Connect with us

Real Estate Corporate

The pending demise of iBuying real estate brokerages

The iBuying model is under speculation from regulatory bodies, and how they represent themselves to the public could be their undoing.

Published

on

financial cash flow iBuying

In my view, the iBuying model is fatally flawed and may only provide Consumers enhanced benefits in specific market conditions. Furthermore, there appears to be a “revenue at all costs” model to appease investors, providing the inference that a company is growing at the detriment to net profits as most homes are flipped at a net loss. 

It is my understanding that iBuyers record revenue as the sale price of the home. Recording the sale price of the house has increased iBuyer revenue exponentially, which increased stock values to all-time highs, however now there is an expectation of continuing revenue growth, which may pressure iBuyers to buy less favorable homes to maintain revenue volume.

Zillow’s recent announcement that they are “pausing” iBuying resulted in a significant drop in stock value and analyst downgrades. 

The Fallacy That Combining Brokerage, Mortgage & Escrow Services Enhances Consumer Experiences

My brokerage refers clients to third-party firms we have vetted and have a history of transacting. To gain our trust, third-party companies must exhibit excellent customer service with reasonable rates.

iBuyer agents may provide referrals because they share a cubical with the respective service provider. 

Navigating Down Markets

Sales are simple in an appreciating market, and profitability is enhanced (or losses softened). Conversely, transacting in a flat or price-correcting environment may disproportionally impact iBuyers as they are glorified home flippers who might rely on appreciation.

In a study by Mike DelPrete, arguably the preeminent residential real estate analyst, states, In Q2 2021, home price appreciation accounted for 70 percent of Opendoor’s gross profit margin.”

Federal Investigations Into iBuyer Representations | Per OpenDoor’s SEC Disclosure

“Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) sent a civil investigative demand (“CID”) to Opendoor seeking documents and information relating primarily to statements in Opendoor’s advertising and website comparing selling homes to Opendoor with selling homes in a traditional manner using an agent and relating to statements that Opendoor’s offers reflect or are based on market prices. Thereafter, Opendoor responded cooperatively to the CID and related follow-up requests from the FTC.” 

“On December 23, 2020, the FTC notified the Company that they intend to recommend that the agency pursue an enforcement action against the Company and certain of its officers if we are unable to reach a negotiated settlement acceptable to all parties. The FTC has indicated that they believe certain of Opendoor’s advertising claims relating to the amount of its offers, the repair costs charged to home sellers, and the amount of net proceeds a seller may receive from selling to Opendoor versus selling in the traditional manner were inaccurate and/or inadequately substantiated.”

When previously visiting Opendoor, in what appears to be a four-point font, OpenDoor discloses the following: 

“* Beginning on September 30, 2020, for new offers, Opendoor’s service charge will be no more than 5%. Service charge is subject to change, and has historically been as high as 14%.”

OfferPad appears to match the 5% cap, so we may witness a “race to zero” in the iBuying market. If a firm has difficulty achieving net profit when fees have “historically been as high as 14%,” profiting with a 5% cap may prove to be impossible. 

Acquiring Via Special Purpose Entities | Reminiscent Of Enron | Complex Financial Reporting The Average Investor May Not Understand

OpenDoor’s SEC 8K States: 

“The Company utilizes inventory financing facilities consisting of asset-backed senior credit facilities and asset-backed mezzanine term debt facilities to provide financing for the Company’s real estate inventory purchases and renovation. The credit facilities are secured by the assets and equity of one or more SPEs. Each SPE is a consolidated subsidiary of Opendoor and a separate legal entity. Neither the assets nor credit of any such SPE are generally available to satisfy the debts and other obligations of any other Opendoor entities, except to the extent other Opendoor entities are also a party to the financing arrangements.

These facilities are non-recourse to Opendoor and, with limited exceptions, non-recourse to other Opendoor subsidiaries. These SPEs are variable interest entities and Opendoor is determined to be the primary beneficiary based on its power to direct the activities that most significantly impact the economic outcomes of the entities through its role in designing the entities and managing the real estate inventory purchased and sold by the entities. The Company has potentially significant variable interest in the entities based upon the equity interest the Company holds in the VIEs.”

Understood?

Even OpenDoor is having difficulty with accounting/reporting as they disclosed the following: 

“We have identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting and may identify additional material weaknesses in the future or fail to maintain an effective system of internal control over financial reporting, which may result in material misstatements of our consolidated financial statements or cause us to fail to meet our periodic reporting obligations. We have identified material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis.”

Generally speaking, it is time for all PropTech firms to reevaluate the accuracy of public representations as FTC complaints are filed and class-action law firms are evaluating claims.

The days of misleading consumers while denigrating Realtors are over. 

Ask Jack Ryan and REX Homes. 

Anthony Phillips is the Co-Founder and President of Luxury Real Estate Advisors and non-profit, Luxury Cares. Luxury Real Estate Advisors is the preeminent provider of sales, leasing, property management, home and investor services to the Las Vegas luxury real estate segment.

Real Estate Corporate

Has REX Homes finally ceased operations?

After two rounds of layoffs, a restructure to join MLSs, and swirling rumors regarding leadership, staffers tell us the company has crumbled.

Published

on

Empty office REX Homes

Real estate brokerage REX Homes became famous in recent years for spearheading an anti-trust lawsuit against Zillow and the National Association of Realtors, accusing them of being a ‘cartel’ to edge out non-MLS participants. But it appears that as of today, the company has ceased operations.

Numerous staff reached out to us directly to indicate the company’s last day was Tuesday and that a companywide call on Friday outlined the end of REX Homes. While the entity of the brokerage still exists, we are told there are no longer offices, staff, leadership, or agents.

Staff at the Austin, TX and Woodland Hills, CA offices (both in Texas) have confirmed that as of today, the doors are literally closed. It is unclear what REX’s plans are for wrapping up any current contracts that haven’t closed.

The company’s website remains live with no notification of any service interruptions and there have been no changes to the faces that appear on the staffing page.

Many Glassdoor users have begun leaving reviews asserting that operations have ceased. To thicken the mystery, we’ve already seen several recent reviews disappear, but it is unclear if that is Glassdoor or REX’s doing.

Several LinkedIn users formerly employed at REX Homes are putting their #OpenToWork signs up, stating the company has closed – some indicate departments dissolving, others that the entire company has collapsed.

What has been especially interesting with this company is staff’s consistent fears of CEO Jack Ryan, consistently citing a fear of retribution not just professionally, but personally, and several told us we should worry about our own personal safety, having been the only news outlet covering REX’s unraveling.

Also consistent is that everyone we’ve spoken to in the last year has cited an imminent demise of the company as a whole.

In August of 2021, REX Homes laid off 60 staff without severance, and on October 7th, 2021, REX Homes had their second round of layoffs – both times, staff said they were not initially given severance pay, but report to us that after our coverage, they began seeing payment.

Also in October of last year, they shut down their New York and Chicago offices, and announced internally that they would be joining MLSs. They called it a restructure. The joining of any MLS shocked many as the premise of their structure was always that their magical proprietary tech as well as their bypassing of the MLSs to save consumers thousands of dollars.

They earned several rounds of private equity funding and never went public. Several staff told us that going IPO had been a talking point from Ryan, often used to lure them to the company in the first place and accept lower pay with the idea that shares would soon be coming their way.

Between the August and October layoffs, they closed their Series D round of funding, but never disclosed the amount, closing date, or investor. It is therefore unclear how their investors feel about the company’s status, but it is also possible that they’re who initiated the pulling of the plug.

It is also unclear what this means for their ongoing lawsuit against Zillow and NAR and how a non-existent company can pursue a class action lawsuit, but no filings have been made in the past week regarding the case.

As with all REX stories, we have reached out for comment. Because we track all emails, we have always seen them open every press inquiry within seconds, but it is of note that our current request for comment has yet to be viewed

Continue Reading

Real Estate Corporate

Zillow seeks a patent to fill out forms electronically – sounds familiar…

(TECHNOLOGY) In yet another broad patent application, Zillow is aiming for ownership of the ability to fill out “transactional documents” electronically.

Published

on

zillow

In yet another obscenely broad patent application, Zillow is aiming for ownership of the ability to fill out “transactional documents” electronically.

The official patent application describes “generating electronic transactional documents using a form generating system” and “using a design tool that allows a user to place data entry fields over an image or snapshot of a transactional document.”

If that sounds familiar, it’s because virtually every website that allows customers to e-sign anything already does this. Some concerns also address the fact that services such as DocuSign – a service in which both Google and NAR invested – and even Google Forms might fall under this category.

Should Zillow see this patent approved, it could spell disaster for a huge operational segment of any real estate sale: the actual signing of a contract.

What’s odd about this patent application is the bizarre, gaslighting-lite language it uses to pitch the idea of something that is already used widely on the internet. In the background section, the patent claims that “Most of the time the parties are not in the same physical location when the offers, counteroffers, and acceptances are signed. Fax machines are often used to facilitate the process, as well as emailing scanned documents.”

The background continues with, “Sellers, buyers, and their agents are often not in the same contemporaneous physical location. Therefore, signed documents are often faxed between parties, with original signed copies being retained for the closing.”

Using the implied inconvenience of a physical fax machine as an argument for the efficacy of electronic documents makes sense, albeit in an obvious kind of way; however, using this argument to support the notion that Zillow should be able to claim a patent that gives them domain overall electronic forms in the real estate microcosm seems particularly villainous.

It’s also worth noting that, should this patent be granted any time soon, the likelihood that the world will still be in the grips of the COVID-19 pandemic is high. From the patent office’s standpoint, restricting the remote signature options of any real estate firm not affiliated with Zillow during a period of time in which purchasing property is already laborious and dangerous shouldn’t even be an option.

Time will tell whether or not Zillow is successful in achieving its bid for e-signing. Other document-signing services may be able to dispute the patent, but Zillow’s history of scooping up unlikely patents is undoubtedly on their side.

Continue Reading

Real Estate Corporate

Zillow hit with another lawsuit after iBuying collapse, claiming they misled investors

(REAL ESTATE) Stockholders are suing, alleging that Zillow publicly praised the iBuying program despite knowing it was dying, and they claim to “suffer significant damages.”

Published

on

Zillow landing page on laptop

Zillow Group was hit late Thursday with yet another investor lawsuit on the heels of the collapse of their iBuying program (“Zillow Offers”). Hillier v. Zillow Group, Inc. et al in the Western Washington District Court is seeking class action status in this federal securities lawsuit, alleging that Zillow failed to disclose to investors that they did not have the ability to price homes for their Zillow Offers program, and that paired with a known supply and labor shortage, led to an inventory backlog.

The suit claims that under these conditions, Zillow (ZG) knew they would have to end the iBuying program, which would hurt their bottom line, something investors were not made aware of. In fact, this suit notes that company leadership continued to speak positively in public, making “materially false and/or misleading statements” about the program despite their overpaying for numerous homes and selling them at a loss.

In the Notice of Related Cases filed, Braua v. Zillow Group, Inc., et al., and Silverberg v. Zillow Group Inc., et al. were cited, both of which are seeking damages for allegations of misleading investors. The Hillier suit is specifically seeking to certify a class of Zillow stock buyers who made purchases from Aug. 7, 2020, and Nov. 2, 2021.

The new lawsuit outlines the following (our words, not theirs):

  • Zillow launched the home buying program in 2018 to rapidly flip properties.
  • By close of 2019, they were in 22 markets, and the program accounted for half of their annual revenue ($1.4B).
  • On August 05, 2021, the company released Q2 earnings, citing $772M from the iBuying program, roughly 60% of their annual revenue. In the release, Defendant Rich Barton said that their “iBuying business, Zillow Offers, continues to accelerate as we offer more customers a fast, fair, flexible and convenient way to move” and “is proving attractive to sellers even in this sizzling-hot seller’s market.”
  • In October, RBC Capital Markets began cooling on Zillow, lowering their price target for the stock, warning that Zillow Offers would likely miss quarterly expectations, dragging ZG down from $91.40 on October 01 to $85.68 on October 04.
  • Shortly thereafter, in October 2021, Zillow announced they would be halting the program through year’s end, and stocks continued to slip.
  • In November, the company released their Q3 financials and simultaneously declared an end to the program and a 25% workforce cut.

It appears that the crux of the Hillier case is that leadership continued to praise the program even as it declined, right up until the Q3 earnings statements went public and it could no longer sustain the program.

“As a result of defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the resulting declines in the market value of the company’s securities, plaintiff and other members of the class have suffered significant damages,” the suit concludes.

As recently as this week, InvestorPlace said, “it’s going to be a while before ZG stock could make a comeback,” noting that Zillow’s house is not in order.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Our Partners

Get The Daily Intel
in your inbox

Subscribe and get news and EXCLUSIVE content to your email inbox!

Still Trending

Get The American Genius
in your inbox

subscribe and get news and exclusive content to your email inbox