The following is the transcript of the joint investor call held by Zillow, Inc. and Trulia, Inc. on July 28, 2014.
Corporate participants include:
Raymond Jones – Head-Investor Relations, Zillow, Inc.
Spencer M. Rascoff – Chief Executive Officer & Director, Zillow, Inc.
Pete Flint – Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Trulia, Inc.
Other participants include:
Mark S. Mahaney – Analyst, RBC Capital Markets LLC
Ron Victor Josey – Analyst, JMP Securities LLC
Chris Merwin – Analyst, Barclays Capital, Inc.
Heath P. Terry – Analyst, Goldman Sachs & Co.
Neil A. Doshi – Analyst, CRT Capital Group LLC
Chad W. Bartley – Analyst, Pacific Crest Securities LLC
Jason S. Helfstein – Analyst, Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. (Broker)
Lloyd Walmsley – Analyst, Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.
James M. Cakmak – Analyst, Telsey Advisory Group LLC
Operator: Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to your conference call to discuss Zillow’s plans to acquire Trulia. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. Later, we’ll conduct a question-and-answer session and instructions will be given at that time. [Operator Instructions] And as a reminder, this conference call maybe recorded.
I would now like to turn the conference over to Mr. R.J. Jones, Investor Relations Officer for Zillow. Sir, you may begin.
Raymond Jones, Head-Investor Relations: Good morning, everyone, and welcome to our discussion of the announcement of Zillow’s plans to acquire Trulia. Joining us today on the call are Spencer Rascoff, the Chief Executive Officer, of Zillow; and Pete Flint, the Chief Executive Officer of Trulia. We will start today with prepared remarks from both CEOs, then host a brief Q&A session. We have allotted 30 minutes for this call.
Before we get started, as a reminder, during the course of this call, we will make forward-looking statements regarding future events, including our expectations, regarding Zillow’s proposed acquisition of Trulia. We caution you to consider the important risk factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements made in the press release and on this conference call. These factors include, but are not limited to the satisfaction of closing conditions, including shareholder and regulatory approval of the proposed transaction. Additional risk factors are described in our press release and under the caption Risk Factors in Zillow’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013, Trulia’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014, and in Zillow’s and Trulia’s other filings with the SEC.
In addition, please note that the date of this conference call is July 28, 2014, and any forward-looking statements that we make today are based on assumptions as of this date. We undertake no obligation to update these statements as a result of new information or future events except as required by law.
I will now turn the call over to Spencer.
Spencer M. Rascoff, Chief Executive Officer & Director: Good morning. As you’ve seen from our press release, today is an exciting day. I’m very pleased to announce that Zillow has entered into an agreement to acquire Trulia. I’m very excited about the tremendous opportunity to combine resources in a way that creates even more innovation and better products for consumers and real estate professionals alike.
Before we get into the structure of the deal, I’d like to touch on some of these opportunities and why I’m so excited about today’s announcement. First off, our plan is to continue to operate both consumer brands, Zillow and Trulia are highly complementary and respected brands with consumer-first philosophies and employee cultures. This shared devotion has allowed both companies to create products that empower consumers through greater information transparency. And we’ve collectively driven incredible advances in home shopping on mobile and web.
Despite Zillow and Trulia’s rapid growth over the past several years, the two firms’ offerings remain differentiated and the consumer overlap in both brands is relatively low. According to comScore, in June of this year, about half of Trulia’s monthly desktop users did not visit Zillow, and about two-thirds of Zillow’s do not visit Trulia. Just as in other categories, such as online dating in the case of IAC, travel in the case of TripAdvisor, the Priceline Group and Expedia, and even weather, where The Weather Company operates weather.com, The Weather Channel, Weather Underground and in telecasts, we believe that having multiple brands inside the same corporate parent allows us to better serve a larger audience, while taking advantage of certain shared backend services.
In fact, Zillow Inc. has already operated this way since our acquisition of our consumer rental brand, HotPads in 2012 and the acquisition of our New York Property StreetEasy in 2013.
Both Zillow and Trulia excel at connecting consumers with professionals through high ROI, seamless advertising on mobile and web. The more real estate client interactions we can drive to real estate professionals, the better the experience for both consumers and our advertisers.
As media companies we view this transaction as a unique opportunity to accelerate our shared growth into a real estate advertising marketplace that is still incredibly fragmented. While nearly all home shopping now starts online, the vast majority of real estate advertising has yet to migrate to the web and mobile. The addressable market for residential real estate advertising is massive at approximately $12 billion annually, yet on a combined basis Trulia and Zillow have less than 4% share of this market. Said another way, over 96% of the ad dollars available in our category are spent elsewhere and mostly offline.
Most real estate agent advertising still goes to offline channels such as newspapers, billboards and direct mail as well as newer players such as display advertising networks, online video, search engine marketing and social media platforms. While still early, we expect these ad dollars will eventually accrue to the most effective channels over the long term. And we expect to be able to offer advertisers a better value proposition as one company.
We anticipate a number of specific benefits as a result of this transaction. First, we can innovate faster. By combining resources and building upon a common foundation for data and development, we expect to accelerate innovation and create new mobile and web products faster than we would separately. By bringing together our unique, yet complementary cultures of innovation, the Zillow and Trulia creative engine can fire on combined cylinders, gain speed and create more products than ever before.
This speed of innovation will be especially evident on mobile. We are experiencing the early stages of a tectonic shift in consumer engagement from desktop to mobile devices in our category. Due to GPS capabilities in smart devices, mobile is rapidly becoming the medium of choice for online home shopping and the majority of homes viewed on Zillow today are viewed on a mobile device. We both believe that there is a looming wave of mobile technology proliferation and broadband network expansion that will enable even greater mobile adoption by consumers. As touch screen devices’ increasingly dynamic mobile content and cloud based development converge, we believe that over the next 5 years to 10 years, consumer mobile usage and all thing home can scale to many times over what it is today. Through a more efficient allocation of investment in human capital, we will be at the forefront of the next wave of advances in mobile home shopping.
The second key benefit is our ability to provide greater access to free real-estate market data. If you shopped for a home 10 years ago your experience would have been dramatically different than it is today with the amount of real estate data and information at your fingertips. Zillow and Trulia were at the forefront of this revolution to set real estate information free. As one company, we expect to take advantage of each other’s knowledge and expertise to continue that mission to help people make more informed decisions.
Third, we can offer our partners broader distribution and deliver greater value and ROI for advertisers. Home sellers and their agents as well as brokerages and participating MLSs will benefit from broader listings distribution across even more platforms to reach an even larger audience. Due to the limit overlap in our unique users, advertisers will get the benefit of a larger network to increase their reach and exposure. We also anticipate shared services and marketing platforms for advertisers that will enhance agent productivity and marketing and deliver greater return on their investment.
And finally we expect to realize sizeable cost synergies. After we combine, we expect to achieve at least $100 million in annualized cost avoidances by the end of 2016, by gaining efficiencies through shared services such as foregone sales and marketing costs.
Now, let me outline the financial terms and structure. As noted in the press release, the value of this deal is $3.5 billion in what will be a stock-for-stock transaction. Upon shareholder and regulatory approval, all the outstanding shares of Trulia will be exchanged for shares of the combined company. This means that each Trulia shareholder will receive 0.444 shares of common stock – shares of stock in the combined company. Upon close, Trulia’s shareholders will hold approximately 33% of the combined company, while Zillow shareholders will hold roughly 67%. This value represents a 25% premium to Trulia’s closing price on July 25, 2014.
Upon closing, Pete Flint will continue to be CEO of Trulia, reporting to me. This transaction has been approved by both Boards of Directors and is subject to customary closing conditions including satisfaction of regulatory approvals and approval by shareholders of both Zillow and Trulia.
Until we obtain these approvals, we’ll continue to operate as independent companies, running separate businesses. This includes reporting results for the second quarter and subsequent quarters. We expect these approvals will take several months. Upon closing, we’ll be able to share more about the operational and organizational structure moving forward.
Right now, we’re excited about the prospects of the deal and the opportunities ahead. I want to acknowledge Pete Flint, Sean Aggarwal and Paul Levine and the entire team at Trulia for building such an impressive brand and business. We are excited to work together to accelerate advancement of the real estate category through even faster innovation to empower more consumers and help agents and our industry partners to be more successful.
Now, I’m pleased to introduce Pete Flint, the CEO of Trulia.
Pete Flint, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Trulia, Inc.: Thank you, Spencer. This is an extremely exciting day for both Trulia and Zillow. Since Trulia’s founding in 2005, we have been focused on creating an online destination that allows consumers who are searching for home, while also providing real estate agents with a highly-effective advertising platform. Over these past 10 years, we have made incredible progress in serving ad transaction ready consumers while building innovative business and brands of which we are extremely proud.
Trulia and Zillow, each have a long history of creating fantastic products on mobile and web for homebuyers and sellers and for their real estate agents. We believe that molding of our complementary brands’ unique data and [ph] end (9:52) user experiences creates tremendous potential for our combined company to innovate faster and grow further in what’s a huge and a massive market opportunity.
Over the years Trulia has nurtured an amazing culture of innovation. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all our employees for their hard work and dedication. We are all extremely excited by the
prospect of combining our efforts with the team of Zillow to provide even more value to consumers and our industry partners going forward. Sean and I will report Trulia’s Q2 results this Thursday and we’ll host a quarterly results conference call at 2 P.M.
With that, I will turn the call back to Spencer, to take your questions.
Questions and answers
Operator: Thank you. [Operator Instructions] And, our first question comes from Mark Mahaney from RBC. Your line is open. Please go ahead, sir.
(A – Spencer Rascoff – Zillow, Inc.): Sure. I’ll jump on that one, Mark. So the cost avoidances, the $100 million in 2016 come from a combination of things including forgone advertising expense and heads that we won’t need to hire as a combined company, both of us, both of our companies have literally hundreds of open heads, because we’re running so fast. And I think as a combined company, we’ll be able to avoid a lot of new hires.
And on the advertising point just to backup for a second, we’re going to continue to invest significantly in both of these brands, but I still think there will be cost avoidances on the advertising side available to us as a single company. In terms of market leader I’ll say, our companies have a very similar philosophy, which is real estate agents who use technology are better agents and better agents make for better advertisers.
And we’ve actually gone about, we both have that thesis and in the case of Zillow we acquired a CRM, Buyfolio, and then we use diverse solutions and another acquisitions to help take it national. In the case of Trulia they acquired Market Leader and then in the case of Zillow we also connected to many other CRMs to give agents choice.
So, we have slightly different implementations of what I consider to be the same fundamental strategy which is that agents using technology are better and therefore make for better advertisers. So that philosophy is not going to change. It’s going to be months before the transaction closes and we’re going to announced operational and organizational specifics once the acquisition closes.
So I can’t comment further than that other than to stay, we both believe that technology enabled agents are the wave of the future.
(Q – Mark Mahaney – RBC Capital Markets LLC): Thanks, Spencer.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question comes from Ron Josey from JMP Securities.
(Q – Ron Josey – JMP Securities LLC): Thanks, thanks for taking the question, two please. So first and foremost, why now? Both the companies continue to grow at very strong rates, taking share and $3.5 billion seems to be a significant premium and I’m wondering just, why now?
And then the next question is just quickly Spencer and Pete, are there any markets were Trulia is stronger than Zillow and vice versa and particularly how that might impact pricing? Thank you.
(A – Spencer Rascoff – Zillow, Inc.): Sure. So in terms of why now? I guess I’d say why not now? Both companies come at this from a position of strength, we both have a lot of momentum behind our businesses in terms of revenue growth and traffic growth and audience growth.
And we, like you, agree that this combination makes a lot of sense and we are very fortunate that the stars aligned in terms of both parties finding common ground on the transaction. The headline price, just to be clear, it’s an all-stock deal at a 0.444 exchange ratio. The way I think about it is, the pro forma ownership of two-thirds, one-third and sort of the question – to your question, Ron, about the premium – the question that we as a Zillow board asked ourselves is, would we rather own a 100% of Zillow or two-thirds of the combined company? And the unanimous decision was we’d rather own two-thirds of the combined company.
So I think, you can kind of – if you start looking at the total price and looking at deal multiples, you can start sort of going crazy, trying to think through the transaction. If you think about it as an exchange ratio, stock deal, and pro forma ownership, I think that’s how we approached it and I think we found common ground there. In terms of markets that the two brands are stronger than – that one brand might be stronger in than another, we can’t share anything specific on that right now. I do think, I will say that how these brands will complement each other in the marketplace is something that I can comment on.
So, Zillow focuses on all homes and we have information not just on those on the market, but also those off market. Trulia has that information as well, but their brand and their product is more focused on, directly on home shopping and rental shopping. So I think as these brands evolve in the marketplace that’s probably the way they’ll each evolve in the consumers’ minds’ eye where one brand is kind of 100% transactional or solely focused on transaction, and the other one appeals to both buyers as well as homeowners. So I think that’s how the brands end up evolving in the marketplace.
(Q – Ron Josey – JMP Securities LLC): Thanks and congratulations.
(A – Spencer Rascoff – Zillow, Inc.): Sure. Pete do you – feel free to jump in if you want to add on that or anything else? We’re in different locations, Pete’s in San Francisco today and I’m in Seattle, so.
(Q – Ron Josey – JMP Securities LLC): Thank you.
(A – Spencer Rascoff – Zillow, Inc.): Okay. I guess we’ll go to next question.
Operator: Our next question comes Chris Merwin from Barclays. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
(Q – Chris Merwin – Barclays Capital, Inc.): Thanks and congratulations on the deal. So in terms of the cost savings, what is the target model now for the combined Zillow, Trulia, is 40% to 45% between EBITDA margins, still the right number to think about for the margin opportunity in time and at what level of revenue do you expect to get to that target model?
And then secondly just in terms of the decision to keep the brands separate, obviously I think that makes a lot of sense in terms of demand generation, but from a selling perspective, are you going to maintain two separate sales forces and how will those sales forces prioritize one brand versus the other and obviously Trulia sells impressions differently than Zillow, so just curious if that will continue? Thanks.
(A – Spencer Rascoff – Zillow, Inc.): So on the target model, we don’t have anything to update yet. I think it’s fair to say that we wouldn’t do this deal if we didn’t think it would change the pro forma trajectory of the company and we’ve already put one line in the sand in terms of cost avoidances for 2016. But we don’t have an update to the target model other than to say it ought to be accretive or else we wouldn’t have done this transaction with one another.
In terms of the ad products and the sales teams, all this will be announced at closing or kind of right around the closing time. Clearly there will be, clearly we will eventually unify some of these different ad products because one of the benefits of the transaction is that we feel we can go to our advertisers with one platform, much as we, both brands already do that to advertisers.
For example, when Zillow sells impressions to a premier agent, those impressions are consumed on Zillow, on HotPads, on MSN, on AOL, on Yahoo, et cetera and Trulia also represents other sites. So I think eventually the plan is to follow a similar strategy, but we can’t announce any other specifics now, they’ll become more apparent closer to closing.
(Q – Chris Merwin – Barclays Capital, Inc.): Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question comes from Heath Terry from Goldman Sachs. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
(Q – Heath Terry – Goldman Sachs & Co.): Great. Thanks. Spencer, wondering, I know a lot of the organizational details are planned for the future, but wondering if you could give us a sense of how you’re thinking about the sales organizations between the two companies, whether or not unifying those and getting some efficiencies out of those sales organizations as part of the cost synergies that you’ve identified in the press release and how quickly post the closing, do you see agents being able to buy across the combined platform?
(A – Spencer Rascoff – Zillow, Inc.): So, yes, embedded in the $100 million 2016 number, is both, foregone advertising as well as sales team efficiencies and foregone additional new hires. So, yes, that is in there. In terms of the timeline of when agents might buy media across these multiple brands, I really couldn’t say, closer to closing we’ll hopefully have an answer to that.
(Q – Heath Terry – Goldman Sachs & Co.): Great, thanks.
(A – Spencer Rascoff – Zillow, Inc.): Sure.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question comes from Neil Doshi from CRT Capital. Your line is open, please go ahead.
(Q – Neil Doshi – CRT Capital Group LLC): Great, thanks for taking my question. Congrats on the deal, guys. Spencer, how do you think about cross-selling opportunities? I know you guys do some stuff on mortgages, do you think that with the opportunity to cross sell to both the user base of Trulia as well as having opportunities to cross-sell Trulia products over to the user base of Zillow is, have you given thought as to what types of revenue synergies we could see from cross-sell opportunities? And then in terms of the mobile side, it seems like Trulia, slightly under indexes mobile relative to Zillow, so what do you think needs to happen there to bring Trulia’s mobile experience to parity with Zillow’s?
(A – Spencer Rascoff – Zillow, Inc.): Sure. I’ll take the second one, and then I’ll let Pete comment on the cross-sell. I’ll just say, Trulia’s mobile experiences are awesome. We admire them, and we think their native apps are fantastic, their mobile web experience is great and in a lot of places on mobile, I believe, the Trulia experience is ahead of the Zillow experience. In some other places, I think the Zillow experiences are better than Trulia experiences, but Trulia has got nothing, they have a fantastic mobile experience. Pete, on cross-sell with mortgages and maybe rentals on Trulia, do you want to take that one?
(A – Pete Flint – Trulia, Inc.): Yeah. So I think there’s tremendous opportunities in cross-sell opportunities for consumers. So Trulia, as Spencer said, we’ve been primarily focused on home shoppers and so we’ve less developed mortgage monetization as well as rental monetization, so we enormous traffic, which we know there’s interests in renting and interest in looking for a mortgage. So, we see tremendous opportunities over time in using the expertise that Zillow has built up around the two categories and bringing those on to the platform. So we’re excited about – especially those areas that have very low hanging fruit. So, we’re excited about executing on these opportunities.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question comes from Chad Bartley from Pacific Crest. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
(Q – Chad Bartley – Pacific Crest Securities LLC): Hi. Good morning. Thank you, so the information on the consumer overlap is helpful. Can you provide any data on agent subscriber overlap? And then, in terms of revenue synergies, can you talk about potentially pulling up Trulia’s agent ARPU more in line with Zillow and how you’ll approach that?
(A – Spencer Rascoff – Zillow, Inc.): So, we aren’t disclosing the agent overlap, but I’ll say it’s lower than, it’s not very significant. And maybe, I guess we’ll huddle on maybe, on future earnings calls or whatever, certainly at closing we can talk about agent overlap, I’m not sure if we’re ready to talk about it just yet. But, there is a lot of opportunity there.
In terms of ARPU, just to be clear, until closing both companies are operating business as usual. And so, there will be no change to Zillow’s sales strategy or advertising strategy and I’ll have, Pete is still running an independent public company until closing, so I’ll defer to him, but I’m sure he’ll say that Trulia also doesn’t have any change to their operating plan.
So where might ARPU go post-closing? Well, that comes back to the question about kind of when – what type of integration we do on the sales side and on the ad products side, and again unfortunately we’re not ready to share details like that just yet.
(Q – Chad Bartley – Pacific Crest Securities LLC): Okay. Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. Our next question comes from Jason Helfstein from Oppenheimer and Company. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
(Q – Jason Helfstein – Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. (Broker)): Thanks. So, kind of two questions. First, both you and Trulia make most of your money right now from products focused largely on agents trying to find buyers, just talk about how you think this will create synergies with a seller-oriented product? And then secondly, if you can just talk about, the bigger entity will now have more resources, does this make it more palatable to effectively go out try to create your own MLS deals, so the company is less dependent on other third-party data sources? Thanks.
(A – Spencer Rascoff – Zillow, Inc.): So I guess, I’ll let Pete start with the seller-lead question, because Trulia has a dedicated seller-lead product and Zillow does not. So, Pete I’ll throw that one to you.
(A – Pete Flint – Trulia, Inc.): Yeah. So I think the nature of the ad products generally is, we’re playing in a highly-fragmented market where zip code by zip code, individual agents are looking for individual home sellers or home buyers and that is one of the benefits of scale, so we can better serve our real estate agent customers by giving them more targeted prospects. So it’s greater value for our customers and better ROI. So, we’re pretty confident that the benefits of scale from both sides means that we can deliver better, just very, truly from this better scale, better quality leads to our agent customers.
And like Spencer said it’s pretty early on and we’re working through the pre-close period, so to think independently about what are some of the opportunities together.
(A – Spencer Rascoff – Zillow, Inc.): On the MLS question, both companies already have a strategy which is quite apparent for those that follow us closely of acquiring more listings directly from MLSs and from brokerages rather than through third-party syndication services that send us listings.
I think in the case of Trulia there are many dozens of MLSs that send them feeds directly. In the case of Zillow, we’re well on our way towards achieving that. So that will continue all over through this period and beyond. I think it is quite clear – it ought to be quite clear to a listing agent or their broker that it behooves their seller to have their listings displayed on Zillow or Trulia or sites that Zillow powers like MSN, AOL and Yahoo.
In fact, it’s almost inexplicable to me how an agent, a listing agent could say to their seller their listing is not on these web sites and mobile services. And I think that increasingly the industry has reached that conclusion that it benefits the seller and the seller’s clients and therefore listings ought to be displayed on these web sites, particularly in light of the fact that it’s free, to display these listings on these web sites. So that’s – both our companies will continue to acquire more direct listings, relationships with workers and MLSs and, during this period, as well as post-closing.
(Q – Jason Helfstein – Oppenheimer & Co., Inc. (Broker)): Thank you.
Operator: Thank you. And ladies and gentlemen, we have time for two more questions. And our next question comes from Lloyd Walmsley from Deutsche Bank. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
(Q – Lloyd Walmsley – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.): Thanks, guys. I’m wondering if you can just comment a little bit on the potential revenue synergy around the mortgage monetization and display, I know Trulia is a little bit behind in terms of monetizing its mortgage leads. Could you just, be a meaningful uptick from plugging that into the Zillow monetization engine? Similarly, on display as they’re kind of a pricing premium, do you think you can get with the greater reach? And then, I guess when you look at some of the other [ph] transactions, like rentals, (28:05) and just having a much larger base allow you guys to both monetize that a lot faster?
(A – Spencer Rascoff – Zillow, Inc.): Yeah. And so, I’ll start and then, Pete, please feel free to chime in, if you like. So mortgages, display and rentals, there are significant revenue opportunities from working together in these three adjacencies. In the case of mortgages, as you know Lloyd, our mortgage marketplace monetizes well. It’s a great consumer experience. It’s something that we now power the mortgage marketplace for HotPads and StreetEasy, as well as AOL.
We don’t have any make specific plans to announce right now about what might happen on Trulia with respect to mortgages, but I do believe there are synergies to be had in the mortgages business between this two companies.
On display, I can’t comment specifically, but other than to say, yes, I think there will be synergies. On rentals, I will comment and I’m sure Pete will too. We’re both very excited about the rentals opportunity. Each of us independently have very large rental audiences and we’re both in the early stages of monetizing those rental audiences and I think together we have a significant opportunity to address the billions of dollars in multifamily rental advertising which is before us. Pete?
(A – Pete Flint – Trulia, Inc.): Yeah, no. We’re excited about it. We’ve been thinking about focusing on, we’re planning on focusing independently on monetization. But I think the benefit, one of the benefits of this deal is that we can focus incremental resources on further consumer innovation and product development within the independent brands.
So it really gives, it can really push the consumer experience forward while monetizing the category which we’re tremendously excited about.
(Q – Lloyd Walmsley – Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.): Thanks, guys.
Operator: Thank you. And our final question comes from James Cakmak from Telsey Advisors Group. Your line is open. Please go ahead.
(Q – James Cakmak – Telsey Advisory Group LLC): Hi thanks and I’ll extend my congratulations as well. Spencer, you talked about the idea behind the deal of owning two-thirds of a combined company, definitely makes sense. I guess, on the flipside to that, Pete, I guess why does it make sense for you to earn, to own one-third rather than a 100% of Trulia? And then just secondly how do you think about then the agency and broker relationships and feedback in response to this deal and operating as a combined company? Thank you.
(A – Spencer Rascoff – Zillow, Inc.): Yeah. Pete, why don’t you just take the first part? And, I’ll take the industry relations portion of James’ question.
(A – Pete Flint – Trulia, Inc.): Yeah. So you know, I think we’ve obviously competed in the market place for many years. And I think we have just had tremendous respect for the team at Zillow and I think the, and as you can see from the deal today, this is a tremendous deal for shareholders. We also think it’s a tremendous deal for our employees and other partners.
So I think it’s on the sort of philosophically going in and then for shareholders going in, we think it’s a great deal. Just, it’s also, as we think about how the category is evolving, like this is, both teams are increasingly spending on marketing. And that, we’re very conscious of that and I think under this scenario, while we’ll continue to spend on marketing, we think we can do it more efficiently than as a standalone. And we think that’s an incremental benefit to us. And we think it’s an incremental benefit to the combined entity.
(A – Spencer Rascoff – Zillow, Inc.): On the industry front, I’m optimistic that the industry will view this as a positive. If the e-mails in my inbox for the last hour are any indication, for example, there are many premier agents, advertising agents at Zillow that are incredibly excited about this news and can’t wait to also have access to Trulia’s audience.
And on the broker franchisee, franchisor, and MLS front, I think most industry participants realize that having a company with a large audience and with the resources to build great products in order to move the industry forward, is advantageous for the industry. So I’m looking forward to discussing it with the industry and certainly the early feedback has been great.
(Spencer M. Rascoff, Chief Executive Officer & Director): I think with that, we need to wrap up to get to the respective employee meetings and other things this morning. So, thank you very much. Pete and Sean will be hosting Trulia’s earnings call on Thursday. Chad and I will be hosting the Zillow earnings call next Tuesday. And thank you all very much for your time and interest. Talk to you all soon.
Operator: Ladies and gentlemen, thanks for participating in today’s conference. This concludes our program. You may all disconnect and have a wonderful day.
Redfin launches their Job Opportunity tool – gimmicky yet brilliant move
(REAL ESTATE) Redfin has launched a new tool that at first glance is a PR stunt, but at second glance is useful and pretty damn smart.
According to the National Association of Realtors, 90% of people searching for new homes will turn to the internet in their hunt. It’s why real estate sites like Zillow, Trulia and Redfin exist. With competition growing tighter every year, Redfin has created a new feature to stand out from the rest of the pack: a job opportunity tool.
No, this isn’t specifically for job hunting. You’re going to have to look for specific employment opportunities elsewhere.
Instead, Redfin has collected information from sources like the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the US Census Bureau, and even the IRS in order to provide an informed look into the job climate for those looking to relocate.
Not only can users get an idea of how many jobs are available in an area, they can take a look at median salaries, and how these salaries add up against the cost of living.
Redfin’s tool calculates average housing, transportation, and tax prices, among other things, which can give people an idea of how far their salary will really go in a new home.
Plus, they’ve also created a tab for employers to research data regarding hiring prospects, expanding usage of the tool to those considering starting, expanding or moving a business.
On its own, the job opportunity tool is pretty neat. There are plenty of colorful visuals to make the information engaging and easy to digest. The tool also boasts a decent amount of variety, providing insight about jobs from bakers, floor sanders, midwives, and anything in between. It’s sure to provide interesting insights to anyone looking to relocate.
Primarily, it’s a smart business move on Redfin’s part.
The tool sets them apart from other real estate sites, giving them a traffic and brand boost with the markets they were already targeting. Many people looking to buy homes are, after all, making significant relocations. It also diversifies what Redfin offers, though, which might help them garner attention from other industries and break out of real estate in a creative way.
Above all, it’s a smart PR move for Redfin, to creatively present their data to news outlets and have their name in as many media mouths as possible.
Online real estate is still a budding industry despite being two decades old, and this is just one of many ways the industry is evolving. Still, kudos to Redfin for making something that is both an interesting gimmick and a useful tool for job and home hunters alike.
Zillow hopes gov’t is dumb enough to grant them a patent on 30+ year old tech
(CORPORATE NEWS) Zillow continues to expand their offering, but can they succeed with all the patent lawsuits they’re in?
Recently, Zillow quietly filed a patent for “automatically determining market rental rates for properties.”
The patent abstract says that it’s protecting “A facility for determining a market rental rate for a distinguished home located in a distinguished geographic area…”
It goes on to say that they receive attributes for the home, and runs it through a valuation model trained by rental listing prices and home attributes from recently-listed rental homes in the area, then reports the market rate that it comes up with.
If you’re familiar with Zillow, that probably means that you’re either a real estate professional, you’ve used it to find a home, or that you’re one of the people who idly flips through it ogling other peoples’ houses the same way that most people scroll through Twitter. But you’ll probably also recognize the service being described. It sounds like it’s basically a Zestimate, for rental properties.
A Zestimate is a home-value estimate that Zillow offers on its listings. It pulls pricing data from similar houses in the area, runs it all through an algorithm, spits out a rough estimate of what an appropriate price for that home might be. Better known as an AVM, which was developed in the 1990s.
It’s an interesting service. Though if you’ve ever played around on the site, you’ve probably noticed that the Zestimate can be way off. It’s not unreliable by any means, but it’s far from gospel about what a home is actually worth. The average Zestimate error for a house not currently on the market has been calculated to be around $18,000 as of July 2019.
It’s interesting that Zillow is going further down the Zestimate path. Earlier this month, they were sued by IBM for alleged infringement of seven patents. They claim that key Zillow features are built on unlicensed IBM patents, including tech that sounds an awful lot like what Zestimates would need.
IBM says that they’ve been trying to reach a patent licensing deal with Zillow for three years, which means that when Zillow filed suit against Compass for stealing Zillow’s intellectual property in April, they in turn were driving IBM to the end of its patience for not licensing theirs. (Does that mean that IBM should be suing Compass, too? Who knows!)
At any rate, it’s no surprise that Zillow’s considering a move deeper into the rental market. That kind of expansion has been a key part of their business plan for a long time now. While they’re certainly a leader in the “daydreaming about buying a house” space, they’re aiming to be involved with the entire home-purchasing process, from start to finish. From websites for Realtors, to instant homebuying and mortgage lending, Zillow’s dreaming of being the ultimate real estate service provider (even if they swore all along they never would practice real estate).
They’re not new to the rental space, either. Their current rental management system includes applications and tenant screening, as well as online rent payment. It’ll be interesting to see which of these expansions pay off for them in the long run.
WeWork’s melodramatic IPO withdrawal could hurt Compass & Opendoor
(REAL ESTATE) You may ask what some tool who claims he invented coworking has to do with the real estate tech world, but it turns out the ties that bind them are closer than many thought. Buckle up, this is a wild ride.
If you haven’t been paying attention to the WeWork melodrama, we’ll give you the TL;DR version, but you should first know that I am absolutely certain that this will all be a Netflix documentary a la the Fyre Festival scam or the Theranos debacle.
Like many of you, I have been obsessed with this wacky story, and I’m convinced that it is a fleecing of historic proportions that is complex and is (finally) unraveling before our eyes.
WeWork’s parent, The We Company announced today that they will be withdrawing their filing for their initial public offering (IPO) which initially was based on a $47 billion valuation that by this month had slid to around $10 billion. The Board successfully voted to oust CEO, Adam Neumann last week, with Neumann himself allegedly casting a vote in agreement.
The IPO failed for a number of reasons, but the meat is that the company had to disclose information in their filing that showed more of their shady underbelly than they would have preferred.
The S1 revealed made up accounting methods, wild spending, questionable dealings between WeWork and companies that Neumann owned (that benefited Neumann’s personal finances), and when investors began digging into the filings, they uncovered billions of dollars of annual losses that weren’t exactly documented or explained in a way that Wall Street was ready to invest in.
An editorial was posted on Medium.com that went viral, simply entitled “Is WeWork a Fraud?” to which the entire internet read and responded with “yep.” It was republished by countless blogs as a dramatic summation of the facts.
It empowered the average American to read and balk at Neumann’s bizarre God complex. He believes he is literally destined to be The One save the planet. He constantly played a shell game with his companies and brushed off legitimate questions about finances with answers that sound like some spiritual guru on stage.
People shared the editorial endlessly, and it was the catalyst for people becoming interested in the eccentric CEO who smokes weed in his private jet and cusses on stage like a hecka cool guy.
To really understand how all of this ties into Compass and Opendoor, we urge you to go read the original editorial before continuing- it’s worth the time, we promise.
So you’re probably asking yourself right now what WeWork has to do with anything in residential real estate.
The first common thread is Japan-based Softbank, the big bucks behind WeWork, Compass, and Opendoor.
Many fingers are pointed at Softbank CEO and Chairman, Masayoshi Son for being overly optimistic and underly diligent about companies that he personally sees as innovative.
Softbank had reportedly pressured WeWork to hold off on their IPO (and keep the noise down), as they are in the middle of raising their second $100 billion Vision Fund, hoping to attract investors who won’t notice Son’s reputation for investing in companies that don’t yield any returns.
But WeWork filed, the noise has become overwhelming, and the Vision Fund is in trouble.
Softbank has been the only real investment in WeWork, and the only one who says the company was ever worth a $47 billion valuation, investing $12 billion in 9 rounds since 2012.
The second common thread between WeWork, Compass, and Opendoor is that they are all growing incredibly quickly and are unprofitable.
That sounds like good news, but it’s not. Everyone in the startup and/or investing knows that burn rate is a critical component of a company’s sustainability.
Having a high burn rate is like a 7 year old that got their allowance, immediately rushed to spend every dime on candy, and are now in debt to their siblings because they used their allowances on candy as well. It’s corporate gluttony.
The third common thread is that they all claim to be technology companies.
This is a deep point of contention for some, but let’s digest this together.
Ben Thompson offers analysis of industry topics at Stratechery, and recently dissected whether or not WeWork (and others) are tech companies or not (and included an in-depth historical perspective leading up to his criteria). Per his definition, to be a tech company, one must check all five boxes:
- Creates ecosystems.
- Has zero marginal costs.
- Improves over time.
- Offers infinite leverage.
- Enables zero transaction costs.
Thompson asserts that WeWork checkmarks exactly none of the boxes, and under this same criteria, it is hard to see how Compass or Opendoor can either.
We offered a simpler criteria earlier this year when insisting that the media stop calling it the FAANG (Facebook Apple Amazon Netflix Google), noting that most of the companies aren’t technologies.
We noted that any company whose primary function is serving up content is a media company, and any company whose primary function is hardware or software is a tech company.
Under this simplified criteria, it is clear that WeWork, Compass, and Opendoor are not technology companies, they’re real estate companies that are either knowingly masquerading as tech companies to attract investors, or unintentionally giving themselves a label because they use technology better than their competitors and/or consider their use of technology as their core identity.
The final common thread is that all three companies have major competitors that are similar (and they don’t call themselves tech companies, they operate at a profit, and all have much lower valuations), but you would think from their marketing that they’re the only one in their field.
WeWork’s Neumann claims he invented coworking after growing up in Israel in a kibbutz. The only problem is that ServCorp has been around since the 70s, IWG (fka Regus) has been around since the 80s, LEO since the 90s, The Office Group since the early 2000s, and so on.
Compass is doing really cool things with technology (again, they’re not a tech company), but they are a glossy competitor to any other major brokerage, namely Realogy which is publicly traded and according to Forbes, “had 42 times the number of transactions, 11 times the sales volume, seven times the revenue — and actually made a profit.”
Opendoor became a unicorn (valuation of over $1B) right out of the gates, and they’re definitely thinking creatively to speed up the residential real estate process, but they directly compete with Homie, Offerpad, and Movoto, none of whom have the same wild burn rate.
All that said, there’s nothing wrong with Opendoor or Compass, but WeWork has made their existence more difficult.
Because all three are in a similar camp as described above, not only will investment from anyone other than Softbank be difficult to obtain, but WeWork’s insane bookkeeping practices have had a chilling effect in that people are looking more closely at profitability and operating procedures.
That chilling effect means external pressure to improve revenues, which real estate tech journalist, Mike DelPrete asserts, “could lead Opendoor to raise its fees, or Compass to reduce its generous commission splits with agents; either move would severely limit growth. Reducing expenses would come in the form of office consolidation (Compass has over 250 offices across the U.S.), ratcheting down employee perks, or even staff layoffs.”
And it wouldn’t be unprecedented. Uber has had layoffs and struggled with an image problem as they are hand-fed money by Softbank’s CEO who is ultra aggressive with investing in potential rather than profitability.
DelPrete adds that for all three businesses to succeed, they “require an unprecedented amount of capital and a willingness to buy into a vision that is driven more by words than numbers and where the long-term validity of the business model is easier to assert than to prove. The current WeWork fiasco… shows that valuations can’t keep rising unchecked by the realities of basic economic principles—and that investor patience does have a limit.”
WeWork’s newly ousted CEO has already cashed out and is set for life, and his God complex has made for some meaty headlines, but Compass and Opendoor may also pay a price.
This all sounds like a far away Wall Street problem, but try telling that to Compass’ 7,000+ agents (and 1,000+ staff), and Opendoor’s agent partners in 21 cities (and nearly 1,200 staff).
Nice job, Adam Neumann. Thanks a bunch.
Get keyword alerts for Facebook Group activity #LeadGen
How to avoid going down in flames like WeWork
Realtors support USMCA, but it’s not a done deal (yet)
100 new Pinterest trends to know for 2020
Security of client information is important, so change the process
Zillow hopes gov’t is dumb enough to grant them a patent on 30+ year old tech
Has Mailchimp enjoyed its last days as an industry darling?
Is a recession on the table for 2020?
Stupid Facebook rule will not show your ad if you use these words
2020: Housing costs will rise, despite stellar employment and interest rates
Get The Daily Intel
in your inbox
Subscribe and get news and EXCLUSIVE content to your email inbox!
Thank you for subscribing.
Oh boy... Something went wrong.
Op/Ed2 weeks ago
Open letter to Realtors: Let your freak flag fly and quit judging each other
Real Estate Big Data5 days ago
Looking into the crystal ball – 2020 housing forecast
Real Estate Corporate4 days ago
Redfin launches their Job Opportunity tool – gimmicky yet brilliant move
Real Estate Technology1 week ago
T-mobile releases “5G for all” plan – don’t fall for the 5G trap
Real Estate Technology4 days ago
Value privacy? DuckDuckGo is the answer to breaking up with Google
Real Estate Big Data2 weeks ago
Alternative data is an intriguing, inventive new way to market
Op/Ed1 week ago
Your career depends on you, and the mentors you select
Real Estate Technology1 week ago
This management app combines all the features you need