I mean you could try, but I don't think people aren't suing because they are follow all applicable laws and regulations to a tee
You don’t have to sue Joe’s taxi, you complain to the regulators and they can lose their taxi license. Generally people aren’t suing because it’s expensive and a giant pain to do, which is why having a regulatory body that will handle this stuff is better for consumers than relying on court action.
> Low profit routes were pretty much impossible to get pre-Uber.
In cities, that's absurd - car services existed for decades serving just this part of the market, and they let you schedule in advance!
In the suburbs and exurbs, probably less so, but this is where everyone has a car as a prerequisite for living in a house with a multi-car garage.
In cities, that's absurd - car services existed for decades serving just this part of the market, and they let you schedule in advance!
In the suburbs and exurbs, probably less so, but this is where everyone has a car as a prerequisite for living in a house with a multi-car garage.
Something something rose-tinted glasses.
You could schedule in advance. Now having them actually show up? That was debatable. lol
You could schedule in advance. Now having them actually show up? That was debatable. lol
Hand to heart I’ve had more Ubers not show up (more than 5) than I did car services over several decades of NYC living. Worse they claimed I didn’t show up.
I would posit that New York city is probably the best example you could come up with in the United States. Pretty much everywhere else Uber is supreme
I don't live in New York City, but when I was there Uber was the absolute best option for our use case, because they were the only option that allowed us to ask for a toddler carseat as an extra. It was a game changer and preferred that over taxis and other car services.
The first Uber I ever ordered was after I had scheduled a car with one of these services and it didn't show up.
Since they aren't taxis, car services can charge enough there is no such thing as a low profit route for them.
In cities, there were were either no taxis around in certain neighborhoods, or they simply would not come at all even if you called and asked the taxi company and the dispatcher told you they had sent a driver. Both of these I experienced personally.
In cities, there were were either no taxis around in certain neighborhoods, or they simply would not come at all even if you called and asked the taxi company and the dispatcher told you they had sent a driver. Both of these I experienced personally.
> In the suburbs and exurbs, probably less so, but this is where everyone has a car as a prerequisite for living [...]
Sure but that doesn't work very well for when you want to spend the weekends drinking. The cities in the US that have grown the most over the last 10 or 20 years are still very much suburban and lack good public transportation. The lack of low cost and convenient transportation services quite literally resulted in fatal accidents.
Sure but that doesn't work very well for when you want to spend the weekends drinking. The cities in the US that have grown the most over the last 10 or 20 years are still very much suburban and lack good public transportation. The lack of low cost and convenient transportation services quite literally resulted in fatal accidents.
The purpose of the medallions, in theory, is to improve the chances that the average cab driver can make a living wage. Can the average Uber driver live a middle class income from this “gig”?
> When accounting for the ride-sharing company’s commissions and fees, vehicle expenses and a modest health insurance package, Uber drivers end up earning just $9.21 in hourly wages, according to a new study from the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning nonprofit think tank based in Washington, D.C.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-uber-driv...
> When accounting for the ride-sharing company’s commissions and fees, vehicle expenses and a modest health insurance package, Uber drivers end up earning just $9.21 in hourly wages, according to a new study from the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning nonprofit think tank based in Washington, D.C.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-uber-driv...
> The purpose of the medallions, in theory, is to improve the chances that the average cab driver can make a living wage
The problem with that is that there is a supply of cab drivers and demand for cabs that drives the price. If you put in a medallion system, the price of the medallion will be bid up such that the cab driver's wage is in line with the market wage. You can't just wave a magic wand and set prices without unintended consequences. So what happened was cab drivers had to take out massive debt to finance these medallions or work for some middle man that is essentially a financing arm. And when the price collapsed, they were stuck with this debt and some even got bailed out by taxpayers.
I wish Uber was around when I was younger. I had a car and a lot of spare time. I would have gladly accepted a low wage if I had a few hours to kill. No other job affords that flexibility which is probably why its so popular.
The problem with that is that there is a supply of cab drivers and demand for cabs that drives the price. If you put in a medallion system, the price of the medallion will be bid up such that the cab driver's wage is in line with the market wage. You can't just wave a magic wand and set prices without unintended consequences. So what happened was cab drivers had to take out massive debt to finance these medallions or work for some middle man that is essentially a financing arm. And when the price collapsed, they were stuck with this debt and some even got bailed out by taxpayers.
I wish Uber was around when I was younger. I had a car and a lot of spare time. I would have gladly accepted a low wage if I had a few hours to kill. No other job affords that flexibility which is probably why its so popular.
You can't instantly prevent all unintended consequences, but making it so you can't resell a medallion and you can't subcontract it (or harsh limits on subcontracting) would fix a lot of those issues.
the average cabby can't buy a medalion, he therefore has to pay a fee to someone who owns a car with a medalion to rent the car for a period of time (+ probably paying the owner a percentage of his take). As opposed to using his own car and keeping everything that uber lets him to keep which might be less than what the medalion owner would have taken. hence, increase in money into pocket for the uber/lyft driver.
with that said, this is all supposition, i just find it a reasonable argument.
with that said, this is all supposition, i just find it a reasonable argument.
I believe they could - and they took out quite horrifically large loans to do so.
It maybe made sense though, as your payment was your license to work, and selling the medalion on was your retirement plan. Uber screwed this up - but my feelings are mixed.
It maybe made sense though, as your payment was your license to work, and selling the medalion on was your retirement plan. Uber screwed this up - but my feelings are mixed.
The alternative to surge pricing before rideshare was pretty much just not being able to find a taxi, unless you happened to get extremely lucky. Have you ever tried to hail a cab in Manhattan right after it starts to rain?
I would love a carbon tax but if that existed I don't see how you can blame Uber for making society worse. In additions to all the economic gains you talk about it has saved thousands of lives a year due to less drunk driving. Additionally, it has enabled millions of people in cities to skip buying a new car/any car which saves tons of emissions.
More predictable as in you know the fair before you get in. I did have to take a taxi in Los Angeles from the airport earlier this year and the guy wouldn't tell me how much it would cost. Gave me a ballpark that was $22 less than what it ended up being.
More predictable as in you know the fair before you get in. I did have to take a taxi in Los Angeles from the airport earlier this year and the guy wouldn't tell me how much it would cost. Gave me a ballpark that was $22 less than what it ended up being.
> how you can blame Uber for making society worse
There's a long, long, long list of reasons Uber has screwed over great many people, and continues to. From regulatory arbitrage, duping drivers into unprofitable deals, lack of proper insurance, privacy violations, harassing journalists, harassing employees... This has been covered non-stop on HN for pretty much a decade now. I invite you to do some searching, and you'll quickly see how Uber is one of the most ethically challenged companies of the 21st century.
> More predictable as in you know the fair before you get in.
Yes. And by higher-variance I meant that you never know what fare you'll have to either accept, or abandon the trip. With traditional taxis, the prices are variable, but it's easier to ballpark them (at least traveling in the city you know), and they have much tighter range.
There's a long, long, long list of reasons Uber has screwed over great many people, and continues to. From regulatory arbitrage, duping drivers into unprofitable deals, lack of proper insurance, privacy violations, harassing journalists, harassing employees... This has been covered non-stop on HN for pretty much a decade now. I invite you to do some searching, and you'll quickly see how Uber is one of the most ethically challenged companies of the 21st century.
> More predictable as in you know the fair before you get in.
Yes. And by higher-variance I meant that you never know what fare you'll have to either accept, or abandon the trip. With traditional taxis, the prices are variable, but it's easier to ballpark them (at least traveling in the city you know), and they have much tighter range.
As crazy as early Uber was I still have trouble believing that taxi companies are more deserving or were better to their employees or less corrupt. There's no evidence.
I guess if you prefer being able to ballpark a taxi cost then that's cool! You can still use taxis. But most people prefer to see the price before they get in. Certainly the choice existing is better for the consumer and has helped keep taxi fares lower - even if you choose not to use an uber.
I guess if you prefer being able to ballpark a taxi cost then that's cool! You can still use taxis. But most people prefer to see the price before they get in. Certainly the choice existing is better for the consumer and has helped keep taxi fares lower - even if you choose not to use an uber.
early Uber wasn’t crazy, it was a blatant and malign attempt to use cheap capital to monopolize an existing sector. Uber is and was always about as close to evil as a company can be without selling opioids or nicotine.
I know me and you are not going to see eye-to-eye but I have trouble seeing how Ubers are more monopolistic than taxi companies which wanted a cap on the number of permitted taxi's per city - when they already had all the permits/medallions owned themselves.
Taxi companies (note the plural) were obviously not monopolies and the medallion systems generally required diversity of holders. That is not at all what Uber was up to. Uber was doing what used to be called dumping to destroy the incumbents.
Stop defending Uber. Even if you work for them it is incumbent on you as a citizen to be honest about what they were doing.
Stop defending Uber. Even if you work for them it is incumbent on you as a citizen to be honest about what they were doing.
> As crazy as early Uber was I still have trouble believing that taxi companies are more deserving or were better to their employees or less corrupt. There's no evidence.
Do you have any evidence, for any taxi network in any city on the planet, of that taxi network doing anything even remotely as illegal or antisocial as Uber has been (and still is) doing? Uber's transgressions are well documented, there is great many of them, and quite a few were done at scale.
For the "deserving" part - they were there. Good or bad, I don't think any business deserves being steamrolled by an aggressive foreign multinational corporation, with practically infinite budget to undercut competitors and keep law enforcement at bay. Local businesses don't get to break the law without impunity.
For being better to their employees, I honestly don't know. But in all the rides with traditional networks I took over two decades of my life, I don't remember any driver actually complaining about their job. Ironically, the drivers of Uber-like[0] services keep complaining all the time - mostly about constantly changing terms of contracts, and constantly testing new kinds of customer acquisition schemes, that tend to take away money from the drivers.
> But most people prefer to see the price before they get in.
I never said I didn't want it either. I like this feature - and guess what, I had that, way before Uber was a thing, thanks to a private company that fought for improvement in transport regulations. That's how I know sociopathy wasn't necessary to disrupting the taxi market.
--
[0] - I don't use Uber itself, it's a matter of principle.
Do you have any evidence, for any taxi network in any city on the planet, of that taxi network doing anything even remotely as illegal or antisocial as Uber has been (and still is) doing? Uber's transgressions are well documented, there is great many of them, and quite a few were done at scale.
For the "deserving" part - they were there. Good or bad, I don't think any business deserves being steamrolled by an aggressive foreign multinational corporation, with practically infinite budget to undercut competitors and keep law enforcement at bay. Local businesses don't get to break the law without impunity.
For being better to their employees, I honestly don't know. But in all the rides with traditional networks I took over two decades of my life, I don't remember any driver actually complaining about their job. Ironically, the drivers of Uber-like[0] services keep complaining all the time - mostly about constantly changing terms of contracts, and constantly testing new kinds of customer acquisition schemes, that tend to take away money from the drivers.
> But most people prefer to see the price before they get in.
I never said I didn't want it either. I like this feature - and guess what, I had that, way before Uber was a thing, thanks to a private company that fought for improvement in transport regulations. That's how I know sociopathy wasn't necessary to disrupting the taxi market.
--
[0] - I don't use Uber itself, it's a matter of principle.
> it has saved thousands of lives a year due to less drunk driving
According to Uber?
> Additionally, it has enabled millions of people in cities to skip buying a new car/any car which saves tons of emissions.
Citation needed. I believe the last analysis I read showed that most people used Uber etc to replace transit or walking, which means it adds to emissions.
I've used taxis in multiple cities that I booked through an app and got a fare ahead of time. At this point Uber is "a taxi, but with no guarantee of quality* and no cap on how many of them are creating traffic"
*GPS routing does no good when the driver clearly can't read a map and doesn't know where they are or how to follow directions.
According to Uber?
> Additionally, it has enabled millions of people in cities to skip buying a new car/any car which saves tons of emissions.
Citation needed. I believe the last analysis I read showed that most people used Uber etc to replace transit or walking, which means it adds to emissions.
I've used taxis in multiple cities that I booked through an app and got a fare ahead of time. At this point Uber is "a taxi, but with no guarantee of quality* and no cap on how many of them are creating traffic"
*GPS routing does no good when the driver clearly can't read a map and doesn't know where they are or how to follow directions.
Yeah I don’t understand the parent comment’s gushing take on Uber/Lyft. I consider them a net positive but they are hardly a 100% win. In my area prices shot up from what they were 1-2 years ago, and many drivers barely break even (if they do) once you take into account maintenance costs on the car they drive.
Do you think taxi drivers are making more money than uber drivers considering they:
- Taxi drivers (outside of NYC) in the US are going to get less rides per hour than uber drivers
- Taxi drivers traditionally have to give a larger share to the taxi company than uber drives give to Uber. If they are independent then they have identical car expenses as an uber driver.
I 100% believe that a lot of Uber drivers barely break even. I guess I'm fine with that - I bet if you try to do that 9-5 and can't do your own car maintenance you are going to be inefficient at it. I had a friend in Los Angeles who would only work nights, was fine working 2am, and could do basic tire/oil/car repair. He made 2x what he had been making as a busboy at a restaurant. I don't see why this is considered a bad option for people, especially since he enjoyed the flexibility.
- Taxi drivers (outside of NYC) in the US are going to get less rides per hour than uber drivers
- Taxi drivers traditionally have to give a larger share to the taxi company than uber drives give to Uber. If they are independent then they have identical car expenses as an uber driver.
I 100% believe that a lot of Uber drivers barely break even. I guess I'm fine with that - I bet if you try to do that 9-5 and can't do your own car maintenance you are going to be inefficient at it. I had a friend in Los Angeles who would only work nights, was fine working 2am, and could do basic tire/oil/car repair. He made 2x what he had been making as a busboy at a restaurant. I don't see why this is considered a bad option for people, especially since he enjoyed the flexibility.
He wore down his car and had to pay higher insurance. He ended up making slightly over 9 dollars an hour. Better than a busboy.. perhaps but at least after bus boying he will have a car that still works.
I can't claim to know all his finances - but his car was a 10 year old ford sedan that must have cost less than 9k when he started. Considering he did Uber for multiple years and the car is still his vehicle I'm pretty sure it is mathematically impossible that depreciation could make it a bad deal - or even close to a bad deal.
Taxis, lower variance? Where? Ever had a smelly driver, or one that smokes in the car? Drives like shit? Dirty seats? With the micro entrepreneur taxi apps, it basically never happens.
It is NOT cheaper in SF. 2 miles costs at least $20 and can be as high as $40. I don't think I've been anywhere in the world where prices are that high for taxis and there are plenty of places in the world where taxis are plentiful.
I'm happy the services exist but they are not cheap, at least not here.
I'm happy the services exist but they are not cheap, at least not here.
> It is NOT cheaper in SF. 2 miles costs at least $20 and can be as high as $40
Can confirm. Arrived at SFO late the other night (1130pm-ish) and Uber wanted $80 to take me from Passenger pickup, to my longterm parking lot which was probably 3 miles away.
I ended up taking a Taxi for $12 + tip.
Can confirm. Arrived at SFO late the other night (1130pm-ish) and Uber wanted $80 to take me from Passenger pickup, to my longterm parking lot which was probably 3 miles away.
I ended up taking a Taxi for $12 + tip.
I’ve never had a non-surge Uber/Lyft exceed the equivalent Flywheel/street-hail in SF.
I occasionally used to try these services (I have thousands of rides so this used to be relevant). Lyft/Uber are way better.
I occasionally used to try these services (I have thousands of rides so this used to be relevant). Lyft/Uber are way better.
[deleted]
It isn't the case they are more expensive than taxi's where I am. I take it now that isn't the case everywhere. And even in in the SF area I don't believe that taxi's would be cheaper if you lived slightly out of the core areas and had to call one to drive out to you.
I am also still extremely skeptical they contribute to higher prices though. If Uber and Lyft did not exist I believe (just a theory) that taxi prices would be much higher.
Perhaps someone who lives in a city where ubers are banned could state if taxi prices have grown over the years.
I am also still extremely skeptical they contribute to higher prices though. If Uber and Lyft did not exist I believe (just a theory) that taxi prices would be much higher.
Perhaps someone who lives in a city where ubers are banned could state if taxi prices have grown over the years.
Cab drivers had goals to own a medallion. That medallion value rose allowing someone to retire.
What we have is slightly higher pay until your car breaks. No retirement plan.
The drivers lose out.
The customer rides in someone's personal car pays a little less sometimes but a lot more (demand pricing) when they really need it.
Uber/Lift lose money on each ride but will rise prices as soon as they can once you have fewer choices.
Zero sum indeed..
What we have is slightly higher pay until your car breaks. No retirement plan.
The drivers lose out.
The customer rides in someone's personal car pays a little less sometimes but a lot more (demand pricing) when they really need it.
Uber/Lift lose money on each ride but will rise prices as soon as they can once you have fewer choices.
Zero sum indeed..
Basing your retirement plan around the continuing artificial scarcity of taxi medallions is not smart. The city has no obligation to keep the medallions scarce; their value can drop to zero overnight due to changing regulations (or a drop in demand for taxi services, e.g. because a better public transportation system was implemented) and they won't owe you a dime. You'd be far better off working with Uber instead and putting the money you saved by not needing to buy a medallion into a diversified retirement portfolio.
Medallions don't come out of thin air. It's the cities that provide them. The cities want this, because taxis are meant to be a component of the city transportation system. They're not there to compete with public transit, they're there to augment it - to service the needs that a bus or a train can't. A medallion comes with a requirement to fulfill those needs, as the city sees fit.
The relationship between public mass transit, and private taxis (and private mass transit) was cooperative. The relationship between city transportation systems and Uber is hostile.
The relationship between public mass transit, and private taxis (and private mass transit) was cooperative. The relationship between city transportation systems and Uber is hostile.
The cities don't provide medallions, they mandate them and limit the supply. The default state without the city's intervention (i.e. no medallions needed to operate a taxi) is equivalent to having a superabundance of medallions. As you say, they do this in order to bring taxis in line with their plans for city-wide public transportation. Which is not to say that they wouldn't discard the medallion system the moment something better came along to fulfill a similar role. The city has no particular interest in maintaining the market value of the medallions; they remain scarce only because the city prefers to limit the number of taxis on the roads, and as a concession to the taxi industry so that they will acquiesce to the city's rules with less of a fight. If demand for taxis drops below the number the city is willing to tolerate, for whatever reason, you shouldn't expect the city to prop up the value of the medallions just because you're counting on it as your retirement plan.
Few drivers owned a medallion. Mostly owned by large cops.
>>> Uber drivers make more money today than taxi drivers used to/or do today.
Hmmm, That must depend on the market as it's not necessarily the case based on discussions I had with both in Ottawa.
(note, when Uber first started, that was the perceived story - almost "free money!" for bored white collar workers with a car and few hours to spare here and there. I've had people in $50k, $60k cars drive me around, to "meet new people and have fun". However, once full-time professionals joined the ranks, and did math on maintenance and insurance and fuel etc, the story RAPIDLY changed).
Hmmm, That must depend on the market as it's not necessarily the case based on discussions I had with both in Ottawa.
(note, when Uber first started, that was the perceived story - almost "free money!" for bored white collar workers with a car and few hours to spare here and there. I've had people in $50k, $60k cars drive me around, to "meet new people and have fun". However, once full-time professionals joined the ranks, and did math on maintenance and insurance and fuel etc, the story RAPIDLY changed).
I guess I'm skeptical that taxi driver who takes on less rides is making more money after the cut they give to their company. Or, if you were starting an independent taxi service that you'd make more money taking your own calls and doing your own maintenance anyway.
I'm not surprised its gone down - probably a sign that it used to be very profitable even if not as much so now. I do know plenty of people that can repair cars themselves (one of whom has been uber driving foe years) so perhaps it will only work out for those people. Which seems like a 100% decent outcome.
I'm not surprised its gone down - probably a sign that it used to be very profitable even if not as much so now. I do know plenty of people that can repair cars themselves (one of whom has been uber driving foe years) so perhaps it will only work out for those people. Which seems like a 100% decent outcome.
>>I guess I'm skeptical that taxi driver who takes on less rides is making more money after the cut they give to their company.
There's an implicit assumption there that taxi driver gets less rides and I don't see why that is necessarily true.
More broadly, I think both Uber and Taxi drivers have significant distribution, and it appears there are both Uber & Taxi drivers who are better or worse at maximizing their rides and income. I've seen both drivers who just "do what app/dispatch tells them" (and are constantly complaining about their income level or nature of rides), and drivers who actively seek out timing, areas and locations that give good rides. This is not the same as parking in front of hotel and hoping for a long drive - it's a fairly active dynamic work.
Overall though, active engaged Taxi drivers seemed to find it a more predictable, profitable engagement that sufficed as main income for their family; whereas I have not gotten that sense from Uber drivers in the 12-18 months prior to Covid.
Of course, while I took taxi or uber twice a day for several years in Ottawa, this is still anecdata and limited sample - absolutely! But that's largely my point - we discuss Uber and Taxi as if the situation in London and San Francisco and New York and Ottawa and so on is the same - and it absolutely is not.
One thing that seems to often be missed in these discussions as well is edge cases; even if in a place Uber is a great alternative for 80-90% of folks, I find it is far less dependable if you're in a less active area, during less active time, and/or need Uber planned for a specific time.
There's an implicit assumption there that taxi driver gets less rides and I don't see why that is necessarily true.
More broadly, I think both Uber and Taxi drivers have significant distribution, and it appears there are both Uber & Taxi drivers who are better or worse at maximizing their rides and income. I've seen both drivers who just "do what app/dispatch tells them" (and are constantly complaining about their income level or nature of rides), and drivers who actively seek out timing, areas and locations that give good rides. This is not the same as parking in front of hotel and hoping for a long drive - it's a fairly active dynamic work.
Overall though, active engaged Taxi drivers seemed to find it a more predictable, profitable engagement that sufficed as main income for their family; whereas I have not gotten that sense from Uber drivers in the 12-18 months prior to Covid.
Of course, while I took taxi or uber twice a day for several years in Ottawa, this is still anecdata and limited sample - absolutely! But that's largely my point - we discuss Uber and Taxi as if the situation in London and San Francisco and New York and Ottawa and so on is the same - and it absolutely is not.
One thing that seems to often be missed in these discussions as well is edge cases; even if in a place Uber is a great alternative for 80-90% of folks, I find it is far less dependable if you're in a less active area, during less active time, and/or need Uber planned for a specific time.
Your first point was true, pre-pandemic. But is no longer true, at least not universally true. In some areas Uber and Lyft are now prohibitively expensive. What was once a $15 trip is now $40-50. You are better off going back to traditional taxi companies.
They have also become very unreliable, with no available drivers in some areas or 40+ minute wait times, and then the driver cancels. The majority of drivers switched to food delivery it seems. Pre-pandemic you could get a driver within 5 minutes no problem in some areas, and now may be waiting 30+ minutes.
I took a trip to Asheville and Uber/Lyft service was virtually non-existent, you had to rely on local cab companies to get around.
They have also become very unreliable, with no available drivers in some areas or 40+ minute wait times, and then the driver cancels. The majority of drivers switched to food delivery it seems. Pre-pandemic you could get a driver within 5 minutes no problem in some areas, and now may be waiting 30+ minutes.
I took a trip to Asheville and Uber/Lyft service was virtually non-existent, you had to rely on local cab companies to get around.
That’ll all fix itself pretty quickly once the federal unemployment benefits stop, other than prices being somewhat higher due to fuel costs.
Will Uber and Lift continue to be a win when the VCs start wanting to see some of their money back? Or will the prices start rising back to the old taxi rates, then past?
I'm confused by this comment. They both went public two years ago so VCs have all cashed out.
People don't understand the difference between VC backed startups and public companies backed by institutional and retail investors
We're talking about public companies. You can safely use the term investors, the term "VC" is irrelevant, except for drama.
Now that we're talking about public companies, there are a lot of them. Any concern about price gouging you might have should extend to all these companies.
If not, why not?
Now that we're talking about public companies, there are a lot of them. Any concern about price gouging you might have should extend to all these companies.
If not, why not?
Not sure if it's accurate, but the feeling is that recently, tech companies went public before being profitable or while barely being so. On top of that, their valuation is higher on a PE ratio basis than classical ones.
So it feels that they'll have to change something big to meet expected returns.
And the fear is that, as they succesfully managed to kill the incumbent, they are free to change the most obvious parameter, the pricing.
So it feels that they'll have to change something big to meet expected returns.
And the fear is that, as they succesfully managed to kill the incumbent, they are free to change the most obvious parameter, the pricing.
I've heard these arguments for years, depending on the company. How long do things have to go on, for people to stop believe that prices are going to massively rise?
I heard the same thing about amazon. That the inevitable huge price increases are coming. Hasn't happened yet.
I heard the same thing about amazon. That the inevitable huge price increases are coming. Hasn't happened yet.
> It is now cheaper for the average person to get a ride
Due to a decade of massive losses. This isn’t their real long term cost. It is a scam to make people think it’s cheaper and run normal taxis out of business
Due to a decade of massive losses. This isn’t their real long term cost. It is a scam to make people think it’s cheaper and run normal taxis out of business
Uber and Lyft haven't yet reached profitability. They either have to raise prices, lower costs or expand cost effectively.
Their full impact is not yet decided
Their full impact is not yet decided
An exercise in offloading car depreciation and maintenance onto unsuspecting low-paid workers.
Getting a ride _from_ the airport is 100% easier and more predictable by just hitting the taxi line. Ordering an Uber in a crowded place is so much less efficent.
Neither of these things is true in NYC: cabs charge a fixed rate to the area airports (Uber is at least twice that rate), and hack drivers have historically made reasonable money. Most of them have lost that stability, as well as (in some instances) their life savings due to the medallion crash.
Yes, the medallion crash.... because medallions were a political "tool" which controlled supply, making them artificially way more valuable than they otherwise should have been.
The medallions were an economic tool, instituted during the Great Depression, to regulate a spiraling industry. Whether or not they “should” be valuable is a nonsense framing: they were introduced to enforce scarcity, which makes them valuable. Neither of us has to like them to recognize their outsized value and function in the welfare of a large number of peoples’ lives.
But to the larger point: medallions made NYC yellowcabs more expensive than the market demands, and they’re still cheaper than ridesharing.
But to the larger point: medallions made NYC yellowcabs more expensive than the market demands, and they’re still cheaper than ridesharing.
Investing in medallions (as investing in anything) is a risk.
Cab drivers have lost job stability, but others have benefitted.
Cab drivers have lost job stability, but others have benefitted.
Sure. But this is a different claim from the OP’s. Nobody is entitled to returns on investments, but the claim that ridershare apps are either affordable or good for cabbies is farcical in NYC, at the minimum.
Drivers are often not medallion owner.
Have you noticed a trend in this thread where everything is way more expensive in cities like NYC and SF. I wonder why that could be? I just used Uber for a 35 minute trip to the Airport in San Diego and it was $30. Pretty damn cheap and the driver was amazing.
In most countries Uber has been a disaster for drivers, to the point of outllawing it.
I travel to India frequently. Before Uber (or their local variant, Ola) came along, getting a taxi was nearly impossible in middle-tier cities. The only option was an auto-rickshaw, whose drivers were notorious for gouging. And they formed a cartel: if you turned down one driver, the others would see that and refuse to give you a ride.
Uber was a god-send. You call up the driver, watch him approach on your phone, step out when he's there. Regardless of where you were, you could get a ride from there to wherever you were going. Rides for which auto-rickshaws used to charge upwards of Rs. 300 (~$4), can now be had for Rs 150 or less ( < $2 ).
Uber was a god-send. You call up the driver, watch him approach on your phone, step out when he's there. Regardless of where you were, you could get a ride from there to wherever you were going. Rides for which auto-rickshaws used to charge upwards of Rs. 300 (~$4), can now be had for Rs 150 or less ( < $2 ).
I agree it has probably been a disaster for existing taxi companies in every city. But only in the same way the internet has been a disaster for the phone book companies. Or that Netflix was bad for Blockbuster.
Just because some countries don't value competition - and prefer to cater to existing entrenched lobbying groups - is not compelling evidence to the average American that Uber is bad.
Just because some countries don't value competition - and prefer to cater to existing entrenched lobbying groups - is not compelling evidence to the average American that Uber is bad.
Regulations, guns, or both, define markets.
Technological progress disrupts markets.
The only thing that changes are the cast of winners and losers.
Society sometimes prefers the greater good (fairness) by reigning in the powerful.
Technological progress disrupts markets.
The only thing that changes are the cast of winners and losers.
Society sometimes prefers the greater good (fairness) by reigning in the powerful.
Maybe ask female employees of Uber if they agree with that
>"It is now cheaper for the average person to get a ride to an airport/bar than it was before. It is safer, more predictable with timing, and more predictable with pricing."
No it's no longer cheaper "to get a ride to an airport/bar than it was before." Especially if one considers "before" being before the pandemic. This increased price of Uber/Lyft has actually been quite a common news story of late[1][2][3]. Incidentally "why is uber so expensive right now 2021" on Google search has over 15 million results.
What evidence is there that an Uber is safer than a taxi? Also how can a model with surge pricing be more predictable than a taxi which has regulated rates per mile and per minute?
>"Uber drivers make more money today than taxi drivers used to/or do today. There are also way more job openings in this than there used to be, with less friction to get involved."
Do you have a citation for Uber drivers making more money than taxis drivers? What is the true earning per mile for an Uber/Lyft driver when you factor in auto insurance, maintenance, repairs and vehicle depreciation?
The "friction" to becoming a taxi driver is pretty minimal. One just needs obtain a hack license the requirements of which are pretty nominal.[4] Especially so if you don't already own a car. Uber/Lyft seem to be having great difficulty staffing up right now[5]. I'm not sure that would be the case if it really was such the great(100% win) opportunity you make it out to be.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/article/uber-lyft-surge.html
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/09/uber-ly...
[3] https://www.curbed.com/2021/06/uber-lyft-expensive-new-york-...
[4] https://nycitycab.com/HackLicense.aspx
[5] https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/7/22371850/uber-lyft-driver-...
No it's no longer cheaper "to get a ride to an airport/bar than it was before." Especially if one considers "before" being before the pandemic. This increased price of Uber/Lyft has actually been quite a common news story of late[1][2][3]. Incidentally "why is uber so expensive right now 2021" on Google search has over 15 million results.
What evidence is there that an Uber is safer than a taxi? Also how can a model with surge pricing be more predictable than a taxi which has regulated rates per mile and per minute?
>"Uber drivers make more money today than taxi drivers used to/or do today. There are also way more job openings in this than there used to be, with less friction to get involved."
Do you have a citation for Uber drivers making more money than taxis drivers? What is the true earning per mile for an Uber/Lyft driver when you factor in auto insurance, maintenance, repairs and vehicle depreciation?
The "friction" to becoming a taxi driver is pretty minimal. One just needs obtain a hack license the requirements of which are pretty nominal.[4] Especially so if you don't already own a car. Uber/Lyft seem to be having great difficulty staffing up right now[5]. I'm not sure that would be the case if it really was such the great(100% win) opportunity you make it out to be.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/article/uber-lyft-surge.html
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/06/09/uber-ly...
[3] https://www.curbed.com/2021/06/uber-lyft-expensive-new-york-...
[4] https://nycitycab.com/HackLicense.aspx
[5] https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/7/22371850/uber-lyft-driver-...
> - It is now cheaper for the average person to get a ride to an airport/bar than it was before. It is safer, more predictable with timing, and more predictable with pricing.
This is no longer true. In my town, now that the firehose of VC subsidies has dried up, Uber costs more than taking a cab, even without surge pricing.
This is no longer true. In my town, now that the firehose of VC subsidies has dried up, Uber costs more than taking a cab, even without surge pricing.
>- It is now cheaper for the average person to get a ride to an airport/bar than it was before.
Is it? Or are venture capitalists just footing the bill?
Whatever model of "price" you use needs to take into account the fact that not only are Uber and Lyft lighting enormous piles of Saudi money on fire to "gain marketshare" but that the actual drivers are being paid peanuts. This isn't pure win, it's more like Nestle handing out free baby formula in Africa to destroy the "domestic market" so to speak.
Is it? Or are venture capitalists just footing the bill?
Whatever model of "price" you use needs to take into account the fact that not only are Uber and Lyft lighting enormous piles of Saudi money on fire to "gain marketshare" but that the actual drivers are being paid peanuts. This isn't pure win, it's more like Nestle handing out free baby formula in Africa to destroy the "domestic market" so to speak.
What market did they destroy? The money went directly to US engineers and US drivers.
The US should be blessed that Saudi is so bad with its money and so willing to subsidize Americans.
It destroyed the money of people who had bought up medallions. That's it. Having medallions was not a long term solution when the city can now charge rideshare services for miles/minutes/rides on the road without any hard cap for politically connected incumbent players.
The US should be blessed that Saudi is so bad with its money and so willing to subsidize Americans.
It destroyed the money of people who had bought up medallions. That's it. Having medallions was not a long term solution when the city can now charge rideshare services for miles/minutes/rides on the road without any hard cap for politically connected incumbent players.
> What market did they destroy? The money went directly to US engineers and US drivers.
The financially-sustainable transportation market. Companies without endless amounts of capital that actually have to break even or make a profit to keep the lights on.
It's not just the medallions, they're literally selling the service itself at below-cost in many places and have been for years.
The financially-sustainable transportation market. Companies without endless amounts of capital that actually have to break even or make a profit to keep the lights on.
It's not just the medallions, they're literally selling the service itself at below-cost in many places and have been for years.
The US may not feel so blessed when the Saudis decide they want some of that money back.
I never understood why uber needs 2000+ engineers on staff.
Their client seems to work on almost any Android and iphone, including a web client, has possibly hundreds of screens, supports multiple languages, regions, currencies…
In order to pretend to be a tech company.
Same reason they pretended to work on flying taxis and self-driving cars. The multiple for high tech companies is greater than the multiple for taxi companies or even basic Web2.0-style one-trick app companies.
Same reason they pretended to work on flying taxis and self-driving cars. The multiple for high tech companies is greater than the multiple for taxi companies or even basic Web2.0-style one-trick app companies.
> are venture capitalists just footing the bill?
Since they're public, its any shareholder and the public market. But that also means they're probably not still raising rounds like they were.
Since they're public, its any shareholder and the public market. But that also means they're probably not still raising rounds like they were.
as a student in boston where brokers take 1 month rent for doing exactly *nothing*, i welcome the idea of automating away these leaches.
edit: fb marketplace might get the brokers first, most of my friends found their places via landlords posting there
edit: fb marketplace might get the brokers first, most of my friends found their places via landlords posting there
Brokers taking money from renters is ridiculous and should be done away with. Landlords hiring brokers to deal with vetting and showing an apartment and all those logistics seems pretty reasonable and up to the landlord if they feel it’s worth the value.
Spoiler: the landlord is just passing that cost to the tenant.
It's like in Canada where tenants can hire a broker for "free" to find a rental. However the broker just collects 1 month rent from the landlord. Do you think the landlord just absorbs the cost? No, the quoted rent was just 8.4% higher when the broker mentioned he was a broker.
It's like in Canada where tenants can hire a broker for "free" to find a rental. However the broker just collects 1 month rent from the landlord. Do you think the landlord just absorbs the cost? No, the quoted rent was just 8.4% higher when the broker mentioned he was a broker.
Landlords can't pass costs to tenants. The rental market is completely supply inelastic. Landlords are already charging the maximum renters are willing to pay.
Do you mean at this moment in time because of Covid, or in general?
Because in general, there have been easy-to-find examples in the past couple decades of rents going up 5-10% every year for folks in certain places with aggressive landlords. Were they willing to pay 5-10% more suddenly in year n+1, or were they charged less than the maximum they would've been willing to pay in year n?
Because in general, there have been easy-to-find examples in the past couple decades of rents going up 5-10% every year for folks in certain places with aggressive landlords. Were they willing to pay 5-10% more suddenly in year n+1, or were they charged less than the maximum they would've been willing to pay in year n?
Demand has been increasing by 5-10% a year in highly desirable areas. Obviously different people are willing to pay different amounts, but everyone wants to pay as little as possible. As more people want to move in the least wealthy are pushed out and prices increase. After all, rental price is the highest price landlords can take in order to rent out all their units.
Landlords derive their revenue from rent. That’s it. And they aren’t in the business of losing money. So one way or another it comes out of the renters pocket.
Its like when a broker sells a house and says the seller pays the fee. In reality the buyer is the only source of money in the deal so they are effectively paying the fee.
Its like when a broker sells a house and says the seller pays the fee. In reality the buyer is the only source of money in the deal so they are effectively paying the fee.
So the market clearing price is $1084 but the landlord rents it out for $1000? Why is he leaving the other $84 on the table when dealing with non-broker applicants?
I think brokers are still in the property game because landlords typically aren't sufficiently informed to know that they can avoid paying a broker, or can shop around for a cheaper one.
Brokers have done a good job of telling landlords that if they don't use a broker, or use a cheap one, that they'll get bad tenants and that'll cost them a lot in the long term. Good broker = good tenants = worth getting 8.4% less, because you'll lose more than 8.4% when a bad tenant burns the place down....
I'm unconvinced that the above is true, but it's certainly the message brokers (fairly successfully) give landlords.
Brokers have done a good job of telling landlords that if they don't use a broker, or use a cheap one, that they'll get bad tenants and that'll cost them a lot in the long term. Good broker = good tenants = worth getting 8.4% less, because you'll lose more than 8.4% when a bad tenant burns the place down....
I'm unconvinced that the above is true, but it's certainly the message brokers (fairly successfully) give landlords.
Yes, but the landlord can find cheaper brokers, or do it themselves to save money. There's now an efficient market.
When the burden is paid by the renter, there's no efficient market because renter has no choice in the broker and the owner doesn't care.
When the burden is paid by the renter, there's no efficient market because renter has no choice in the broker and the owner doesn't care.
Either way the renter is paying the cost and the landlord is losing a chunk of the spread.
It’s no different than the ridiculous notion that “the seller pays broker’s commission”. It’s baked into the price and the buyer is still paying it, otherwise a home would cost X% less.
It’s no different than the ridiculous notion that “the seller pays broker’s commission”. It’s baked into the price and the buyer is still paying it, otherwise a home would cost X% less.
EXACTLY! How is this lost on so many people? The buyer is the only source of funds, so any cash paid to the broker effectively came from the buyer.
The National Association of Realtors is a huge political lobby that works to perpetuate the racket.
Compass started as Urban Compass and wanted to distrupt the racket! But eventually decide to join in on it and become a VC backed brokerage with better “technology”.
No one has yet been able to educate consumers on the insane mismatch between value and price among RE brokers.
The National Association of Realtors is a huge political lobby that works to perpetuate the racket.
Compass started as Urban Compass and wanted to distrupt the racket! But eventually decide to join in on it and become a VC backed brokerage with better “technology”.
No one has yet been able to educate consumers on the insane mismatch between value and price among RE brokers.
is the cost passed on to the renter? yes.
is it still better to do that? yes. Because i can now compare the cost of rental, fees included on a comparison site, instead of looking at the place i want and finding it out it has a hidden charge.
this is why they changed the law in the uk so the landlord has to pick, becasue it means they will be incentivised to put it into the rent, and this way its STILL better for the renter because now they are able to compare the full costs.
is it still better to do that? yes. Because i can now compare the cost of rental, fees included on a comparison site, instead of looking at the place i want and finding it out it has a hidden charge.
this is why they changed the law in the uk so the landlord has to pick, becasue it means they will be incentivised to put it into the rent, and this way its STILL better for the renter because now they are able to compare the full costs.
It is interesting. One important difference is if the broker knows they have to pay the broker they are probably more likely to due their best to keep a tenant if they have to deal with it. The landlord also wants to make as much money while having a marketable rent - so its not like they don't care if they have to raise rent to cover expenses.
I still think having this on a platform where a company is making a flat $250 fee (or whatever) is extremely scalable for the company and would benefit both the landlord and tenants.
I still think having this on a platform where a company is making a flat $250 fee (or whatever) is extremely scalable for the company and would benefit both the landlord and tenants.
Brokers are always taking away money from renters, in one way or another.
In other cities property managers do the same thing, but they skim off the top of the rent checks and provide more services.
But really all the middlemen in housing are awful.
In other cities property managers do the same thing, but they skim off the top of the rent checks and provide more services.
But really all the middlemen in housing are awful.
Depending on cost, broker might not be bad deal. If the general administrative maters are taken care of, that is showing the property and having good contract template and sorting signatures and so on.
Yeah, as a fellow Boston renter, facebook and craigslist are the way to go. Still no human required, no fees, good response rate.
> as a student in boston where brokers take 1 month rent for doing exactly nothing
At least in California, the broker’s fee is an expense of the landlord that is not directly passed on to the tenant moving in. If the cost is passed on, it’s hidden in the cost of rent.
Also, the landlord can claw back part of the fee if the tenant moves out before one year. So, it makes more sense as a landlord expense.
At least in California, the broker’s fee is an expense of the landlord that is not directly passed on to the tenant moving in. If the cost is passed on, it’s hidden in the cost of rent.
Also, the landlord can claw back part of the fee if the tenant moves out before one year. So, it makes more sense as a landlord expense.
Advertising platforms love middlemen beause they feed each other.
Both are parasitic entities that cause more harm to end users than benefits. The problem is that they control the information flow and supported by governments, hence we cannot eliminate them completely but can try to keep them at the bay using technology we can control
Both are parasitic entities that cause more harm to end users than benefits. The problem is that they control the information flow and supported by governments, hence we cannot eliminate them completely but can try to keep them at the bay using technology we can control
boringg(3)
> It's like the same idea of Uber and Lyft. Less human involvement = better world /S.
It's very easy and edgy to disdain the importance and positive impact of Uber and Lyft, but the truth of the matter is that the ride share revolution already introduced collosal improvements in quality of service in entrenched markets such as the old taxicab services.
I recall a time where unscrupulous taxicab services fraudulently inflated prices and made up twist-and-turn paths to fleece customers, and we're free to act as organized crime.
With rideshare services, you get routes and estimates generated a priori and in a deterministic way, and more importantly through a really auditable service. With rideshare services, a nasty driver is no longer totally shielded from criticism or consequences. With rideshare services, quality of service became something that was important to drivers.
And we have to than the Ubers ad Lyfts of the world for that.
It's very easy and edgy to disdain the importance and positive impact of Uber and Lyft, but the truth of the matter is that the ride share revolution already introduced collosal improvements in quality of service in entrenched markets such as the old taxicab services.
I recall a time where unscrupulous taxicab services fraudulently inflated prices and made up twist-and-turn paths to fleece customers, and we're free to act as organized crime.
With rideshare services, you get routes and estimates generated a priori and in a deterministic way, and more importantly through a really auditable service. With rideshare services, a nasty driver is no longer totally shielded from criticism or consequences. With rideshare services, quality of service became something that was important to drivers.
And we have to than the Ubers ad Lyfts of the world for that.
If they bring permanent change to the market and lead to the elimination of rental brokers entirely, I don't care what replaces it.
>I don't care what replaces it
What if the replacement is worse?
What if the replacement is worse?
Such a system is not possible.
I can't imagine it happening either, but I also:
1. Don't like tempting fate.
2. Am very aware of the limits of my imagination. 15 years ago, I probably wouldn't have been able to predict Facebook having the sorts of downsides that are now glaring.
1. Don't like tempting fate.
2. Am very aware of the limits of my imagination. 15 years ago, I probably wouldn't have been able to predict Facebook having the sorts of downsides that are now glaring.
Things can always get worse.
Consider what would happen if brokers disappear and your application is rejected by an AI from a company that most landlords use.
Consider what would happen if brokers disappear and your application is rejected by an AI from a company that most landlords use.
This is already the system. Brokers have no impact on the application process. It's all credit checks, which is basically the same thing as "AI from a company".
Shouldn't you always care what replaces it?
There are some very different dynamics though - for one, the path to profitability is a little easier and price probably won't ever need to be near where it is with brokers. Uber never actually removed the humans, but seems like they already got there with this.
Also, not likely to change the landscape in the way Uber did, the scale is so much smaller and no one is getting fooled into some gig economy loophole that exploits workers.
Will probably end up with its own problems, but can't think it's worse than some brokers having to find another job/get creative.
Also, not likely to change the landscape in the way Uber did, the scale is so much smaller and no one is getting fooled into some gig economy loophole that exploits workers.
Will probably end up with its own problems, but can't think it's worse than some brokers having to find another job/get creative.
Uber forced the taxi game to change where no regulations could due to lobbying.
Stop letting perfect be the enemy of good.
Unrelated as I'm not saying anything is perfect or aspiring to that - I'm just showing the pattern of how the business operates.
Sure, but it seems that in the short term at least this company is improving the rental market. Should we really critize them on hypothetical future behaviour when the current behaviour is a benefit?
And as for Uber/Lyft, there's no doubt that they provide a much improved experience for the consumer.
And as for Uber/Lyft, there's no doubt that they provide a much improved experience for the consumer.
Brokers don't exist in most cities and it works just fine.
Maybe there is value, but not 10-15%.
Maybe Caretaker isn't the perfect solution either ... but brokers definitely are not.
It's definitely an activity that should be disrupted.
Maybe there is value, but not 10-15%.
Maybe Caretaker isn't the perfect solution either ... but brokers definitely are not.
It's definitely an activity that should be disrupted.
Please, humans are overrated. They lie, they cheat, they conceal and they are certainly biased. In my city an unmarried couple or people of certain religions are not allowed to rent some places
On the other hand, technology is full of bugs and idiotic assumptions, from which it can't recover - it's also strongly biased towards the one controlling it. And it can also lie, cheat and conceal things, and there's exactly shit you can do about it.
The older I get, the more I prefer dealing with flesh-and-blood people rather than self-service solutions. Life is too short for dealing with systems that go out of your way to railroad you into a bad deal.
The older I get, the more I prefer dealing with flesh-and-blood people rather than self-service solutions. Life is too short for dealing with systems that go out of your way to railroad you into a bad deal.
> Less human involvement = better world /S
...why sarcasm?
The entire premise of technological and economic progress is outsourcing repetitive mind-numbing tasks (whether farming or showing apartments) to automation.
You're just describing regular old beneficial economic progress -- the reason why we're not all still farmers.
And if Caretaker becomes a massive success, then competitors will appear, which is the basic economic force that prevents prices from rising too far. All of which would be wonderful.
...why sarcasm?
The entire premise of technological and economic progress is outsourcing repetitive mind-numbing tasks (whether farming or showing apartments) to automation.
You're just describing regular old beneficial economic progress -- the reason why we're not all still farmers.
And if Caretaker becomes a massive success, then competitors will appear, which is the basic economic force that prevents prices from rising too far. All of which would be wonderful.
If they still end up charging 15% for doing the same thing automated there hasn't been any meaningful economic progress. There's just concentration of wealth.
If they can cut that 15% to 1% and this field ends up being competitive then sure.
But, they're probably going for a monopoly play here.
If they can cut that 15% to 1% and this field ends up being competitive then sure.
But, they're probably going for a monopoly play here.
It doesn't matter if they're trying to go for a monopoly play here. Competitors would arise and there wouldn't be any inherent monopoly dynamics left.
So of course the percentage will be cut. That's how competition works.
So of course the percentage will be cut. That's how competition works.
Have you seen the fees airbnb charges?
It's a two-sided market, it's gonna be winner-takes-all.
You mean the way Lyft went out of business because Uber took it all, and then Uber raised their prices 5x?
No, the way it will happen when Uber, Lyft and their other rideshare competitors run out of investor money and become forced to actually turn a profit.
Still, Uber is not sticky. Drivers aren't forced to use it exclusively (fun things would happen if they tried to pull it off, something something employees). Brokerage websites most likely will demand you don't post your apartment on multiple sites. This will encourage concentration.
Still, Uber is not sticky. Drivers aren't forced to use it exclusively (fun things would happen if they tried to pull it off, something something employees). Brokerage websites most likely will demand you don't post your apartment on multiple sites. This will encourage concentration.
It doesn't matter if a brokerage website is exclusive. Healthy competition between, say, 3 main ones means people looking for apartments will check those 3.
Kind of like people looking for used textbooks will check eBay, Alibris, and Chegg.
Of course there will be concentration, that doesn't mean it's going to be a monopoly. It's just going to be the usual 2 main competing companies with a 3rd slightly-different company -- your Coke, Pepsi and RC, or your AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile. It's the usual market pattern.
Kind of like people looking for used textbooks will check eBay, Alibris, and Chegg.
Of course there will be concentration, that doesn't mean it's going to be a monopoly. It's just going to be the usual 2 main competing companies with a 3rd slightly-different company -- your Coke, Pepsi and RC, or your AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile. It's the usual market pattern.
Lyft and Uber have already dialed down their competition with each other in many locations and raised prices. If theyre smart theyre probably already hammering out an (illegal) agreement of some kind and figuring out ways to disguise the price rise as a natural side effect of something innocuous.
Did you really think investors were willing to sustain a 12 billion dollar loss for a shot at a 1% margin?
Did you really think investors were willing to sustain a 12 billion dollar loss for a shot at a 1% margin?
> Lyft and Uber have already dialed down their competition with each other
Citation needed. They've raised prices in order to be sustainable, but you're going to need to show some kind of actual evidence of collusion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We can't just assume conspiracy theories between publicly traded companies here.
And who's talking about 1% margins? You're making that up. Healthy competition usually results in something like 10% margins. You don't need illegal agreements to get that.
Citation needed. They've raised prices in order to be sustainable, but you're going to need to show some kind of actual evidence of collusion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We can't just assume conspiracy theories between publicly traded companies here.
And who's talking about 1% margins? You're making that up. Healthy competition usually results in something like 10% margins. You don't need illegal agreements to get that.
shrug they made losses of 15 billion dollars and all that would be required to stem future losses in what has become a stable duopoly is one conversation.
I tend to assume the path of least resistance.
I tend to assume the path of least resistance.
The path of least resistance is not going to prison.
You realize that in publicly traded corporations decisions are made by whole teams of people? And that people talk? Word gets out, company gets fined more than they made, executives go to prison. The US actually prosecutes this stuff, the same way they vigorously prosecute insider trading.
A couple of neighboring grocery stores can realistically collude to raise prices. Multinational public corporations, not so much.
You realize that in publicly traded corporations decisions are made by whole teams of people? And that people talk? Word gets out, company gets fined more than they made, executives go to prison. The US actually prosecutes this stuff, the same way they vigorously prosecute insider trading.
A couple of neighboring grocery stores can realistically collude to raise prices. Multinational public corporations, not so much.
It may be illegal but it's hard to prove collusion.
It certainly doesnt require whole teams of people. It requires a few senior managers to be in on it.
The just world hypothesis is a powerful thing.
It certainly doesnt require whole teams of people. It requires a few senior managers to be in on it.
The just world hypothesis is a powerful thing.
You don't need to lecture me about the just world hypothesis, I'm well aware of it thanks. The insult isn't appreciated.
You should realize that at a purely practical level collusion is far more difficult to achieve than you seem to think.
A few senior managers are going to do something super-risky without the knowledge of general counsel, the board, etc.? Something that can get them sent to prison? So their stock options go up a little bit? While 99% of the benefit goes to remaining investors? At the risk of being caught and the entire company being fined, to the detriment of all remaining investors as well?
Not to mention the senior managers need to justify to C-suite, board, etc. what their strategy is, and why raising prices won't result in the competition eating their lunch. And the C-suite and board aren't dumb.
On top of this, collusion can result in defectors as well -- company A raises prices, company B promised they would but doesn't (or lowers them again later) -- and then what?
It's not so easy. Collusion is unstable, risky in multiple ways, and difficult. I'm not saying that it never happens, but regarding large publicly traded companies, it's by far the exception, not the rule.
None of this has to do with what we wish the world was like. It's just basic incentives and coordination. But sure, have fun with your conspiracy theories.
You should realize that at a purely practical level collusion is far more difficult to achieve than you seem to think.
A few senior managers are going to do something super-risky without the knowledge of general counsel, the board, etc.? Something that can get them sent to prison? So their stock options go up a little bit? While 99% of the benefit goes to remaining investors? At the risk of being caught and the entire company being fined, to the detriment of all remaining investors as well?
Not to mention the senior managers need to justify to C-suite, board, etc. what their strategy is, and why raising prices won't result in the competition eating their lunch. And the C-suite and board aren't dumb.
On top of this, collusion can result in defectors as well -- company A raises prices, company B promised they would but doesn't (or lowers them again later) -- and then what?
It's not so easy. Collusion is unstable, risky in multiple ways, and difficult. I'm not saying that it never happens, but regarding large publicly traded companies, it's by far the exception, not the rule.
None of this has to do with what we wish the world was like. It's just basic incentives and coordination. But sure, have fun with your conspiracy theories.
> A couple of neighboring grocery stores can realistically collude to raise prices. Multinational public corporations, not so much.
Sure they can, someone on HN described the algorithm once:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22798808
Sure they can, someone on HN described the algorithm once:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22798808
Good. Freezing out useless middleman occupations is a net positive for humanity.
The difference is that cab drivers provide a real and valuable service, whereas real estate agents are a glorified key safe.
The difference is that cab drivers provide a real and valuable service, whereas real estate agents are a glorified key safe.
Brokers provide a service that people in most cities happily do themselves for free, and take an extortionate cut. Someone is coming in and doing it better. Why should I be sad?
I can confirm that taking an Uber from NYC to NJ is much cheaper than a yellow cab used to be.
Uber and Lyft are great as long as we don’t think about the drivers they’re exploiting.
Uber and Lyft are great as long as we don’t think about the drivers they’re exploiting.
Oh, Redfin eliminated brokers?
Thank you for putting me out of work!
It's amazing to me that 90% of UK estate agents aren't gone in favour of websites. They've held out much longer than I expected.
I just suggested this to my broker in Toronto yesterday. And he wants to do a startup with me on this.
[deleted]
It's getting to be that you almost can't engage in any everyday transaction in the US over $1000 that doesn't involve showing an online-verified ID.
Someone who wishes to keep their driver's license out of S3 is getting pretty short on options.
Someone who wishes to keep their driver's license out of S3 is getting pretty short on options.
[deleted]
Using a broker to find an apartment to rent is a very alien thought to me but I guess I've only ever really rented in big apartment complexes. I would normally just browse the area I wanted to live in on Google/Bing maps, find a few places that looked interesting, see floorplans on their websites. Take the top few of those and spend a Saturday driving to each of those to check them out. I guess if I was trying to find a place with a lot of independently owned apartment units you'd need a broker to find stuff, but really it seems like something that doesn't need a broker getting paid several hundred dollars for an evening and a day of inconvenience of shopping around. I mean, you're probably going to spend that Saturday viewing the apartments anyways, now you just have someone you're paying to join you.
Lease contracts in my state are pretty much entirely standardized. Pretty much every place uses the same lease that has a bunch of fill in the blanks for amounts, unit numbers, etc. There's not a lot of additional forms to be filed. When I bought a house I was happy to have a real estate agent with me as there were a lot of forms, several different 3rd parties to deal with, much more risk, and the whole process was a lot longer. Plus you pretty much need an agent to get in to the more accurate MLS listings. There would be so many homes still listed as for sale on sites like Zillow and others that were already sold while the MLS listings were usually up to date within several hours.
Lease contracts in my state are pretty much entirely standardized. Pretty much every place uses the same lease that has a bunch of fill in the blanks for amounts, unit numbers, etc. There's not a lot of additional forms to be filed. When I bought a house I was happy to have a real estate agent with me as there were a lot of forms, several different 3rd parties to deal with, much more risk, and the whole process was a lot longer. Plus you pretty much need an agent to get in to the more accurate MLS listings. There would be so many homes still listed as for sale on sites like Zillow and others that were already sold while the MLS listings were usually up to date within several hours.
Brokers are typically hired by the landlord to find a tenant and not a tenant to find an apartment. The big apartment complexes with a company ownership rather than individual typically hires brokers too, but probably they have enough apartments to just have in-house ones and pay them themselves.
But at least in NYC those big apartment complexes are typically only at the higher end of the spectrum. You'll be using a website like StreetEasy to find listings online which often don't have the best pictures, floor plans and you will have to schedule an appointment with one such broker for a time that works best for both of you. These days its less common but pre-pandemic it was not uncommon for a tenant to have to pay 1 month rent as broker fees.
But at least in NYC those big apartment complexes are typically only at the higher end of the spectrum. You'll be using a website like StreetEasy to find listings online which often don't have the best pictures, floor plans and you will have to schedule an appointment with one such broker for a time that works best for both of you. These days its less common but pre-pandemic it was not uncommon for a tenant to have to pay 1 month rent as broker fees.
"The rent of the land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give. "
"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce."
"[the landlord leaves the worker] with the smallest share with which the tenant can content himself without being a loser, and the landlord seldom means to leave him any more."
"The landlord demands a rent even for unimproved land, and the supposed interest or profit upon the expense of improvement is generally an addition to this original rent. Those improvements, besides, are not always made by the stock of the landlord, but sometimes by that of the tenant. When the lease comes to be renewed, however, the landlord commonly demands the same augmentation of rent as if they had been all made by his own. "
"RENT, considered as the price paid for the use of land, is naturally the highest which the tenant can afford to pay in the actual circumstances. In adjusting the lease, the landlord endeavours to leave him no greater share of the produce than what is sufficient to keep up the stock"
"[Landlords] are the only one of the three orders whose revenue costs them neither labour nor care, but comes to them, as it were, of its own accord, and independent of any plan or project of their own. That indolence, which is the natural effect of the ease and security of their situation, renders them too often, not only ignorant, but incapable of that application of mind"
These are good points for original meaning of 'landlords', i.e. ones who lease land (fixed-amount natural resource), but does not make sense for landlords that lease houses or apartments (capital product).
I recently moved house.
I was previously living with my friend, and we had an agreement I pay sometime before the end of the month. He gave me a contract and said you'll need this, just because when you go to the next place they will ask you for your previous contract. He found it online, it was boiler plate and we agreed verbally I pay him whenever during the month. We we're really good friends, and I lived there for 3 years without a single issue.
Then when I tried to rent a new place, the agent asked for lots of details, that we're then passed on to a referencing agency. I gave them all they needed. I have a maxed out credit rating on the 2 providers I can easily check in the UK. My salary was 4x the yearly rent. And the referencing company failed me.
They failed me because I didn't always pay the rent on the 20th of the month. Now granted - that is what my contract said, but it wasn't the reality of the situation.
Of course the referencing company never asked me about this and just stamped RISK on my profile. They said they couldn't override the software - which I don't believe at all.
Luckily my agent was able to call the new landlord, we all got on a call, my agent, my friend, me and the landlord.
The landlord laughed on the call and said how stupid that was, and approved my application. The call lasted 1 minute and 28 seconds.
I have a deep knot in my stomach about where all this software takes us. In the pursuit of scale, we lose all sense of nuance and humanity. I was lucky in my case, but I know others aren't. It's going to cost us dearly.
I was previously living with my friend, and we had an agreement I pay sometime before the end of the month. He gave me a contract and said you'll need this, just because when you go to the next place they will ask you for your previous contract. He found it online, it was boiler plate and we agreed verbally I pay him whenever during the month. We we're really good friends, and I lived there for 3 years without a single issue.
Then when I tried to rent a new place, the agent asked for lots of details, that we're then passed on to a referencing agency. I gave them all they needed. I have a maxed out credit rating on the 2 providers I can easily check in the UK. My salary was 4x the yearly rent. And the referencing company failed me.
They failed me because I didn't always pay the rent on the 20th of the month. Now granted - that is what my contract said, but it wasn't the reality of the situation.
Of course the referencing company never asked me about this and just stamped RISK on my profile. They said they couldn't override the software - which I don't believe at all.
Luckily my agent was able to call the new landlord, we all got on a call, my agent, my friend, me and the landlord.
The landlord laughed on the call and said how stupid that was, and approved my application. The call lasted 1 minute and 28 seconds.
I have a deep knot in my stomach about where all this software takes us. In the pursuit of scale, we lose all sense of nuance and humanity. I was lucky in my case, but I know others aren't. It's going to cost us dearly.
> They said they couldn't override the software - which I don't believe at all.
This is why I'm worried by - no, I hate - the automation of bureaucracy, governmental and business alike. Software is giving bureaucrats the perfect escape hatch. "I'm sorry, but The System won't let me".
The System won't let a low-level clerk fix the mistake some algorithm made. You escalate to the manager, but The System won't let them do it either. If you're lucky, maybe they'll try to escalate to the main office on the other side of the country, someone there may or may not be able to fix the issue. If you're lucky. If you're not, the manager has a perfect, non-offensive way to refuse: "I'm sorry, The System won't let me".
Here on HN, we all know how The System works. A bunch of half-assed business logic, wrapped in a bloated webapp, developed by some outsourced team of code monkeys, who on their good day mostly care about playing with the newest JavaScript fad, inflicting yet another round of suffering on thousands of employees and millions of customers. One of those broken business rules blows a fuse, your debit card gets locked out, and there's nobody within 200 kilometers of you with the access rights to clear a flag. And no, the devs who maintain The System don't have them either; they're just monkeys in the outsourcing firm that was the best at underbidding on the tender.
(I'm totally not talking about my wife's bank, that managed to spontaneously block her card and on-line banking just before weekend, and took a lot of fighting to undo its own mistake.)
> Luckily my agent was able to call the new landlord, we all got on a call, my agent, my friend, me and the landlord.
That's why we need to have people in the loop. Empowered people. To fix the mistakes, file down the corner cases.
Automation of corporate bureaucracy is trying to fit everyone into well-defined and heavily optimized flows, whether it makes sense or not. If you fall off the assembly line, the gears will crush you.
This is why I'm worried by - no, I hate - the automation of bureaucracy, governmental and business alike. Software is giving bureaucrats the perfect escape hatch. "I'm sorry, but The System won't let me".
The System won't let a low-level clerk fix the mistake some algorithm made. You escalate to the manager, but The System won't let them do it either. If you're lucky, maybe they'll try to escalate to the main office on the other side of the country, someone there may or may not be able to fix the issue. If you're lucky. If you're not, the manager has a perfect, non-offensive way to refuse: "I'm sorry, The System won't let me".
Here on HN, we all know how The System works. A bunch of half-assed business logic, wrapped in a bloated webapp, developed by some outsourced team of code monkeys, who on their good day mostly care about playing with the newest JavaScript fad, inflicting yet another round of suffering on thousands of employees and millions of customers. One of those broken business rules blows a fuse, your debit card gets locked out, and there's nobody within 200 kilometers of you with the access rights to clear a flag. And no, the devs who maintain The System don't have them either; they're just monkeys in the outsourcing firm that was the best at underbidding on the tender.
(I'm totally not talking about my wife's bank, that managed to spontaneously block her card and on-line banking just before weekend, and took a lot of fighting to undo its own mistake.)
> Luckily my agent was able to call the new landlord, we all got on a call, my agent, my friend, me and the landlord.
That's why we need to have people in the loop. Empowered people. To fix the mistakes, file down the corner cases.
Automation of corporate bureaucracy is trying to fit everyone into well-defined and heavily optimized flows, whether it makes sense or not. If you fall off the assembly line, the gears will crush you.
Computer says no: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n_Ty_72Qds
[deleted]
can I tell you something crazy about that.
We know that joke is from little Britain , because you tube gives us the video. But the joke was actually in a different show first, i think it was called 'people like us' and the scene was in a real estate agent
>Software is giving bureaucrats the perfect escape hatch. "I'm sorry, but The System won't let me".
Kafka would be proud. Or horrified. One of the two.
Kafka would be proud. Or horrified. One of the two.
You can always override the system somewhere, but nobody gets fired for doing the System.
> Software is giving bureaucrats the perfect escape hatch. "I'm sorry, but The System won't let me".
In the parent story, its in everyone's interest that the person was able to sign the agreement. Saying "the system won't let me" to screw him over makes no sense. There will always be overrides or discretion involved.
If anything an automated system would help people from getting screwed over. If you check all the system's boxes and someone still doesn't want to rent to you, maybe he's being biased based on a protected class. Without automation, someone can just make something up or just keep you in limbo or sit on your application
In the parent story, its in everyone's interest that the person was able to sign the agreement. Saying "the system won't let me" to screw him over makes no sense. There will always be overrides or discretion involved.
If anything an automated system would help people from getting screwed over. If you check all the system's boxes and someone still doesn't want to rent to you, maybe he's being biased based on a protected class. Without automation, someone can just make something up or just keep you in limbo or sit on your application
(Caretaker cofounder.)
I've been rejected/failed/banned by an emotionless machine a handful of times, and I don't know that anything else has made me feel quite so hopeless. I like to think a similar knot in my stomach keeps me honest.
Thankfully, one of our fundamental incentives as a property management business is to get more quality tenants approved for more apartments. If there are high quality renters qualified to sign a lease and fill a vacancy, mistakenly rejecting them directly impacts a landlord's bottom line. So we're motivated beyond altruism to get this right, which is important.
Along these lines (and perhaps surprisingly, relative to the automation in the post), our income verification product is decidely not fully automated. Non-salaried income reporting can be extremely tricky, and we've run into a number of renters with reliable income on a monthly basis that doesn't fit neatly onto a bi-weekly paystub. In those circumstances, we work with them manually to sort out how we can best present it to landlords on an application.
I've been rejected/failed/banned by an emotionless machine a handful of times, and I don't know that anything else has made me feel quite so hopeless. I like to think a similar knot in my stomach keeps me honest.
Thankfully, one of our fundamental incentives as a property management business is to get more quality tenants approved for more apartments. If there are high quality renters qualified to sign a lease and fill a vacancy, mistakenly rejecting them directly impacts a landlord's bottom line. So we're motivated beyond altruism to get this right, which is important.
Along these lines (and perhaps surprisingly, relative to the automation in the post), our income verification product is decidely not fully automated. Non-salaried income reporting can be extremely tricky, and we've run into a number of renters with reliable income on a monthly basis that doesn't fit neatly onto a bi-weekly paystub. In those circumstances, we work with them manually to sort out how we can best present it to landlords on an application.
This is why there are or are incoming (long time since I've looked at the details) rules in the EU about fully automated decision making.
It may not have covered this example, but it's a good reminder of the reasons why this kind of legislation exists.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/refo...
(edit - grammar)
It may not have covered this example, but it's a good reminder of the reasons why this kind of legislation exists.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/refo...
(edit - grammar)
The EU and UK GDPRs have these rules. In fact, they were in earlier data protection law as well.
Even if you don't understand or can't use (to your advantage) the rule on automated decision-making, you can still insist that data processing be "fair" - fairness is one of the fundamental rules of EU and UK data protection law, including in the current EU and UK GDPRs. Learn your rights!!
Even if you don't understand or can't use (to your advantage) the rule on automated decision-making, you can still insist that data processing be "fair" - fairness is one of the fundamental rules of EU and UK data protection law, including in the current EU and UK GDPRs. Learn your rights!!
I have a similar story. I got married and my wife moved to my state and was in the middle of the process of getting a license when COVID hit. She had gotten a learner's permit to practice for the driving test, and it expired but got extended due to COVID. We decided it was finally time to sort out the mess.
However, to get that learner's permit required her to take a couple written tests. We were told she would have to retake those tests because the software had them down as expired. Then when she went to take the test, they told her she didn't need to because she had already taken them! Our second visit they finally sorted it out but we had to wait multiple hours while they got managers involved to assist us.
However, to get that learner's permit required her to take a couple written tests. We were told she would have to retake those tests because the software had them down as expired. Then when she went to take the test, they told her she didn't need to because she had already taken them! Our second visit they finally sorted it out but we had to wait multiple hours while they got managers involved to assist us.
I had a similar DMV experience. My login for the online site wasn't working so I went to reset the password, but after entering my information it said I had no account. Ok I thought, I'll create a new account. Of course when I tried that, using the same information I tried to reset the password with, it failed saying that I already had an account.
There was no direct way to contact anyone on the website and the person I spoke to at the physical office told me to contact the state headquarters. After multiple calls and emails I finally got ahold of someone involved in the website... who completely blew me off.
Every year when my registration came due I'd give it a few more tries, hoping to avoid a trip to the office. Finally after almost a decade I got someone to actually fix my account. Even then they didn't admit that anything was wrong on their end, they tried to gaslight me and pretend it was working this whole time.
This was enraging and the only cost was some inconvenience. I'm terrified of this happening with a critical service.
There was no direct way to contact anyone on the website and the person I spoke to at the physical office told me to contact the state headquarters. After multiple calls and emails I finally got ahold of someone involved in the website... who completely blew me off.
Every year when my registration came due I'd give it a few more tries, hoping to avoid a trip to the office. Finally after almost a decade I got someone to actually fix my account. Even then they didn't admit that anything was wrong on their end, they tried to gaslight me and pretend it was working this whole time.
This was enraging and the only cost was some inconvenience. I'm terrified of this happening with a critical service.
serious Q. how in the world would any credit agency know what day you are paying the rent?
In the US, I don't believe any credit agency has insight into my personal bank accounts re size (I think?) or when things are paid to whom they are paid or the like (pretty sure about this). they know about my debts, but unless the landlord puts me into collection, I ca't imagine a reason for my rent appearing on the report (it's been a while since I looked at one, but dont remember seeing them)
In the US, I don't believe any credit agency has insight into my personal bank accounts re size (I think?) or when things are paid to whom they are paid or the like (pretty sure about this). they know about my debts, but unless the landlord puts me into collection, I ca't imagine a reason for my rent appearing on the report (it's been a while since I looked at one, but dont remember seeing them)
OP here - Estate agent asked for 6 months bank statements, which I assume was requested by the referencing agency.
I don't think is common practise in the U.K, but I asked around and lots of people told me it is more common that the larger agencies ask for it, plus it was for an apartment in a very competitive development so I feel like it might have been a forcing function to reduce the amount of applicants but that is speculation on my part.
I don't think is common practise in the U.K, but I asked around and lots of people told me it is more common that the larger agencies ask for it, plus it was for an apartment in a very competitive development so I feel like it might have been a forcing function to reduce the amount of applicants but that is speculation on my part.
I was asked for 12 months' worth of statements for a place I wanted to rent in Islington. I got them printed out at the bank, and then spent an entire day with a Sharpie and a ruler and redacted every payee and amount in each of those statements. The approved my rental contract without a peep.
A potential employer once also wanted statements - I think 6 months' worth, and I did the same. HR pushed back but legal backed them down rather quickly. I think these people ask because most just comply without question.
A potential employer once also wanted statements - I think 6 months' worth, and I did the same. HR pushed back but legal backed them down rather quickly. I think these people ask because most just comply without question.
What information did you effectively leave that they theoretically wanted to see? Simply activity on the account, or did you leave incoming pay unredacted?
I left dates. They never told me what they wanted to see, other than "bank statements".
"Estate agent asked for 6 months bank statements, "
WTF.
That's a crazy practice. Paystub maybe, but bank statements? My gosh.
WTF.
That's a crazy practice. Paystub maybe, but bank statements? My gosh.
I've been looking for a new apartment in NYC and the place I applied for wanted 2 month's of paystubs and 2 month's of bank statements. Most agencies I've seen request this or more. It's insane but if you find a place you like things sell so quickly here that you have no choice but to play by their rules or leave the city.
Unrelated rant but the reason I've been looking is my current landlord has taken over 35 days to send me a renewal contract. Go figure that 10 minutes after texting him I'm going through the credit check for a new apartment he sends me the updated document.
Unrelated rant but the reason I've been looking is my current landlord has taken over 35 days to send me a renewal contract. Go figure that 10 minutes after texting him I'm going through the credit check for a new apartment he sends me the updated document.
NY places limits on landlords such as: cannot consider or even look at past evictions, cannot ask for more than a month deposit, and others. Also they completely left landlords out in the cold for rent for over a year and counting. NY is extremely tenant friendly and it can cost a lot if you get a bad tenant. Year(s) of unpaid rent, legal fees, and money for repairs.
Hey I don't make the rules - but if I don't play by them I lose a place I really wanted to live in. Sucks, but that's life.
I don't know where in the world you are - but the American solution to this problem are a series of organizations that constantly ingest a massive amount of financial data around what transactions you're executing and then sell it to the lender without your knowledge. I'd be happy to be the person actually handing over so much of my financial data instead of it being harvested without my consent.
I was renting about 5 years ago and even back then the agency asked me for about 6-12months of bank statements checking the payment dates and probably checking if I could afford it
Why not ask the bank to confirm that you make enough, without revealing how much you make and your whole spending history?
In competitive rental markets, there will always be another tenant who will not be "difficult" in the eyes of the agent who will snatch the place up from you if you start going off the beaten path.
Before I got my place there were 3 other apartments in the same complex I verbally agreed to and then agent called back to say it had been taken. Not sure if you've rented in likes of London, NY or SF before but the competition can be intense.
Look it sucks that I had to do that, in an ideal world we could have done what you said, but I valued getting the place over my reservations of handing over bank statements.
Before I got my place there were 3 other apartments in the same complex I verbally agreed to and then agent called back to say it had been taken. Not sure if you've rented in likes of London, NY or SF before but the competition can be intense.
Look it sucks that I had to do that, in an ideal world we could have done what you said, but I valued getting the place over my reservations of handing over bank statements.
So often this is the case. Someone asks something unreasonable, and pushing back gets you marked as difficult. It acts as a filter, even if done unintentionally
Because nobody wants to rent to a difficult tenant.
Credit agencies can 100% know when you pay you rent as the receiver can send this information to them. Credit cards also say when you pay so they can keep track of when you're delinquent or late for payments.
Credit agencies - at least in the US - really don't know when you pay the rent, though, unless the landlord reports this. Same for payments: This is a big part of the reason you cannot simply live within your means [1] and have good credit later in life.
You won't.
Many companies - utilities, landlords, hospitals, and so on - simply won't report anything unless it is negative. The negatives are usually sending something to in-house collections, a collection agency, or filing a civil suit to get the money.
Loans, in general, will report. This includes credit cards. Some of the buy here/pay here places won't report, though, so you get no help on your credit.
[1] What I mean by "live within your means" is to simply do things like pay cash for a used car, rent an affordable place, and simply pay your bills on time.
You won't.
Many companies - utilities, landlords, hospitals, and so on - simply won't report anything unless it is negative. The negatives are usually sending something to in-house collections, a collection agency, or filing a civil suit to get the money.
Loans, in general, will report. This includes credit cards. Some of the buy here/pay here places won't report, though, so you get no help on your credit.
[1] What I mean by "live within your means" is to simply do things like pay cash for a used car, rent an affordable place, and simply pay your bills on time.
I think the person you are replying to is surprised that a landlord would bother reporting that information to a credit agency. I have never heard of that, and after using some of the bigger name property management companies in my area as both a renter and landlord, it just isn't normal here.
I wonder if they have access to your balances via Plaid, which seems to be popping up all over the dang place. I should look more closely at their terms of service.
There's a lot of privilege involved in being able to navigate these kinds of social overrides, so the idea that it's good that you can get around stupid rules like this by talking to a person is.. only really true for some people.
What's wrong here isn't the idea that "the rules" could be applied evenly to everyone (that's actually a good thing). It's this kind of incredibly narrow requirement on housing where landlords get to dig deep into your financials to the point of knowing when/how you paid for things.
That's gross, and should not be allowed. It's almost certainly a part of many people's vicious cycles into poverty. It's also, as far as I know, a really recent development and part of the general trend towards more and more invasive surveillance in daily life.
What's wrong here isn't the idea that "the rules" could be applied evenly to everyone (that's actually a good thing). It's this kind of incredibly narrow requirement on housing where landlords get to dig deep into your financials to the point of knowing when/how you paid for things.
That's gross, and should not be allowed. It's almost certainly a part of many people's vicious cycles into poverty. It's also, as far as I know, a really recent development and part of the general trend towards more and more invasive surveillance in daily life.
All my online dashboards I deal with for various things are buggy and inflexible. Whatever the problem is though, you can usually phone a human who can fix it. If you get rid of humans, it’s just creating a nightmare
Want a sneak peek of the nightmare? Plenty of companies are now introducing conversational bots on their phone lines, desperately trying to prevent you from getting in touch with a human. And unlike traditional voice menus, pressing 0 or mashing the keypad doesn't work on them.
I recently wasted a good 10 minutes trying to reach a flesh-and-blood consultant of a phone company, and I actually wanted to buy stuff from them. I just needed a human to make sure it's on the record I'm requesting a non-default service (FTTH Internet with external ONT, so that I could swap a proper router in place of the piece of garbage they normally provide).
Their fancy bot actually understood what I wanted when I repeatedly said "I want to be connected with a consultant" - it kept replying, "I understand you want to talk to a consultant; before we do that, can you tell me [insert some random idiotic question]?". I almost blew a fuse there. I only persisted because for technical reasons, I couldn't go with other providers.
I recently wasted a good 10 minutes trying to reach a flesh-and-blood consultant of a phone company, and I actually wanted to buy stuff from them. I just needed a human to make sure it's on the record I'm requesting a non-default service (FTTH Internet with external ONT, so that I could swap a proper router in place of the piece of garbage they normally provide).
Their fancy bot actually understood what I wanted when I repeatedly said "I want to be connected with a consultant" - it kept replying, "I understand you want to talk to a consultant; before we do that, can you tell me [insert some random idiotic question]?". I almost blew a fuse there. I only persisted because for technical reasons, I couldn't go with other providers.
This kind of behavior should be unacceptable by companies whose services are essential, which definitely includes ISPs these days. If it's some company I can do without I'm really quick to drop them when I run into this sort of thing, even if it means going without something I want. I just hate giving money to sleezy companies.
We already know how this happens when Google cancels your account, without any warning.
I had the experience other way around. I did my graduate degree developing solvers and algorithms to analyze mechanical and civil structures. Heck, I even did TA for one of these grad level courses. However, when it was time to find a job, software screening cleared me but it was impossible to find a job because I could not convince the HR and hiring manager that I have the necessary experience using softwares that run such algorithms to design structures. I would happily adapt a software system that has less bias (or atleast bias normalized from different viewpoints and quantified) that having to deal with human bias that is not easily identifiable or quantifiable. Also such human bias is particularly harsh against poor and marginalized groups.
The problem isn’t with automated management but with economic inequality. Automating the job of property management and leasing makes perfect sense, having a system where people can be unfairly evicted and wind up homeless and jobless does not. Fortunately we can fix the real problem with some relatively simple policy changes.
Why did you pay him on willy nilly days instead of just setting up a recurring standing order and being done with it?
Because for certain professions income is reliable but not set to a 14 day pay cycle.
Could be that OP is a freelance author and is paid depending on when stories are picked up, or is contracting for multiple employers and has an irregular payment schedule depending on their invoicing.
Not everyone conforms to the same set of employment/fiscal assumptions we (here meaning "educated white collar US tech workers") may have.
Could be that OP is a freelance author and is paid depending on when stories are picked up, or is contracting for multiple employers and has an irregular payment schedule depending on their invoicing.
Not everyone conforms to the same set of employment/fiscal assumptions we (here meaning "educated white collar US tech workers") may have.
So OP is illiquid? Then categorising OP as a risk is perfectly correct.
Nope not illiquid (quite the jump made there on your behalf given the available information).
I get paid “on or around the 20th” every month. In some cases it’s earlier (if the 20th falls on a weekend I’ll be paid the Thursday before that weekend), and on those occasions I paid the rent before the 20th.
I like to manually pay bills where I can as I will then write them off in a ledger I keep, especially for rent as I tend to balance everything when I get paid.
Also, and very important point here, the previous landlord, my friend, did not care at all when I paid rent as long as it was before the end of the month.
Also by using Faster Payments bank to bank transfer my friend got the money same day rather than +/-3 days like direct debit. Again he didn’t care, but it was a nice benefit, right?
I get paid “on or around the 20th” every month. In some cases it’s earlier (if the 20th falls on a weekend I’ll be paid the Thursday before that weekend), and on those occasions I paid the rent before the 20th.
I like to manually pay bills where I can as I will then write them off in a ledger I keep, especially for rent as I tend to balance everything when I get paid.
Also, and very important point here, the previous landlord, my friend, did not care at all when I paid rent as long as it was before the end of the month.
Also by using Faster Payments bank to bank transfer my friend got the money same day rather than +/-3 days like direct debit. Again he didn’t care, but it was a nice benefit, right?
If your getting paid after the 20th makes you unable to pay on the 20th then you are illiquid. This may or may not be a big deal but it is strictly worse than the alternative.
For instance, what happens if you lose your income for whatever reason? Your paying irregularly might as well be proof that you will immediately be unable to pay rent in that case. Now, this may not in fact be true (perhaps you have lots of liquid assets but want the maximum amount of money invested at all times, and that was fine because your landlord didn't mind), but you can see why this is a red flag.
For instance, what happens if you lose your income for whatever reason? Your paying irregularly might as well be proof that you will immediately be unable to pay rent in that case. Now, this may not in fact be true (perhaps you have lots of liquid assets but want the maximum amount of money invested at all times, and that was fine because your landlord didn't mind), but you can see why this is a red flag.
Sorry, but nope you are wrong again, I was never paid after the 20th.
Payment was always before or on the 20th, in 3 years not a single rental was after the 20th. I am sorry I am not fitting your curve neatly.
Payment was always before or on the 20th, in 3 years not a single rental was after the 20th. I am sorry I am not fitting your curve neatly.
They docked you because you sometimes paid rent early?
Well to them it wasn't so much early as it was inconsistent.
I mentioned somewhere else in this thread bank-to-bank transfer like the ones I was making are through the Faster Payments network which means they reconcile same-day - I don't know if their software was checking for pay on just the 20th, or if it was docking me because the pay was irregular, but there was some naive logic in there somewhere.
I mentioned somewhere else in this thread bank-to-bank transfer like the ones I was making are through the Faster Payments network which means they reconcile same-day - I don't know if their software was checking for pay on just the 20th, or if it was docking me because the pay was irregular, but there was some naive logic in there somewhere.
I have my rent set up with automatic payment, and the date the payment actually goes through varies +/- five business days. My bank even warned be to set it to go through a week early.
[deleted]
Further, companies already exist [https://carpe.io/] that mine your online presence to help calculate your risk score.
Humanity is the sickness. Only through software and bureaucracy can humans cure their ailment and achieve the proper goals. It's 2021, get with the times.
I am far more concerned about software automating what used to be left to human judgement. AI will judge us just the same, just faster and with no way to appeal to common sense.
I'm being cheeky, but at the same time, it's a serious issue. AI used in these fashions are just going to be bureaucracy on steroids, however, as you mention, less chances for appeals.
And on an extremely serious note, I am utterly terrified how many people treat, "Well the AI/algorithm says xyz, it must be true. Got to believe the math/data." I'm not kidding, that's my fear. People blindly follow the almighty algorithms. It's just another form of religion and worship. And even more seriousness, atheists are fantastic at rationalizing their blind dogmatic worship over algorithms.
And on an extremely serious note, I am utterly terrified how many people treat, "Well the AI/algorithm says xyz, it must be true. Got to believe the math/data." I'm not kidding, that's my fear. People blindly follow the almighty algorithms. It's just another form of religion and worship. And even more seriousness, atheists are fantastic at rationalizing their blind dogmatic worship over algorithms.
Humanity is fine but we’ve tolerated cancers that have gained control of the brain and are running the show.
I'm perfectly okay with AI and algorithms being used as red flaggers to help a human find out what needs immediate attention or even potential concerns. I'm 100% against algorithms and AI making the actual decisions.
I was talking about MBAs, but find your idea to be logical and likely. AI/human hybrids where humans make decisions based on AI processed information.
Can't really blame software for housing policy. That's a societal issue.
But the landlord (the societal arbiter) agreed in this case - the software denied me. Very much an issue of the software in this case.
The issue is that policy alone is insufficient. Humans can look past the policy's rigidity when necessary; software can't.
More than that - policy is designed to be interpreted by humans, to be bent or overriden when needed. There are processes in place for that - from a simple handshake deal, through a written contract amendment, to the court system. When software is tasked with enforcing policies, there is no bending, no overriding, no special cases. In this way, software breaks the policies.
This sounds great from a tenant's perspective, too. I can't speak for all renters, but speaking for myself, I have have been frustrated by all the little points of friction named in this article.
However, I should not have had to go to the company's webpage, find no hint of the tenant side of this transaction, get no answer from the chat box, do some google searches, end up back at the blog, and go digging through the blog in order to find apartment.app to be the other half with all the magical UI improvements described in the OP. Afterward, of course I found the link in the footer of the company's main page.
UI suggestion. Make it easier for prospective tenants (we are your product, after all) who land on the landlord side to find the renter's side, and vice versa.
IMO, there is no greater sin in business than to leave a prospect who has learned of your prodcut/service and wishes to do business with you bereft of someone who will shut up and take his money.
However, I should not have had to go to the company's webpage, find no hint of the tenant side of this transaction, get no answer from the chat box, do some google searches, end up back at the blog, and go digging through the blog in order to find apartment.app to be the other half with all the magical UI improvements described in the OP. Afterward, of course I found the link in the footer of the company's main page.
UI suggestion. Make it easier for prospective tenants (we are your product, after all) who land on the landlord side to find the renter's side, and vice versa.
IMO, there is no greater sin in business than to leave a prospect who has learned of your prodcut/service and wishes to do business with you bereft of someone who will shut up and take his money.
All this doesn't mean that the software is better than any human broker but simply that those humans were way worse than whatever software has been used.
Every time middlemen eliminated, new kitten is born!
And vice versa.
I applaud any service that makes former happens.
And vice versa.
I applaud any service that makes former happens.
does the software lie about the rats? people are better at that type of soft skill.
Serious Manna vibes: https://marshallbrain.com/manna1
The article mentions how important it is to keep availability status accurate:
Before I get into the solution, I should explain why
these renters have such persistent trust issues.
[...]
Because messaging/applications/leasing were all
on-platform for us, we could know when a lister was
unresponsive or a lease was signed. That insight naturally
allowed us to reliably prevent stale listings. Critically,
however, new renters to our website didn't know that. And
they wouldn't believe us when we said it. We were in a bit
of a pickle.
“Hi, this unit has been rented, what exactly are you
searching for?“
Nice (maybe) but the "filled 200 vacant apartments" is meaningless - it not outright deceptive.
"Filled N apartments" compared to what baseline? That is, what is the comparative rate of success? And what is the total transaction cost? What about the inventory that couldn't be rented? And what about all the tenants getting dissed by the algorithm (read: discriminated against, perhaps unlawfully), per a sibling comment to this one?
Then again, these are realtors, so we expect them to blow smoke up our... nevermind.
"Filled N apartments" compared to what baseline? That is, what is the comparative rate of success? And what is the total transaction cost? What about the inventory that couldn't be rented? And what about all the tenants getting dissed by the algorithm (read: discriminated against, perhaps unlawfully), per a sibling comment to this one?
Then again, these are realtors, so we expect them to blow smoke up our... nevermind.
UX question here: I noticed on the blog's screen shots that "self checkout, but for apartments" is used. How did you come up with "self-checkout" as the action? Checkout seems so far away in time re: the process flow. What was your users' mental model?
Economically a great result, that is indisputable.
A small "but" however, did you also improve the customer experience?
I am asking as someone who has lived long term in many Airbnb and similar platforms, and almost every single on of them has problems, uses every trick not covered by terms and conditions and has an evasive and unresponsive customer service.
Too many to list but I've experienced:
No car parking available(were full) when advertised as "with free parking"
Free wifi- but not installed
Aircon- no aircon in sight(been renovated)
Cameras in the flat- but "don't worry they are disabled and part of the alarm system"
More such things and extremely annoying to resolve.
Not saying your product has these issues, just asking if this is considered and handled or if it's all purely profit oriented.
Not saying your product has these issues, just asking if this is considered and handled or if it's all purely profit oriented.
Given the system has no way of knowing if the lister/landlord is just lieing or being misleading (beyond maybe users reporting the entire post as fraud).
However this platform does is make it easy to visually inspect the unit. Since these are long(er) term rentals, the whole point is that you can inspect before you lease so checking things like parking, WiFi, and air conditioning should be pretty easy.
However this platform does is make it easy to visually inspect the unit. Since these are long(er) term rentals, the whole point is that you can inspect before you lease so checking things like parking, WiFi, and air conditioning should be pretty easy.
> On search, we decided that self-tour viewings on an apartment ought to feel like 2-day shipping on a product on Amazon. Knowing that you can get a given product tomorrow or the next day vs. an alternative a week from now can drive purchasing decisions - for good reason.
That's how Amazon used to do shipping - when you go to checkout, they offer you a menu of shipping speeds, you can pick the speed you want, and then the item will arrive by the time you picked.
It has nothing to do with how Amazon does shipping now. Today, Amazon offers zero choice in shipping speeds, provides an estimate of when your item will arrive, and won't honor the estimate.
Don't try to emulate Amazon's shipping "options". They couldn't offer a worse shipping experience if they wanted to.
That's how Amazon used to do shipping - when you go to checkout, they offer you a menu of shipping speeds, you can pick the speed you want, and then the item will arrive by the time you picked.
It has nothing to do with how Amazon does shipping now. Today, Amazon offers zero choice in shipping speeds, provides an estimate of when your item will arrive, and won't honor the estimate.
Don't try to emulate Amazon's shipping "options". They couldn't offer a worse shipping experience if they wanted to.
Where the heck is the renter facing side of this website? I'd like to be on the other end of this service (never had an agent I thought improved upon a lockbox with a key).
Edit: Here! https://apartment.app/s
Edit: Here! https://apartment.app/s
Apps like this is something you planned to build but don't care for regardless of wealth potential...and you wished someone built it for you. It sucks that this took almost a decade (usually have to wait 3, 5, 10 years if you wait for someone else to build it) but glad someone decided to do it!
Thank goodness...and hopefully more competitors (choices) to come in the future. Good luck!
Thank goodness...and hopefully more competitors (choices) to come in the future. Good luck!
Any attempt to replace brokers should be celebrated. They provide literally zero value for the price they charge.
They do nothing that can't be automated.
They do nothing that can't be automated.
I really like the service provider + financial underwriting combination, where you get basically an SLA for them providing a service, where they take 100% of the risk after the fee.