Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of iBuyers on Housing Market Dynamics

  • Published:
The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Technological innovation continues to disrupt virtually every sector of the U.S. economy. This paper explores one such innovation, namely iBuyers (i.e., firms who use PropTech to provide online quotes and make quick cash offers on homes), and studies their impact on various housing market dynamics. More specifically, we find the presence of iBuyers increases home prices in local markets by up to 2.8%. We further hypothesize that strategic behavior on the part of home sellers, and particularly increased “fishing” for high offers after the entrance of iBuyers into a market, helps explain this phenomenon. This explanation is strongly supported by an observable increase in both time on market (TOM) and listing prices following the entry of iBuyers. Lastly, we find iBuyers compete with and crowd out potential local homebuyers, forcing them into neighboring markets, and thereby causing home prices in these adjacent ZIP codes to increase as well.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Where legally permissible, data from the authors is avaible upon request.

Notes

  1. iBuyers typically offer slightly less than full/fair market value, and thus anticipate a positive resale margin, due to (1) reduced agent fees, (2) greater surety of close (i.e., a cash sale means no complications over a buyer falling through), (3) relatively hassle-free transactions, (4) timely and flexible closing dates, and (5) adverse selection due to asymmetric information (i.e., sellers may know of unobservable hidden property defects and will likely be more willing to sell when it is to their advantage, thus creating a potential winner’s curse scenario for iBuyers).

  2. For example, imagine a seller accepts a new job out-of-town that starts in three months. If they have an offer in hand from an iBuyer, “fishing” (i.e., listing at an unrealistically high price hoping the right buyer will come along) on the open market for 45 days to see if they can do much better is a virtually cost-free option. See Sun and Seiler (2013) for additional insight along this dimension.

  3. See, https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2023/02/pulse-of-fintech-h2-22-web-file.pdf and https://web.archive.org/web/20200214223229/https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2019/02/the-pulse-of-FinTech-2018.pdf.

  4. Importantly, however, not all outcomes from such innovations are positive. Consider, as an extreme example, the findings of Foley et al. (2019) that approximately one-quarter of Bitcoin users are involved in illegal activity. As such, any responsible accounting of the true impact of innovative technological disruptions should recognize not only first order, direct implications, but also potential indirect and/or spillover consequences.

  5. https://www.zillow.com/sellers-guide/what-is-an-iBuyer/; iBuyers: Is The Convenience Worth The Cost?, Forbes, Jun 5, 2018; To sell your house fast, you don’t need to deal with a bottom feeder, The Washington Post, April 25, 2018.

  6. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/14/opendoor-2019-disruptor-50.html.

  7. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/technology/opendoor-start-up-home-sales.html.

  8. https://www.opendoor.com/w/blog/category/technology.

  9. We identify seven primary iBuyers. Opendoor led the way and was established in 2014. Offerpad and Knock followed a year later and were established in 2015. RedfinNow, Perch, and Ribbon were all established in 2017, while Zillow Offers was established in 2018.

  10. Venture capital investment dedicated to PropTech initiatives in 2014 was almost double that observed in 2013. This was largely driven by both strategic investment opportunities and a low interest rate environment which facilitated capital acquisition.

  11. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/opendoor-2/company_financials.

  12. For this comparison, we use the national median single-family housing price as of December 2016 reported by Zillow (https://www.zillow.com/home-values/102001/united-states/), which is the mid-point of our 2014 through 2018 sample period.

  13. These numbers comport nicely with similar data reported by Redfin (https://www.redfin.com/news/ibuyer-impact-phoenix-housing-market/), who estimate the iBuyer market share ranged from 4.1 − 5.0% during the summer of 2018.

  14. See, https://www.redfin.com/blog/data-center/. Redfin has direct access to data from local multiple listing services, so it has relatively complete records of home sale information.

  15. We use the NBER’s Zip Code Tabulation Area (ACTA) Distance Database, derived from 2016 Census definitions, for this calculation. The database is available at: https://www.nber.org/research/data/zip-code-distance-database.

  16. Data source: https://www.redfin.com/blog/data-center. Redfin reports the median TOM in each ZIP code for different property types. We download and use the Single-family Residential data for all ZIP codes located in the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale Metro area.

  17. The economic magnitude of this two-day extension takes on added significance in light of the robust housing market conditions prevailing in Atlanta during our sample observation window. Of note, this two-day increase represents more than a 10% increase relative to the mean TOM of 19 days.

  18. For additional insight into Opendoor’s acquisition model and strategy, see:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20190411164604/https://www.opendoor.com/w/faq/what-types-of-homes-does-opendoor-purchase.

  19. For additional insight into Offerpad’s acquisition model and strategy, see:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20190505014411/https://www.offerpad.com/faq/sell-your-house/.

  20. Individual investors may choose to either resell the property within a few months, or alternatively, convert the property into a long-term rental. We are primarily interested in the first group of individual (resale) investors, and define a transaction made by them as one where a purchased home is subsequently sold within six months.

  21. We appreciate an anonymous reviewer’s comments and suggestions along this.

  22. See, https://www.redfin.com/news/ibuyer-real-estate-q3-2019/ and https://www.zillow.com/research/data/. Appendix Table 13 reports detailed information regarding the entry date of iBuyers by market. Once again, we appreciate an anonymous reviewer’s comments and suggestions for leading us down this path.

  23. See, for example, https://www.housingwire.com/articles/42345-real-estate-startup-knock-launches-home-trade-in-program-plans-10-state-expansion.

  24. The ability of homeowners seeking to either upsize or downsize within the same housing market would also seem to be made more efficient if iBuyers were more prevalent in the marketplace.

References

  • Accetturo, A., Manaresi, F., Mocetti, S., & Olivieri, E. (2014). Don’t stand so close to me: The urban impact of immigration. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 45(1), 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adelino, M., Schoar, A., & Severino, F. (2016). Loan originations and defaults in the mortgage crisis: The role of the middle class. Review of Financial Studies, 29(7), 1635–1670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, M. T., Rutherford, J., Rutherford, R., & Yavas, A. (2018). Impact of investors in distressed housing markets. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 56(4), 622–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alyakoob, M., & Rahman, M. S. (2022). Shared prosperity (or lack thereof) in the sharing economy. Information Systems Research Information Systems Research, 33(2), 638–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anenberg, E., & Kung, E. (2014). Estimates of the size and source of price declines due to nearby foreclosures. American Economic Review, 104(8), 2527–2551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balyuk, T. (2022). FinTech lending and bank credit access for consumers. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, K., Kung, E., & Proserpio, D. (2021). The effect of home-sharing on house prices and rents: Evidence from Airbnb. Marketing Science, 40(1), 23–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, A. (2017). PropTech 3.0: the future of real estate. Working Paper. University of Oxford.

  • Bayer, P., Geissler, C., Mangum, K., & Roberts, J. W. (2020). Speculators and middlemen: The strategy and performance of investors in the housing market. Review of Financial Studies, 33(11), 5212–5247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, T., Levine, R., & Levkov, A. (2010). Big bad banks? The winners and losers from bank deregulation in the United States. The Journal of Finance, 65(5), 1637–1667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, T., Burg, V., Gombović, A., & Puri, M. (2020). On the rise of FinTechs: Credit scoring using digital footprints. Review of Financial Studies, 33(7), 2845–2897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, I. I. I., Frésard, D. E., & Hoberg, G. (2022). Rapidly evolving technologies and startup exits. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braesemann, F., & Baum, A. (2020). PropTech: Turning real estate into a data-driven market? Working Paper. Available at SSRN 3607238.

  • Buchak, G., Matvos, G., Piskorski, T., & Seru, A. (2020). Why is intermediating houses so difficult? Evidence from iBuyers. Working Paper. National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Chava, S., Ganduri, R., Paradkar, N., & Zhang, Y. (2021). Impact of marketplace lending on consumers’ future borrowing capacities and borrowing outcomes. Journal of Financial Economics, 142(3), 1186–1208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M. A., Wu, Q., & Yang, B. (2019). How valuable is FinTech innovation? Review of Financial Studies, 32(5), 2062–2106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, W., Xie, K., Liu, J., & Liu, Y. (2019b). How incumbents beat disruption? Evidence from hotels’ responses to home sharing’s entry leveraging quasi-experiments and machine learning. Working Paper. NET Institute.

  • Chen, W., Wei, Z., & Xie, K. (2022). The battle for homes: How does home sharing disrupt local residential markets? Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinco, A., & Mayer, C. (2016). Misinformed speculators and mispricing in the housing market. Review of Financial Studies, 29(2), 486–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornaggia, J., Wolfe, B., & Yoo, W. (2018). Crowding out banks: Credit substitution by peer-to-peer lending. Working Paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3000593. Accessed 2 May 2023

  • D’Acunto, F., Prabhala, N., & Rossi, A. G. (2019). The promises and pitfalls of robo-advising. Review of Financial Studies, 32(5), 1983–2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Lima, W., & Schultz, P. (2021). Residential real estate investments and investor characteristics. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 63(3), 354–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danisewicz, P., & Elard, I. (2018). The real effects of financial technology: Marketplace lending and personal bankruptcy. Working Paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3208908. Accessed 2 May 2023

  • DeFusco, A., Ding, W., Ferreira, F., & Gyourko, J. (2018). The role of price spillovers in the american housing boom. Journal of Urban Economics, 108(1), 72–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Maggio, M., & Yao, V. (2021). Fintech borrowers: Lax screening or cream-skimming? Review of Financial Studies, 34(10), 4565–4618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dou, Y., Ryan, S. G., & Zou, Y. (2018). The effect of credit competition on banks’ loan-loss provisions. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 53(3), 1195–1226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duso, T., Michelsen, C., Schäfer, M., & Tran, K. D. (2020). Airbnb and rents: Evidence from Berlin. Working Paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3676909. Accessed 2 May 2023

  • Favilukis, J., & Van Nieuwerburgh, S. (2021). Out-of‐town home buyers and city welfare. Journal of Finance, 76(5), 2577–2638.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foley, S., Karlsen, J. R., & Putniņš, T. J. (2019). Sex, drugs, and bitcoin: How much illegal activity is financed through cryptocurrencies? Review of Financial Studies, 32(5), 1798–1853.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuster, A., Plosser, M., Schnabl, P., & Vickery, J. (2019). The role of technology in mortgage lending. Review of Financial Studies, 32(5), 1854–1899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganduri, R., Xiao, S. C., & Xiao, S. W. (2019). Tracing the source of liquidity for distressed housing markets. Real Estate Economics. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6229.12388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, D. I. (2022). Second-home buying and the housing boom and bust. Real Estate Economics, 50(1), 33–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-López, M., Jofre-Monseny, J., Martínez-Mazza, R., & Segú, M. (2020). Do short-term rental platforms affect housing markets? Evidence from Airbnb in Barcelona. Journal of Urban Economics, 119(1), 103278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, C., Gete, P., & Tsouderou, A. (2021). Real estate investors and housing affordability. Working Paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3574001. Accessed 2 May 2023

  • Gauß, P., Gensler, S., Kortenhaus, M., Riedel, N., & Schneider, A. (2022). Regulating the sharing economy: The impact of home-Sharing ordinances on commercial Airbnb activity. Working Paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4068526. Accessed 2 May 2023

  • Goldstein, I., Jiang, W., & Karolyi, G. A. (2019). To FinTech and beyond. Review of Financial Studies, 32(5), 1647–1661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorback, C. S., & Keys, B. J. (2020). Global capital and local assets: House prices, quantities, and elasticities. Working Paper. National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Horn, K., & Merante, M. (2017). Is home sharing driving up rents? Evidence from Airbnb in Boston. Journal of Housing Economics, 38(1), 14–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, R. R. (2008). Evaluating the real effect of bank branching deregulation: Comparing contiguous counties across US state borders. Journal of Financial Economics, 87(3), 678–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koster, H. R., Van Ommeren, J., & Volkhausen, N. (2021). Short-term rentals and the housing market: Quasi-experimental evidence from Airbnb in Los Angeles. Journal of Urban Economics, 124(1), 103356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambie-Hanson, L., Li, W., & Slonkosky, M. (2022). Real estate investors and the us housing recovery. Real Estate Economics. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6229.12396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Z., Shen, L. S., & Zhang, C. (2020). Capital flows, asset prices, and the real economy. Working Paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3648855. Accessed 2 May 2023

  • Li, H., Kim, Y., & Srinivasan, K. (2022). Market shifts in the sharing economy: The impact of Airbnb on housing rentals. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.4288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavlov, A., & Somerville, T. (2020). Immigration, capital flows and housing prices. Real Estate Economics, 48(3), 915–949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sá, F. (2015). Immigration and house prices in the UK. The Economic Journal, 125(587), 1393–1424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saiz, A. (2007). Immigration and housing rents in american cities. Journal of Urban Economics, 61(2), 345–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saiz, A., & Wachter, S. (2011). Immigration and the neighborhood. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3(2), 169–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakong, J. (2021). Rich buyers and rental spillovers: Evidence from Chinese buyers in US housing markets. Working Paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3814058. Accessed 2 May 2023

  • Seiler, M. J., & Yang, L. (2022). The burgeoning role of iBuyers in the housing market. Real Estate Economics. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6229.12384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, S., & Udell, A. (2016). Do Airbnb properties affect house prices? Working Paper. Williams College Department of Economics.

  • Smith, P. S., & Liu, C. H. (2020). Institutional investment, asset illiquidity and post-crash housing market dynamics. Real Estate Economics, 48(3), 673–709.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, H., & Seiler, M. (2013). Hyperbolic discounting, reference dependence, and its implications for the housing market. Journal of Real Estate Research, 35(1), 1–24.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, H. (2019). Peer-to-peer lenders versus banks: Substitutes or complements? Review of Financial Studies, 32(5), 1900–1938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentin, M. (2021). Regulating short-term rental housing: Evidence from New Orleans. Real Estate Economics, 49(1), 152–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., & Byers, J. W. (2017). The rise of the sharing economy: Estimating the impact of Airbnb on the hotel industry. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(5), 687–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

    David M. Harrison

  2. College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, VA, USA

    Michael J. Seiler

  3. The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Liuming Yang

Authors
  1. David M. Harrison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael J. Seiler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Liuming Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liuming Yang.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

None of the authors have a competing interest in this study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Tables 11, 12, 13 and Fig. 5

Table 11 iBuyers’ profile in the Phoenix Market
Full size table
Table 12 Treated vs. control ZIP codes in the baseline sample
Full size table
Table 13 Entry date of iBuyers by markets
Full size table
Fig. 5
figure 5

Illustration for Selection of Control ZIP codes. a Using ZIP code 85037 as an example. b Using ZIP code 85024 as an example. Note: These two figures give an example of how we design control groups for each treated ZIP code

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harrison, D.M., Seiler, M.J. & Yang, L. The Impact of iBuyers on Housing Market Dynamics. J Real Estate Finan Econ 68, 425–461 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-023-09954-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11146-023-09954-z

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation