# AirBnB IPO



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

AirBnB should appear on the stock market this year.









Airbnb reportedly plans to confidentially file for an IPO later this month


Airbnb will confidentially file its IPO paperwork later this month, The Wall Street Journal reported.




www.businessinsider.com





What's your opinion on sharing economy?









Sharing economy companies list: Featuring Airbnb, Uber, Omni and Hubble


An ever-growing list of sharing economy companies are threatening to disrupt industries including transport, accommodation and office provision




www.ns-businesshub.com


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> AirBnB should appear on the stock market this year.


 ... I'm backing up the imaginery truck on this one - the dumpster that is.



> What's your opinion on sharing economy?


 ...  for the IPO,  another one for ruining the legitimate workforce that's driving the economy, plus another  for all the craps that get generated from those who participate in this scheme with the BIGGEST  on the regulators for allowing this so-called "sharing" economy to exists. Another fad of the day.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

I agree it's not helping the hotel industry, but it's revisiting how money should flow. While rich people can afford hotels, so hotels make even more money, the richer gets richer, the poorer gets poorer, but now some people can afford the sharing economy and it can also help the poorer.

I had much, much better travel experiences in AirBnB when compared to a cold, business-admin hotel.

I rented many places on AirBnB where students were renting a bedroom to help them pay their studies. I rented places where elders had no visits from their family and were so happy to talk with their visitors. I rented places where the owners were having difficult times trying to pay for the illness of a family member. I rented places where a mother was having a hard time to make through it financially after a separation. I rented places where the owners were so proud of their cities and helped me discover all its secrets and I enjoyed so much more my stay in that city.

I guess one could also talk about their horror stories, but it also happens in hotels. I guess these kinds of changes comes with their loads of pros and cons.

Following the taoist farmer's story, I'm not sure what is good or bad for this kind of change. 




(Obviously, some situations moves towards getting worse and some situations moves towards getting better, but for most situations we don't really know what will be the short- or long-term effect. Butterfly effect, chaos theory.)


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

MrBlackhill said:


> I agree it's not helping the hotel industry, but it's revisiting how money should flow. While rich people can afford hotels, so hotels make even more money, the richer gets richer, the poorer gets poorer, but now some people can afford the sharing economy and it can also help the poorer.


 .. it just isn't the "hotels" that are adversely impacted but legitimate home (including condo) owners that are. Imagine if you were "living" next to a house that offers AirBnB...does a constant influx of "strangers" at odd days & times not bother you? Or how about your "home" in a condo-unit (for which there're plenty of now in the glasscity of Toronto, for example) Let's face it, the "real" poor will always be poor - they don't have luxury of "travelling" so there's no need to worry about affording hotels. Whereas the rich or trying to be rich do ... and wants to cheap out via AirBnB.



> I had much, much better travel experiences in AirBnB when compared to a cold, business-admin hotel.


 ... consider yourself lucky that you had good experience with AirBnB thus far. As for the hotel - I couldn't care less how warm and welcoming they try to be. To me they're simply a temporary place to stay (shelter), away from home.



> I rented many places on AirBnB where students where renting a room to help them pay their studies.


 ... so these were rooming houses, presumably "regulated". And now I guess there is not enough revenue to satisfy the greedy landlord so they're renting as AirBnB.



> I rented places where elders had no visits from their family and were so happy to talk with their visitors


. .. 1st. hard to believe elders (presumably over 70) are so proficient with the AirBnB platform. 2nd they can always hang a sign with "rooms" to rent without the hassle of going through AirBnB & the likes if they truly desire that social aspect.



> I rented places where the owners were having difficult times trying to pay for the illness of a family member.


... I wonder how much $ they think they can collect from AirBnB to pay for the "medical" fees? The turnover with these AirBnB units must be enormous.



> I rented places where a mother was having a hard time to make through it financially after a separation. I rented places where the owners were so proud of their cities and helped me discover all its secrets and I enjoyed so much more my stay in that city.


 .. sob and bravo.



> I guess one could also talk about their horror stories, but it also happens in hotels. I guess these kinds of changes comes with their loads of pros and cons.


 .. never had an experience with AirBnB and never will. The fact that they're NOT regulated is bad enough all around.

How fair is that to legitimate small businesses for which AirBnB is basically is (other than a modern version of advertising) but without the expenses of a business?



> Following the taoist farmer's story, I'm not sure what is good or bad for this kind of change.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 ... we shall see. Thus far, there're more cons (95%) than pros (5%?) with AirBnB. The pros are only there to benefit a few.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrBlackhill said:


> I rented many places on AirBnB where students where renting a room to help them pay their studies. I rented places where elders had no visits from their family and were so happy to talk with their visitors. I rented places where the owners were having difficult times trying to pay for the illness of a family member. I rented places where a mother was having a hard time to make through it financially after a separation. I rented places where the owners were so proud of their cities and helped me discover all its secrets and I enjoyed so much more my stay in that city.


Those experiences are what AirBnB should be: an easy way to match people with BnB experiences. However, what it has become is a cover for ghost hotels. People who buy condo units for the explicit purpose of renting out on AirBnB. They provide a room and none of those experiences. Essentially, they were hotels, just like uber is a taxi service, but dressed up differently.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

I agree on the fact that some people will try to take advantage of new possibilities like buying a condo and then renting it on AirBnB because it can bring them more money than a standard renting. I think that's part of the process of adapting the laws and regulations to these new possibilities because AirBnB was not intended for this kind of use. It's in their name "BnB", it's intended to be a place where you are welcomed, you can sleep and you can take breakfast. Not for those owners abusing who aren't even present and just leave a code for the electronic door lock.

But the problem again is the rich people who are trying to get advantage on the new system. It's also how Canadian owners are using it. It's how our goal of making more money faster drives Canadians, Americans and other such countries to abuse of the AirBnB system and make it look bad.

AirBnB was first intended to be the same kind of system as CouchSurfing, but renting a full bedroom. There's no abuse in CouchSurfing because who would rent a couch in an empty unit to pay his mortgage?

When I rented a bedroom that was helping students to pay their bills, it was in their own apartment. One of their friends was away so they just rented the bedroom on AirBnB. The other student was actually living with her elder mother in a small 2-bedroom apartment. When a bedroom was reserved for her AirBnB, she was sleeping on the couch so that her bedroom was available for AirBnB. It was only a few dollars, but it was helping her paying her studies and taking care of her mother.

And yes there are people out there in their 70s who knows how to use technology like AirBnB. He was living in the countryside, his wife had passed out, his children either moved to big cities or even other countries, but he enjoyed his place but felt a bit lonely.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

It was supposed to be just renting out a spare room in your house, but it's been completely perverted from its original purpose. It's hurting low income people the most because it removes housing supply that could otherwise be put on the rental market. There was a huge influx of these "fully furnished" former Airbnbs that suddenly appeared for rent during COVID-19. Some of them even proudly proclaimed they used to be Airbnbs... lol.

Many cities have already started cracking down on these illegal Airbnb suites, so I think that's going to hurt the prospect of this IPO.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

nathan79 said:


> It was supposed to be just renting out a spare room in your house, but it's been completely perverted from its original purpose.


I agree on that.

That's why I'm not black or white about AirBnB. Its initial purpose is good. Then it went too far. Now it has to stabilise back to something near its initial purpose.



nathan79 said:


> Many cities have already started cracking down on these illegal Airbnb suites, so I think that's going to hurt the prospect of this IPO.


Yes, it seems a weird timing to launch an IPO.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrBlackhill said:


> AirBnB was first intended to be the same kind of system as CouchSurfing, but renting a full bedroom. There's no abuse in CouchSurfing because who would rent a couch in an empty unit to pay his mortgage?


IIRC CouchSurfing actually was a sharing resource. Nobody charged anything.



MrBlackhill said:


> Many cities have already started cracking down on these illegal Airbnb suites, so I think that's going to hurt the prospect of this IPO.


I think the idea is that the executives will try to cash out what they have before the whole thing collapses.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

bgc_fan said:


> IIRC CouchSurfing actually was a sharing resource. Nobody charged anything.


Yes, that's true. I thought they started to allow some people to charge 5-10$, but I'm wrong. Last time I used such a service, it was free and you are right, it's still free.

I related CouchSurfing to AirBnB because I think the intention of the sharing model is the same, but AirBnB involves money since you are sharing a bedroom (which is cosier than a couch... but not always) and you are supposed to provide breakfast. It's greedy people that made AirBnB look bad and made it evolve into something bigger for the worse. The initial intention is still a good idea, in my opinion.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrBlackhill said:


> I related CouchSurfing to AirBnB because I think the intention of the sharing model is the same, but AirBnB involves money since you are sharing a bedroom (which is cosier than a couch... but not always) and you are supposed to provide breakfast. It's greedy people that made AirBnB look bad and made it evolve into something bigger for the worse. The initial intention is still a good idea, in my opinion.


Here's the thing. I make a distinction between sharing vs work (for lack of better term).

When I first heard about Uber and the whole ride-sharing service, I thought it was essentially a replacement for those bulletin boards that you see in campuses for students looking for rides out of town, or errands, or something like that. Essentially a way to organize a carpool. For the record, there is an actual ride-sharing website: https://www.ridesharing.com/index.aspx. But then when I looked at it, I realized, yup, an unregulated taxi service.

Likewise, for AirBnB, I figured that it's a platform for those mom and pop type BnBs which aren't that "professional" to have their own website and whatnot. However, the majority is really a ghost hotel setup. So, yes, if the ghost hotel listings were removed, then I don't think most people would have as much issue with it. As it is, they reduce available long-term housing as condos are being used for AirBnB.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

bgc_fan said:


> Here's the thing. I make a distinction between sharing vs work (for lack of better term).
> 
> When I first heard about Uber and the whole ride-sharing service, I thought it was essentially a replacement for those bulletin boards that you see in campuses for students looking for rides out of town, or errands, or something like that. Essentially a way to organize a carpool. For the record, there is an actual ride-sharing website: https://www.ridesharing.com/index.aspx. But then when I looked at it, I realized, yup, an unregulated taxi service.
> 
> Likewise, for AirBnB, I figured that it's a platform for those mom and pop type BnBs which aren't that "professional" to have their own website and whatnot. However, the majority is really a ghost hotel setup. So, yes, if the ghost hotel listings were removed, then I don't think most people would have as much issue with it. As it is, they reduce available long-term housing as condos are being used for AirBnB.


I must agree to that. Again, when money gets involved, it destroys the sharing intention.

But these kinds of models are thriving. And maybe today's tech which allows us to connect to the whole world allows us more opportunities than before.

Maybe not the best example, but let's try this. Back in the 80s, if you needed a babysitter, you'd find one from talking to your neighbourhood and pay the babysitter. It's not sharing, but you paid for a service. Now, there's certainly an app for this. Hell, my spouse found an app for a dog babysitter! Is this going against the official and regulated "dog hotel"? One of my friend pays one of his neighbour who's making food for him. Is this going against the official and regulated restaurants and take out? Where's the limit?

Now that it's easy to virtually connect with people, it's also easy to offer some kind of service. But it's also easy to be aware of such a service. If a few people starts cooking food for neighbours who are too busy, it's unseen so it's okay? But if an app is launched where people can connect to each other to offer their cooking services, then since it's risky and unregulated, it's bad? It's being aware of a mass movement that makes it look worse.

Before this "social communication era", all of these services and shared economy was also possible. But I agree that to some extend it was strictly illegal, while now the mass movement created a business model which is trying to become legal.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrBlackhill said:


> Maybe not the best example, but let's try this. Back in the 80s, if you needed a babysitter, you'd find one from talking to your neighbourhood and pay the babysitter. It's not sharing, but you paid for a service. Now, there's certainly an app for this. Hell, my spouse found an app for a dog babysitter! Is this going against the official and regulated "dog hotel"? One of my friend pays one of his neighbour who's making food for him. Is this going against the official and regulated restaurants and take out? Where's the limit?
> 
> Now that it's easy to virtually connect with people, it's also easy to offer some kind of service. But it's also easy to be aware of such a service. If a few people starts cooking food for neighbours who are too busy, it's unseen so it's okay? But if an app is launched where people can connect to each other to offer their cooking services, then since it's risky and unregulated, it's bad? It's being aware of a mass movement that makes it look worse.


I don't have an issue with the technology behind it, i.e. matchmaking. The thing is, these types of services were always done before, i.e. babysitting, dog walking, house sitting, and technology has made it easier. There's nothing illegal behind these applications.

The issue about acting as a taxi, or hotel is significantly different, though you can argue the house sitting is kind of on the AirBnB type application. These are generally government regulated industries for reasons of safety, health, security, etc. Maybe you don't agree with it, but that's where the difference comes into play. Similar to what you're talking about cooking food for neighbours. There is an app for that. I believe it was essentially AirBnB, but for meals. I don't think it went very far. If someone gets seriously sick, then are they going to sue the private individual? I assume restaurants have some sort of commercial liability to cover that eventuality. It is a similar situation with taxi companies and Uber, although now there are insurance policies to protect drivers who drive for Uber. People like complaining that government regulations kill productivity, but they are also there for safety. You only have to think about the Walkerton incident for an example of lax government oversight.


----------



## MrBlackhill (Jun 10, 2020)

I agree with you and I'm not against those regulations, but I'm asking myself where's the line between "acting as a taxi" and "sharing a ride" once in a while? When does it become taxi-business? When does it have to be regulated if it's basically the same event : someone driving a car from A to B.

Same for "acting as an hotel" vs "sharing a bedroom", when does it become hotel-business?

The regulations are mainly for security purpose, right? So I guess the business has to be regulated when the risk-probability becomes too high because the frequency of use is too high? I mean, if I give a ride every month to a few neighbours which don't have a car, should this be called taxi-business and be regulated? And if it's every week? And if it's every day? And if it's the whole day? How do you define the threshold? On the risk-probability, I guess?


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

I stay at AirBnb's but would not buy it stock.


----------



## Fain87 (Jan 20, 2018)

Airbnb is a great company. Better service than hotels. More listings, less corporate, better pricing. 

Hotel industry naturally wants to regulate their competition.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ I agree


Fain87 said:


> Airbnb is a great company. Better service than hotels. More listings, less corporate, better pricing.
> 
> Hotel industry naturally wants to regulate their competition.


 ... I agree it's "great" if you either own the company, works there or wants to push the IPO.

Otherwise, it's laughable on "better" service than hotels.

For a start, what service are is it providing other than a "virtual" advertising platform... its worth? A digital crash I say.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

MrBlackhill said:


> I agree with you and I'm not against those regulations, but I'm asking myself where's the line between "acting as a taxi" and "sharing a ride" once in a while? When does it become taxi-business? When does it have to be regulated if it's basically the same event : someone driving a car from A to B.
> 
> Same for "acting as an hotel" vs "sharing a bedroom", when does it become hotel-business?
> 
> The regulations are mainly for security purpose, right? So I guess the business has to be regulated when the risk-probability becomes too high because the frequency of use is too high? I mean, if I give a ride every month to a few neighbours which don't have a car, should this be called taxi-business and be regulated? And if it's every week? And if it's every day? And if it's the whole day? How do you define the threshold? On the risk-probability, I guess?


Well, if you are basically driving strangers for money for destinations that you were not planning to otherwise, I would say it's really a taxi service. Even most car share types may compensate for some gas money for long distance, but if you are car pooling, and actually going to a similar destination, that's different.

Acting as a hotel? Never using the premises for personal use. A place where the owner is occupying and sharing facilities isn't really running a hotel. You could consider as roommates if it is a long-term occupancy.

There is some expectation of fair use, but if you are spending hours on a daily basis driving other people around, I'd say that's a taxi service.


----------



## The Black Wizard (May 16, 2017)

Airbnb is like cancer and it ruins neighbourhoods and cities. Should be outlawed. Nobody in a condo wants to live beside a new stranger every day and nobody that owns a house wants an airbnb party to come into their neighbourhood.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

I am torn about AirBnb/Uber type services, and completely on the fence...

On one hand - clearly detrimental to the procurement of quality, affordable housing for residents of a given area, and the full time employment of people who get hosed with this new way of being compensated in the "gig economy." 

Quality of life for many, especially lower income urban residents, is negatively impacted by Airbnb. The prime grievance of our time is why is life not getting better and better for regular people with all this technological development? Airbnb gets right to the heart of this complaint, housing quality/affordability, and clearly is a step backwards rather than forward.
*___*

On the other hand - the reason these so-called "sharing" type companies took off like they did in the first place is because of government over-regulation of all types (zoning/construction especially), cronyism with Big Insurance, and nanny-stateism of safety requirements.

Turns out that people just want a stove and bed in a convenient location instead of impressive lobbies, housecleaning, shitty free breakfast, and being stuck in some outskirts hotel block with nowhere to go and only a microwave in your room.

Turns out that people aren't willing to pay 50% more for a place to stay on vacation to get from 90% safety to 95% safety and have invisible, unknown standards/codes/insurance requirements being followed at all times, at great cost, by the proprietor for "your benefit". 

With Uber, again, turns out that people are satisfied with a seatbelt that clicks and a car that doesn't smell, and are uninterested in paying 50% more for invisible background activities like driver training, vehicle maintenance and insurance requirements.

These are all things that nanny-stateism have imposed on us supposedly at the behest of the public, but actually at the behest of government agencies that want to grow themselves, and insurance companies that want guaranteed customers. The occasional odd death of someone and the whipped-up faux public outcry by professional government agitators and corporate lobbyist who are on-the-take has resulted in the over-regulation of many, many things in society. AirBnb/Uber are techno services that speared right though all that BS, in defiance of "the law", and provided the sensible services that people actually wanted all along.

So, I dunno...


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Mr Blackhill wrote: "I rented many places on AirBnB where students were renting a bedroom to help them pay their studies. I rented places where elders had no visits from their family and were so happy to talk with their visitors. I rented places where the owners were having difficult times trying to pay for the illness of a family member. I rented places where a mother was having a hard time to make through it financially after a separation. I rented places where the owners were so proud of their cities and helped me discover all its secrets and I enjoyed so much more my stay in that city. "
I think this captures the essence of the original intention of Airbnb. Had it continued in that manner, I believe there would be little pushback. So regulations need to deal with the outlyers that cause the trouble.

My son owns a luxury cottage on West Lake in Prince Edward County. He was renting it in the summer through an agency. Then he tried to market himself through AirBNB. After two years, all his week-long rentals were through AirBNB. He has to take more responsibility for screening but njoys that because it is his luxury place. A retirememt home eventually. Like the above examples, AirBNB does add value for a better exerience for both host and user.

I hope that the IPO will give AirBNB the money it will need to enforce the business model that will continue to provide the above experiences. But I fear that they will use the cash to fight against any regulation!


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

For those interested in the dark side of AirBnB and scams, here's an interesting article: I Accidentally Uncovered a Nationwide Scam Run by Fake Hosts on Airbnb


----------



## Juggernaut92 (Aug 9, 2020)

I am surprised they are choosing this year to come out with an IPO as the hospitality industry got devastated because of covid.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

Downtown councillor calls on Airbnb to de-list so-called ‘ghost hotels’ after shots fired into neighbouring condo

The popularity of Airbnb will be going down like a plane in hogtown ...


----------

