Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> Second, Opendoor explicitly charges sellers for having replaced total uncertainty with a bank wire: not just the same 6% that typically goes for buyer and seller agent fees, but also an additional 0-6% for “market risk” — i.e. dealing with the uncertainty of actually showing and selling the house — along with the aforementioned repair costs.

So basically, the seller is guaranteed to lose 6-12% (on average 8%) of the value of their home even before receiving a paycheck. Why can't OpenDoor start low, instead of starting high and waiting for economies of scale? I just don't see the marginal benefits worth the extra costs, and am not sure how OpenDoor can stay competitive enough with those rates.

> To succeed, it has to price the homes it buys accurately, without seeing them, and it has to sell them quickly to minimize the costs of carrying them.

I feel like if the people behind OpenDoor can do this, then they can do day-trading or at least an index fund. (Yeah I know, stocks are more volatile and housing is pretty much guaranteed to rise.)

> for too long too much money and talent has been poured into low-risk digital-only businesses

What? Isn't there hardware startups?

Ok overall, I think I'm being a bit too critical on this company because all I see is house-flipping disguised as "theoretical arbitrage opportunity". I'd rather see a new company solve the housing crisis in San Francisco and New York.



Why would you say "lose 6-12%"? The first 6 is normal real estate fee. Above that it's a normal arbitrage of house flipping (buyer thinks can spiff it up and sell it for more a short time later).


Not everyone pays 6, You can get 5 or lower depending on your market.


Nat'l avg is 5.5% and trending up. In most tier 2 markets, the vast majority pay 6%.



Yeah, 6% for a normal real estate fee is still high IMO.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: