Saw this $OPEN contract going around. Let's break it down fairly, both routes, real numbers, this $776,400 home:
OPENDOOR ROUTE
→ Sale price: $776,400
→ Service fee: -$99,296 (12.8%)
→ Repairs/prep: -$20,760
→ Closing costs: -$11,184
→ Net to seller: $645,160
TRADITIONAL AGENT ROUTE
→ Sale price: $776,400 (IF it sells)
→ Commission ~5.5% (typical, can run a bit lower or higher): -$42,700
→ Closing ~2%: -$15,500
→ Repairs (negotiated): -$20,760
→ Net to seller: ~$697,400
Real gap is ~$52,000, about 6.7% of the home. Not the 16% being thrown around, repairs + closing happen on both routes I believe.
Fair pros/cons:
Agent: higher net IF it sells, lower fee. But weeks-to-months on market, financing fall-through risk, showings, and you eat holding costs the whole time.
Opendoor: lower net, bigger fee. But cash in 14 days, guaranteed, no showings, and the moment they buy, all the market risk becomes THEIR problem.
The fee isn't a rip-off, it's a risk transfer. An agent finds a buyer and you carry the risk. Opendoor BECOMES the buyer and eats it.
And this is the part Kaz keeps pointing to, delistings:
→ a delisting = a seller pulls their home off the market without selling it
→ right now ~1 in 17 homes nationally get pulled (1 in 10 in some metros), near record highs
→ it's a buyer's market: high rates, rising inventory, buyers lowballing, sellers refusing to budge
→ so a huge share of sellers simply CAN'T get a sale done at a price they'll accept
→ Opendoor offers the one thing they can't get: a guaranteed cash sale, 14 days, done
→ and Opendoor prices the fee for that SAME soft market they then have to resell into
That's the whole point. The worse the normal market gets, the more valuable certainty becomes, and the more sellers Opendoor pulls in.
To be fair though, it's still early. Opendoor 2.0 is only 7-8 months in. The contracts and the way offers/fees are explained need refining imo (based on what I have seen), sellers shouldn't have to reverse-engineer the reasoning themselves.
I expect they'll get clearer and better over time. That's part of the journey.
nfa, long $OPEN 🏠
Traditional real estate agents are intentionally distorting the facts to criticize Opendoor, but don’t be fooled. The very fact that they are panicking is proof of just how superior Opendoor is.
Before criticizing Opendoor, traditional agents should take a hard look at their own business structure. From the exact moment they take on a seller's property, agents carry "zero risk." Even if the house doesn't sell, requires a price drop, or sits on the market for months, they bear absolutely no responsibility.
● Zero responsibility even if the house doesn’t sell for 6 months.
● Zero responsibility even if the final price drops $50,000 below the initial appraisal.
● Zero responsibility even if their marketing strategy fails.
● Zero responsibility even if the seller takes a financial loss.
● In the end, if it doesn't sell, they simply don't get paid—but the actual financial loss is borne solely by the seller.
In short, agents operate under a "no pain if no results" business model.
On the other hand, Opendoor:
● Buys your house instantly with cash.
● Takes on 100% of the price fluctuation risk.
● Covers all repair costs and holding costs.
● Bears the financial loss if the market goes down.
● Ensures the seller can close with certainty and at a guaranteed price.
In short, Opendoor is a business that "shoulders the risk for the seller."
Despite this, they criticize Opendoor by saying, "Opendoor charges high fees," or "Opendoor is ripping off sellers." They either don't understand the structure, or they are conveniently ignoring it.
It is honestly unfair for agents—who bear zero responsibility when a house doesn't sell—to criticize Opendoor, a company that takes on all the risk.
Growth means taking on responsibility.
Entrust your home to Opendoor. $OPEN
@GaryCardone Only 700B of inflow needed to get back to 100K. Trillions waiting on the sidelines. End the war, inflation drops, clarity act gets passed, 100K will be here super fast.
Private sector jobs at companies like Tesla or SpaceX arise when businesses create products people voluntarily buy. Profits and rising company value (via stock options) let employees—from engineers to support staff—build real wealth, as SpaceX's recent IPO showed by creating ~4,400 new millionaires.
Biden's IRA, CHIPS Act, and ARP used taxpayer funds, subsidies, and tax credits to steer investment toward favored sectors. This can spark project announcements and some jobs, but relies on political choices and public money rather than proven customer demand. Many figures are projections; effects can include shifting resources from elsewhere in the economy.
One generates sustainable new value through innovation and voluntary exchange. The other reallocates existing resources by government directive.
@BenJustman Gold is not a company. It has no profits. Just a store of value. It will most likely always be the largest store of value unless Bitcoin overtakes it.
$BTC only needs approximately 700B in inflows to get back to 100k.
There is almost 8 Trillion in MMF.
Trillions in other assets.
When the rotation back to Bitcoin happens it will happen fast.