RealPage, maker of YieldStar, is almost singlehandedly the ones causing rent to skyrocket across much of the United States.
One of the algorithm’s developers told ProPublica that leasing agents had “too much empathy” compared to computer generated pricing.
You can learn more about them here and why this antitrust case is so important:
https://www.propublica.org/article/yieldstar-rent-increase-realpage-rent
Party’s over, fucks
I hope so, but if I were betting, I would bet that actually the s*** show will continue. Too many very rich people have too much money invested in real estate speculation, and you know they’re going to pressure their friends in Washington to not take away their honey pot.
I could be wrong, I sure hope I’m wrong, but this doesn’t feel like the climate where we can expect to see significant victories that would benefit the average person. Not yet. Maybe soon? I don’t know.
I see in the title reason enough for your cynicism.
The Justice Department is set to file an antitrust suit against the real estate company RealPage alleging illegal price-fixing facilitated by algorithms
RealPage is who they are going after, not the collusion, not does it attend to the companies buying up affordable housing or any of the base factors driving the increased costs of shelter. The malignant merging investment companies like blackrock et al are not going to be affected by this, even if it destroyed RealPage. (And im too cynical to believe it will even go further than fines)
Accuse? They need to fucking sue them into oblivion and arrest some of these corrupt immoral assholes. They better have an antitrust & RICO lawsuit ready to go.
The software vendor does have a point: the software doesn’t set prices itself, it just makes suggestions based on the metrics it sees, and ultimately the property owners are the ones that raise rents. But I don’t think the developer realizes the role it is playing in the feedback loop.
Landlords pay for this software to help them set “fair” rents. But if the software consistently sets rents that the landlord sees as too low, they will question whether the software is worth paying for, and the software vendor goes bust. On the other hand, if the software sets rents that are too high, landlords will see that software as working well, and will continue to use it. So the developer is incentivised to goose the numbers up a bit, knowing that landlords are free to set their rents lower…
… except we all know that’s not what actually happens, particularly for these large real-estate conglomerates whose tenants are just lines in a spreadsheet. Some pencil pusher is just using these numbers from the software as-is, because there is probably more paperwork involved in justifying a rent change to their boss, while if they just accept the computers’ numbers they can make it to Happy Hour a bit early.
It gets even worse when most of the real estate in an area is owned this way, because then the additional “the computer told me to charge this” surcharge gets “baked into” the overall market, and gives landlords who don’t use the software a reason to raise rates, because of “the market”. Then next year, it all rises again, because the software sees the overall increase in rates and thinks it’s because of “the market” and not because of its role in the increase last year.
The incentives in this system benefit everyone but the renter. This may be a appropriate place for the government to step in and force change. Government is accountable to voters, and there are more voters who are renters than landlords.
In one news release, Realpage offered its property management clients the ability to outsource daily rent-setting and revenue oversight. “We believe in overseeing properties as though we own them ourselves,” the company said in a presentation that plaintiffs’ lawyers referenced in the lawsuit.
A leasing manager at a RealPage client said, “I knew [RealPage’s prices] were way too high, but [RealPage] barely budged” when the manager asked to deviate from the suggested rent.
An update to the software tracked not only clients’ acceptance rate, but also the identity of the landlords’ staff members who had requested a deviation from RealPage’s price, the lawsuit said. Compensation for some property management personnel was even tied to compliance with the company’s recommendations, it said.
The Washington lawsuit alleged that the system was designed to police compliance of the cartel. It cited RealPage training documents that urged clients to have the “discipline” to enact the software’s pricing suggestions 90% of the time or more. Training documents encouraged regional rental managers to beware of “‘rogue’ leasing agents who too frequently override” the software’s recommended prices. Rejections would also often trigger outreach from a RealPage pricing advisor, the suit said.
No, they don’t have a point. The software is clearly created explicitly for the purpose of collusion for maximizing rent.
The purpose of a system is what it does. So I agree.
(RealPage isn’t the only problematic software that does this either. Check up on how rental rates are set and then jacked up in storage facilities, owned predominantly by 2/3 companies)
But that’s the thing, it’s not “collusion” in the sense that rental companies all conspired to raise rates at the same time. None of them actually collaborated with each other.
At the same time, the software isn’t designed for collusion at all. It is just hoovering up public data. It is not doing anything that the companies couldn’t do themselves, and they have to keep all their client data separate.
The end result is collusion, once enough companies are using this software that their price increases drive the public market and then get sucked into the algorithm and generate more price increases. But there is no action by any party which a court can point to and shout “Collusion!”. There are enough independent actions that just happen to go in the same direction. That’s the reason why new legislation may be necessary, in order to catch this sort of distributed algorithmically-enabled collusion.
It is collusion. Information like occupancy and operating costs are shared with the software service to determine the “fair” rent rate. The software takes into account these metrics from many different management companies. If rental management companies were to share this info with eachother directly in order to set pricing, that would constitute an antitrust violation. All the software does is turn the trust into a shell game that’s more difficult to prosecute.
None of them actually collaborated with each other.
Exactly the point. The software did that for them. On purpose. And then they used it because they knew it would do that work for them. It might be a different kind of collusion but I’m not convinced that matters much, unless like you said, we can make new legislation to state more explicitly that this exact behavior is illegal collusion.
Yeah, I feel like people are too focused on whether or not it’s “legally” collusion.
At the end of the day, it’s a single entity with an overrepresneted ability to set prices.
Yeah, I don’t think this is strictly collusion either, any more than any other data aggregation tool.
But if we would just build housing it wouldn’t even be a fucking problem in the first place.
Landlords pay for this software to help them set “fair” rents.
If that’s the goal, landlords would save so much money by calculating fair rent in some spreadsheet or such. Calculate how much their monthly costs are per building, divided by how many units, plus some percentages to set aside for emergencies and renovations… but we all know that’s not the case.
But someone in their org has to set up the spreadsheet, and more importantly, take the blame if the numbers don’t match Management expectations, even if they are correct.
By outsourcing this to the software vendor, they also can outsource responsibility. Instead of Management leaning on the team to conjure “better” numbers, the team can say “We get these numbers from this independant vendor outside the company, who has all the info and is totally impartial, nudge nudge, wink wink”. Questioning the numbers then becomes questioning the financial decision to employ the vendor in the first place. Just so much easier to do what the nice computer tells you to do.
I agree. I’m a capitalist but this seems, effectually, like price fixing to me.
The a few accusations that make this worse, and probably illegal if proven:
- This software doesn’t just use public data. It uses the private data of multiple landlords who submit their private/proprietary data to be used by all the competitors.
- The software, and the company’s contracts, prevent the landlords from actually deviating from the formula, through a combination of a hostile interface and contractual requirements.
- The software encourages landlords to do non-pricing activity, like taking units off the market, to feed into the algorithm for everyone else.
God I wish I had a magic baseball bat that would let me bash an understanding of what an “ALGORITHM” actually is into people’s heads. Of course it was algorithmic. It would have been algorithmic if they’d done it using styluses and stone tablets. fucking. Not the point but christ is this the one thing that drives me nuts above all others.
In this case, “algorithmic” really means “shifting responsibility to a computer”.
I had an experience like this earlier this year, when I went to buy a car. There was part of the financing regarding the state Sales Tax that I didn’t understand. When I asked their “finance manager” about it, he said that the computer spit out all the numbers and they pay a lot of money for that software so the numbers must be correct.
I almost stopped the deal right there, but I went home and googled the answer, and they were doing it correctly after all. The deal was pretty good so I still bought the car. Still, it amazes me that businesses don’t feel the need to promote managers who actually understand finance because “the computer does all the hard math”.
New York Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for New York Times:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourcePropublica - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Propublica:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
