However, that's not a systematic method for lower prices. It just prevents individual cases of price gouging.
I think you might have the problem backwards. Realpage was about buyer collusion, and that wouldn't look any different from the prices naturally just rising in a market with more demand/less supply because even sellers who aren't colluding would still raise their prices if they saw that that was the going rate in the area.
When there are multiple competing factors all influencing price simultaneously it's very hard to accurately determine how much any particular factor contributed, or what the "actual price" would have been without them.
This is actually essentially the problem that justifies markets as an efficient way to arrive at fair prices - it's computationally too expensive to calculate the precise supply/demand ratios at any given moment, and demand can change much faster than supply can adjust (and nobody could ever really know how elastic demand is for things like local housing markets anyway).
So sellers want to respond to changes in demand by raising prices, because the business model of housing rentals is matching short term demand/pricing/risk to long term costs/costs/risk. But every buyer has their own demand preferences and every supplier has a different product with different fixed costs, and everybody knows their own demand preference and ability to provide supply, so the aggregate price a market settles at "collapses" all that information without explicit coordination: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem
If there truly is an increase in demand, as a buyer you probably do want rents to increase, because otherwise you get shortages like in Berlin where there is nothing to rent. So that's why coordinating to withold inventory with other sellers is bad, it creates a shortage anyway and only a small number of participants need to do it to move the entire market
There is enough turnover with new listings to find the market rate while preventing existing tenants from being screwed over by unreasonable prices.
Australia also almost entirely works off rentals owned by individuals who own 1-3 properties rather than corporate owners so no one landlord has any sway over the market.
I think this narrative is just meant to distract people from questioning the necessity of the landlord class, they want people angry at a faceless corporate boogieman instead of local landlords (for obvious reasons)
What else do you expect "collective bargaining" to do in a market where every tenant has a different landlord? Your landlord isn't going to care if the tenants of 10,000 other landlords threaten to move out. They only care if you threaten to move out, and then to credibly do that what you need is to show them the unit you could move into which is asking for less.
The real problem is that you need the unit you can threaten to move into to first exist, rather than its construction being inhibited by zoning etc.
Of course, if there are improvements in the rental, you can go beyond the index as the property been "improved", but it's really handy to know each year that it's limited and the exact amount. For 2026 it's locked to 2.14% for example, for everyone.
Second, the historical database should be deleted. And if they can't survive that, so be it. Keeping the spoils of crime should be the crime. Justice still isn't finished.
Not clear to me that is the right approach, or if owning rentals should be more of a fixed income approach (or even speculative - profits only come from the sale of the property).
This actually works unless you inhibit the construction of new units. Naturally that's what we've been doing, which is why it isn't working. But the solution is to stop inhibiting the construction of new units.
Because the alternatives don't actually work. Unless you can build enough units to meet demand, there aren't enough units. Which means you either have high prices which suppress demand because people who can't afford them are forced out, or shortages because you're imposing some inadvisable price controls and then instead of being unable to get a unit because you can't afford the rent, you can't get a unit because they're all occupied and no one is adding more.
Alternatively we could keep the names private. A cryptographic solution would easily serve the need of authorities verifying the right person is in a place without identification, but good luck figuring out how to ensure the tenant has their keys somehow since in the US there are zero pieces of identification you can ensure every citizen has.
(Unless the other party to the contract deliberately asks you in the contract to keep it quiet. But that's something you need to actively agree to.)
It is a supply issue caused by local building codes and zoning. Full stop. Everything else is just pretending to do something about the problem, and corporations are just scapegoats.
But RealPage isn't a supply issue? It's easy to price gouge consumers because housing is inelastic. And the fine they got is a slap on the wrist!
Price gouging is more widespread than one isolated price fixing case. It's easy to achieve in an inelastic market. As one example, moving costs money so rentiers can raise rents as long as there is a switching cost to moving. Deregulation doesn't address the fundamental inelasticity of the housing market.
Your comment also seems to be oblivious to the role that interest rates play. Mortgages are not corporate-owned in the sense of the parent comment, but mortgages are a cash flow from home owners to corporate financiers - a cash flow from the working class to the wealthy. ZIRP led to high prices; with rising rates, homeowners are incentivized to hold on to their properties rather than move. These are issues of macroeconomic finance and wealth disparity, not "building codes and zoning".
While you're right that the parent's comment of corporate ownership of houses is off base, multi-family housing is majority corporate owned. Multi-family housing is a huge portion of the housing market, particularly in cities where prices are highest. Corporations aren't "just scapegoats" here either - they are parasitizing cash flow from workers here as well. Corporate profits is where the money in high housing prices ultimately goes.
There is a reason billionaires astroturf YIMBYism. It's precisely because it doesn't threaten their class interests.
Extremely low chance that I’m going to put my entire net worth on the line to own and rent out housing in my own name.
Exactly zero chance that I’ll do it in a multi-family or apartment building.
Holding these things in corporate title is sensible risk management and compartmentalization.
For example- do you have a mortgage? Almost certainly in your name, you have to be very large to receive a mortgage as a corporation. If you're holding a property in an LLC but the mortgage in your name, that's classic piercing the corporate veil and will take an attorney about 10 minutes to shred that in court
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
Land ownership is the biggest business and the source of the biggest conspiracies.
By the way, the home value and income estimates were higher than reality, and his quote was also fairly high - though not the highest
A buyer should also ask the sellers for a lower price after the initial prices are given.
If you have examples of such a company in other industries, please share.
AUTOMATIC PRICE UPDATES
New pricing information automatically pushes to marketing website and ILS listings in real time.
During a six month study with an Entrata client using Entrata Pricing, market rents grew 15% more than a comparable set of properties within the same company.
No one cared about those of us hurt by this company to even bother filing a lawsuit against them.
Industry Companies
---------------- --------------------------------------
Apartments RealPage, Yardi, Rentana, Entrata
Hotels IDeaS, Duetto, RoomPriceGenie
Airlines PROS, Amadeus
Grocery Revionics, Yieldigo, Competera
Retail Pricefx, Omnia Retail, Wiser Solutions
E-commerce Prisync, Price2Spy, Intelligence Node
Manufacturing Zilliant, Vendavo
Vacation rentals PriceLabs, Beyond, Wheelhouse
Events/tickets DynamO Pricing, DigonexOn that basis, the 'free market' should be called the 'free, competitive market' - without competition, it has little value. Businesses should be required to compete and to opeerate in competitive markets. Anything anti-competitive should be treated harshly.
(Seven has been experimentally determined, but I can't recall where.)
I can't quote the formula here, but HHI is, apparently, the sum of squared percentage market shares. Six equal-sized suppliers give an HHI of approximately 1,667, while seven give approximately 1,429—on opposite sides of the 2010 threshold.
Is that where you got the number?
> In assembling information to be collectively provided to purchasers, providers need to be aware of the potential antitrust consequences of information exchanges among competitors.
> the collection is managed by a third party (e.g., a purchaser, government agency, health care consultant, academic institution, or trade association);
> although current fee-related information may be provided to purchasers, any information that is shared among or is available to the competing providers furnishing the data must be more than three months old; and
> for any information that is available to the providers furnishing data, there are at least five providers reporting data upon which each disseminated statistic is based, no individual provider's data may represent more than 25 percent on a weighted basis of that statistic, and any information disseminated must be sufficiently aggregated such that it would not allow recipients to identify the prices charged by any individual provider.
> The conditions that must be met for an information exchange among providers to fall within the antitrust safety zone are intended to ensure that an exchange of price or cost data is not used by competing providers for discussion or coordination of provider prices or costs.
Damn. From 1996!
I'm not sure I understand where you are going with this? Are you suggesting that a new product cannot enter a market without a number of simultaneous competitors?
If I want to roll out fibre to an area that doesn't have it, can I? If I want to build a fresh-produce store in a town that doesn't have one, then I need to find someone else to compete with?
Lots and lots of businesses operate as quasi-monopolies if you look hard enough. Especially in smaller and rural environments. Lots and lots of places have one gas station, one mechanic, one vet, one doctor, one diner and so on.
Your use of the word "require" seems difficult to implement. What if no-one wants to compete with me? If Apple stops making Macs, does MS have to stop making Windows?
Housing needs to be decommodified. It needs to stop being a retirement plan. We need to stop letting people hoard it. We need to stop subsidizing exurbs and making it illegal to build the kind of walkable communities people actually like. Case in point: Red Vienna [1].
As another commenter noted, this is in every industry. Utilities are a particularly bad one including telcos. All the best ISPs in the US are municipally owned. Chattanooga was the first really big poster child for this.
Privatization of all these things is just rent-seeking behavior.
So many of society's problems come down to housing being too expensive. Anything that makes it expensive needs to be stamped out and that includes RealPage as well as Airbnb/VRBO.
This is a predictable outcome of commerce due to the limited supply of land and is described in some detail by Adam Smith and developed by later thinkers like Riccardo and George (who took it to its logical conclusion and inspired the board game Monopoly).
During the 20th century, economics was wholesale rewritten to blur the lines between land and capital so as to bury this awkward conversation.
The general recommendation of these early economists was taxing land - moderate in the case of Smith, up to 100% per George. This amounts to public ownership of part of the profits of land ownership.
No, it is not. Communism tried that and all communist countries failed spectacularly. Public ownership in practice means that everyone has rights but zero responsibilities.
Taking people's private property is not a solution to any crisis. This whole housing thing looks like "I want to have my cake and eat it too".
But then USSR wasn't really communist either, it was far more defined by dictatorship of individuals; which is diametrically opposed to communism.
If you have people living in palaces whilst others starve then you don't have communism - the first principle of which is that benefit of labour is split under egalitarian principles. Whilst rich people getting richer, and the devaluing of people typifies capitalism.
From my considerations, we need to limit wage disparity, eg by a top rate of tax at 100% (I know how that will be received here!). That limits power that can be accrued through wealth too - no more billionaires who can by elections. We also need to give ownership of the benefits of labour to the people; wage limits does that, but a more direct link is possible too and that can aid transition from Western Capitalism to a more equal distribution of wealth. Ultimately, globally we're going to face far more issues with migration as the effects of our past excesses take hold; redistribution of wealth across nations also needs to be accepted if we're going to manage that transition with less war and bloodshed.
Not that it wasn't predictable. Follow the money: who owns the property and REITs that rely on squeezing renters for every cent? Certainly not lawyers, judges, and politicians. /s
Can’t wait to get like $300 out of this. /s
Okay but Realpage has a decade of real pricing data that it can use to continue informing these rental companies and outside of them having extremely hard boundaries in their service this is just going to happen again.
This doesn’t do a whole lot to address the actual issue, and these companies aren’t going to stop colluding over a wrist slap like this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_collusion
Basically when somebody makes a pricing error on a decentralized cryptocurrency exchange there's a mob of automated arbitrage bots that try to trade against it. Who wins and actually gets to make the trade is mainly determined by how high of a transaction fee your bot is willing to pay.
You can win instantly by offering to trade with a transaction fee so high it almost wipes out all but a cent or two of the entire arbitrage profits, because nobody else will pay a higher fee.
Instead what happens is bots offer the lowest possible fee, then immediately increase their fee as soon as they see a competing bot try to take the trade with a higher fee. This results in the bot offering the highest fee changing every several milliseconds as the fee quickly grows.
The way Ethereum mining works, this results in the winning bot being randomly selected from among the set of bots "bidding" up the transaction fee: blocks are mined at random intervals of iirc about 20 seconds, and whoever had the highest bid at the time the next block is mined wins. <20 seconds of bidding is short enough that even with the bidding, the transaction fee doesn't get bid up particularly high, and the winner makes out with a highly profitable arbitrage trade.
By giving up a guaranteed win and instead rolling the dice against other bots, transaction fees stay low and everyone has a higher expected profit. It's coordination that happens without any communication between the participants and quite possibly the participants didn't realize they were in effect cooperating when they added the high speed bidding behavior to their bots.
This is like 1980s sawtooth algos in real finance.
A lot of crypto is former HF folks taking old strategies to a dumber field.
I don’t think this is really true. It’s naively true if you just look at the number of homeless people vs the number of empty units, but misses:
1. That markets need some portion of empty units for fluidity.
2. That many people aren’t homeless, but living in situations where they would take more housing if it was available. (Living with roommates, ex-partners, family, etc.)
3. Many places simply don’t have enough housing for everyone who wants to live there. If they did, people would move from other places.
Of course, that also shows the problem: it haircuts pensions as well, since they are a large part of the rent seeking class.
Naively, if I knew everyone’s salaries were about to double, I’d hope to be holding a fair amount of real estate going into that doubling.
But mainly it is that you would need to remove or decrease benefits for those who do not work in order to have room for higher salaries. That is not a problem for the unemployed because higher salaries means that the only people without work are those who do not want to work. But it is a big problem for those who do not want to work and for example would like to live off their real estate.
The gut reaction to higher salaries is that people would have more money to purchase real estate or pay rent, but I think the downwards effects for real estate are much stronger. And the evidence is that in every country which has seen a period of high salaries for workers, real estate has been cheap during that period for workers to buy.
Real question. Do we have evidence of this from anything except developing economies pulling countries out of poverty? Like a first world country sort of thing. Because to me it seems like higher salaries comes first, and the property would lag for a bit while the market reaches its new level. Does that make sense?
The only answer is to build more housing and have a high property tax in unoccupied housing.
You could build as much more housing as you want, but if those houses only become accessible to purchase for those who already own real estate instead of for those who work, then nothing will change.
Yes. That’s a problem.
If the only market forces are landlords keeping half of their units empty so they can keep $1400 units priced at $2400 because that’s what the software (and indeed service) are pushing them to do, that’s price fixing.
There’s extra steps, it’s a new form, but the price is fixed, and the point of allowing housing to be built isn’t being fulfilled.
Not everything is "Economics 101."
No, the IRS doesn't allow tax deductions for the "missing $2400 rents" of unrented units. IRS only allows deducting ongoing expenses such as "maintenance, insurance, taxes, and interest," :
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p527.pdf
Landlords have an inherent trade off between holding out for a tenant who would pay a higher rent and not having the unit vacant in the meantime. Holding out for longer than that helps the other landlords at your expense. Meanwhile there are a large number of landlords, there is no way for the ones using a given system to force the others to do the same, and a significant percentage of them don't.
So if the system tells the landlords using it to do the thing that would increase rents if every landlord was using it, the "defectors" who don't use the system win out over anyone using it, which means using the system rather than defecting would cause you to lose money and everyone would have the incentive to defect.
Whereas if all the system is doing is suggesting the optimal point in the trade off between holding out for a higher paying tenant and renting the unit sooner, without assuming the other landlords are being required to use the same system, that's the same thing an individual landlord would do if they're not colluding.
The actual way landlords collude is through zoning boards, because then they have an enforcement mechanism, i.e. if someone is trying to defect by adding new units to alleviate the limited supply then the other landlords can sic the government on them, having passed the various laws against constructing those units there.
This is precisely what happened. Quoting from my comment at the time (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39579488) --
Subscribing to a pricing data service: legal.
Using data feed to guide pricing and set initial figures: legal.
Agreeing, either implicitly or explicitly, to let the pricing data feed set the price floor: collusion.
Leaving units unsold and refusing to lower the price despite insufficient demand: usually a bad business decision, possibly indicator of a market failure.
Leaving units unsold to maintain agreed-upon price floor despite insufficient demand: collusion, market manipulation. Congratulations, you are a cartel.
Almost always.
The trick is figuring out where the failure is coming from, and whether your society can find a lever to pull to fix it.