[nrmitchi]

> Fixing up homes is very inefficient and usually done by mom and pops. Why not find an efficient model to do it

I 100% agree with this premise.

However this is not what Redfin/Opendoor/Zillow do. The most you're going to get regarding "fixing" is a very bad coat of paint, replacing a couple angle stops, and putting a full cover-plate over an outlet that seems iffy.

These companies are not taking an unmarketable product, actually fixing it, and putting a restored property on the market.

I agree that actual property restoration is a fantastic industry to optimize, and I could talk about this for way longer than is appropriate in this post. But the best you're getting from these companies are some lipstick-on-a-pig photos and a sellers disclosure that says "We never occupied the house so have no idea if there are any issues".

There are also other financial-engineering-esque fashions in which they make money, which are all at the expense of residential home buyers. None of the ways are actually "improve the property".

[dpkirchner]

Could you imagine if corporate buyers were required to upgrade everything to meet current code before selling? It'd likely kill the process dead, of course, but if not then at least we'd see improved homes as an outcome.

[loganb]

- Abuses building code for a non-safety purpose

- Net reduction in quality of housing stock

- Reduces capital investment in housing during a shortage

A+ 10/10 no notes

[dpkirchner]

It's really just daydreaming, but in any case, I'm not convinced that corporate buyers of used houses increase the quality of housing stock. Corporations building new houses likely do, and that's where their money would go if they are truly interested in real estate investment.

[deelowe]

If updating to current code was required, a lot of homes would have to be torn down.

[edmundsauto]

Given that a lot of flippers/corporate buyers use corporations as a liability shield in case of something going wrong, they have less skin in the game than potentially negligent previous owners. It generally seems reasonable to treat individuals and corporations differently in terms of legal expectations, in part because of that.

[nradov]

There is no difference in legal expectations. Any negligence by previous owners is legally irrelevant. The previous owners are in the clear regardless of what they did to the property, provided they follow state disclosure laws. They would only be liable in the case of actual fraud.

New construction is a bit different in that some states have a mandatory warranty period for major construction defects. So the new homeowner may have several years to make warranty claims against the property developer or contractor for negligent or non-compliant construction work.

[dpkirchner]

Sure, agreed. And I figure a corporate buyer would only go through with that is the home is bad enough that it's worth replacement. Most probably aren't, so they'll be left available for humans. It's win-win.

(I fully acknowledge this is an unrealistic proposal.)