[Noumenon72]

This is the kind of take that could fearfully explain why a national corporation like like McDonald's would be able to corner the food supply to raise prices, then buy up restaurant sites to prevent others from using them. Or how billionaires could purchase all the tickets at Disney World so no one else can go.

Sure, you _could_ waste all your money on villainous anticompetitive practices, but it's more profitable to a) provide a service where you have an efficiency advantage b) only purchase things you need, bidding at the margin, where people don't mind selling to you.

I would expect a system where Open Door is active to be better for consumers and investors than the incumbent system you represent.

[oldstrangers]

This comment is so intentionally disingenuous I don't even know where to start.

But I'll just offer up this:

"Large investment firms are converting single-family homes to rentals and building communities to rent in the Houston metro area to help meet rising rental demand, while the housing shortage is driving more people into renting. The Houston Association of Realtors reported June 15 the number of leased single-family home rentals increased 24.8% from May 2021 to May 2022. While rising mortgages and low inventory are contributing to the trend, experts said potential homebuyers are also facing competition from real estate investment firms—or institutional investors—buying properties to sell or lease.

Locally, NAR data showed 38% of single-family properties purchased in Harris County in 2021 were bought by institutional investors. Property data from the Harris County Appraisal District shows nearly 7,000 homes in Harris County as of June are owned by five NRHC members and their subsidiaries."

https://communityimpact.com/houston/bay-area/city-county/202...

In what world would you imagine that this is better for consumers?

I also don't "represent" anything. I worked in real estate from a technical side (mostly CRE), and had nothing to do with the trash that goes on from either side. I just got to witness it.

[happytiger]

Yes but opendoor just competes against other companies of scale.

The issue is that individuals who wish to purchase and live in homes cannot compete with companies of scale at all.

So it’s not about anticompetitive practices, because it’s now two corporate incumbents competing, but a corporate incumbent competing against an individual, who stands no chance against that scale of cheap money.

Competitive effects do not always lead to desired outcomes even if they create healthier markets.

[thereisnospork]

Its different from restaurants because housing is a local monopoly, or locally monopolizable. This is due to regulatory constriction of supply and lack of for-like alternatives.

You can't corner the food market by buying restaurants both because there are grocery stores and anyone willing to wade through a small amount of red tape can start a hot dog stand to undercut you. You can corner the housing market in a school district, or neighborhood because families can't live in tents or cars and the government forbids via zoning would-be opportunists from undercutting a monopolization attempt by e.g. turning their 1 unit dwelling into a 5 unit dwelling.

[dotnet00]

I'd argue that the key difference is that the public isn't having to deal with a McDonalds induced food price increase while the public is very clearly having to deal with housing price increases induced by practices of this sort, especially in big cities.

[beeboop]

> Sure, you _could_ waste all your money on villainous anticompetitive practices

History shows time and time again that anticompetitive practices are wildly profitable.