Trending Content - Real Estate Forum
Career Resources
WSO Free Modeling Series - Now Open Through
June 30, 2026
9 Free Financial Modeling Lessons
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
+Bonus: Get 27 financial modeling templates in swipe file
+Bonus: Get 27 financial modeling templates in swipe file
High Finance Applications
Guaranteed
Get at least one offer GUARANTEED
- 1:1 support
- 92% success rate
- 2,000+ mentor network
- Unlimited Live bootcamps
- AI for resume + LinkedIn
- Networking automation tools
- HireVue simulation tool
- Full course library
- Private Slack community
- 20hrs of mocks
- + much more...
I personally expect it to more or less shut down once administrations change, it's a bit ridiculous on it's face if you've ever used the RealPage software.
Have you read any of the suit?
https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1383316/dl?inline
I recommend looking through the section "Landlords Regularly Discuss Competitively Sensitive Topics with Their Competitors and Swap Information" that starts on pdf page 39 (lawsuit page 32).
While I do think parts of the lawsuit attempts to make a mountain out of a mole hill, some of the stuff detailed in this section was rightfully concerning imo (heads of revenue management discussing company wide practices for different rent level settings in RealPage).
Discussions like this from that section feel pretty conspiring and anticompetitive.
I didn't see that part. That does change my thinking on it, if they were dumb enough 1) actually have those types of discussions and 2) to put them in an email then yeah... they'll probably get slapped with some nice fines.
I don't think it'll affect the industry more broadly unless they have some way to prove that everyone was doing it and have emails like that to prove it.
Pardon my ignorance, I’m a rookie and would like to avoid this problem. But how is that conversation a problem exactly? Is it because they are collectively talking about increasing prices at the same rate or is it something more nuanced.
I thought the same thing since I used Yieldstar a long time ago and just wasn't that impressed with it but some of the examples they've mentioned make it seem like they have a case. I don't know when they implemented this, but supposedly Realpage has an employee that views the property managers rent adjustment rejections and then reports the property manager to the regional if they disagree with it. If the property management company wants to do the review themselves, they have to be Realpage certified. I'm not sure how you can spin this as them not setting rents at all these units.
Interesting, I'm curious if that was only with some companies as I've never run into that issue and we almost never move lock step with what it asks us to do. I kind of think it's hilarious that AIRM would report a manager for that to the regional (if the regional distrusts the manager that much they should fire them and get a new manager).
The bigger issue is the collusion mentioned above in my opinion.
I have always been against corny ass $15/month and $5/month and $25/month fees tacked on to renters in addition to their rent. In a just world, rent would simply be $45 dollars more a month, or even $50, and the used car salesman nickel and diming would cease.
The problem is that renters are stupid and will tour a $1,450 apartment with $50 of bullshit fees over an honest $1,475 all inclusive any day of the week. Then inertia kicks in and they’re far more likely to rent the $1,450 with fees over the $1,475 without, because how many tours do you really want to go on versus just getting it over with?
Valet trash fees, internet fees, amenity fees - it’s all scummy. It’s all annoying. But it’s done because renters sadly prefer it, even if they claim not to.
100% this. There are specific cases where they make sense (e.g., parking fees being separate in NY or other walkable cities where you may not have a car), but 95% of it is lowering the face rents as a marketing strategy.
Sure. But who are you or I to say it's wrong?
People are selfish and stupid and shortsighted. Someone willing to rent the lower face value but higher overall rent unit deserve what they get. Stupidity or greed, that's the tax
MA notably limits fees - you pretty much pay rent, utilities, and then “add on” monthly fees, for example parking and pet rent, which aren’t mandatory. Effectively no one-time fees like app, admin, pet fee, unless it’s a replacement like a lost key or parking pass. I think this works pretty well. Reality is the amortized cost of foregone fees just gets baked into the chunk rents. Chunk rents are easier to consistently grow than fees for the most part, so not a terrible paradigm for landlords.
It was like when the CEO of JCPenny tried to get rid of the constant promotions and sales and just stick with lower prices year-round and the shoppers revolted. It had nothing to do with how much they were actually spending, it had everything to do with the psychology of thinking you got a deal with a coupon. The way the brain works is wild.
Whats next? The airlines? The hotels industry? Baseless moronic lawsuit.
Iure est minus unde animi nobis non. Quos ipsam dolores odit est fuga. Ut iure molestias perferendis blanditiis error sed. Non autem vel fugiat voluptates et.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...