If the algorithms are so good, why don't landlords in Houston use them to charge San Francisco prices?

I think it's possible that RealPage adds a few percentage points to rents, and that's a bad thing. 1% over a bunch of rentals is a lot of money and harm to renters and that's worth suing over.

That said, 1 or 2% here or there is no match for "supply and demand".

You can see the difference in Austin in private equity owned apartments vs random houses or apartment buildings that predate that.

The private equity development apartments are all in on RealPage and are in absolute lockstep with one another (they also have a whole host of dark patterns which I won't get into). So, it's not enough to have development, you have to have development that isn't private equity driven.

The stuff that has a single owner is several hundred dollars cheaper and the differential is increasing. Some of this is age of the aprtment complex, but the age differential has been pretty small in areas where the university students drive demand.

It's not just RealPage. For example, being able to eat the rental loss of unoccupied apartments is because private equity plays financing games and is willing to give up huge amounts of cash inflow in order to avoid paying any amount of cash outflow.

However, RealPage is one of the legs of the stool.

From the propublica about this last time, there was a lot of statements like this that stuck with me:

> “Initially, it was very hard for executives to accept that they could operate at 94% or 96% and achieve a higher NOI by increasing rents,”

Based on how multifamily operators refer to the software, it sounds like it was what they were doing before, just supercharged automation.

But this was part where it seemed like the algorithm made a leap, that the optimal trajectory wasn't max occupancy.

the thing is, you don't want to be the landlord that is vacant while other landlords are reaping the higher rental prices.

So for anyone, they would just opt out of the algorithm and charge a slightly lower price when they get a vacancy. I really dont think cartels work in a market as competitive as real estate rentals. It's a scape goat at best imho.

> So for anyone, they would just opt out of the algorithm and charge a slightly lower price when they get a vacancy.

The software itself makes this very difficult to do--it's one of their dark patterns.

The software does not dictate you, because you can just leave it. Unsign up. Leave the contract.

It's not like you signed ownership of the property to this software company.

The only thing you lose is the ability to suss out the prices - the same position you were in previously.

The software is part (or all) of your billing system. And, yes, you can make the adjustments.

"It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'." -- Douglas Adams

However, it's behind 4 obscure menu options, and 3 passwords of which your staff have none (I'm exaggerating--but not by much). This is part of the dark patterns I mentioned.

If you are super technically saavy, you can find it and opt out. In reality, the dark patterns are more than sufficient to prevent it.

the notional ability to leave the cartel doesn’t mean there isn’t anticompetitive cartel pressure in action. let alone the direct consequences of breaking the contract or any other adverse action resulting.

idk why some people are so desperate to ignore the documented pressures here, like are people just completely opposed to the idea that cartels can exist without a notarized agreement to break the law? And apparently you literally don’t even think that is sufficient, because “you could just break the contract” or something lmao.

the amount of openly bad-faith posting and commenting on HN has only continued to get worse and I have to think it’s partially due to the fact that it’s not supposed to be acknowledged. Such “suggestions” really only make it more potent as a weapon on a site/subculture that is already overly predisposed to rules-lawyering as a fallback when they lose an argument.

increasingly realizing the guy whose site redirects referrers from HN to a nutsack is right.

the rent being high is not in itself evidence of cartel behaviour. And if the cartel allegations are true, what of it if they do not manage to actually affect the market? The resources spent on trying to catch cartels might be better off spent elsewhere if the cartel is ineffective.

There's also many other explanations of rent increases, such as lack of supply, which are more likely imho.

Pinning this on cartel like behaviour, when the market clearly has a lot of competition, is just moving the spotlight away from the root cause - that of a lack in supply. This is region specific - some regions that have increased supply have then seen rental decreases, while other regions which did not have increased supply (in new builds) have not.

this is so painfully obvious it frustrates me that it needs to be continuously stated.

why are people so eager to blame this problem on obviously miniscule factors?

"Supply skepticism and shortage denialism are pushing against the actual solution to the housing crisis: building enough homes."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/11/us-housing...