My question, as I've been wandering around realtor.com and others, is:
Is it better to pay a little more for a very nice home with updates to the kitchen and such that the homeowners who clearly took pride in their home want, or is it better to find a non-updated home? The purpose is to rent out an SFR, and I noticed the price swings in my city alone on similar homes was quite a bit. Obviously homes that are 40 years old will need SOMETHING, but in my experience with just owning a couple of homes is the big tickets like the furnace/AC, roof, foundation, and concrete, if those are all sound, then the other repairs are usually cheaper.
Is it better to pay a little more for the "move in ready, done" home versus the less updated, not so much done home which is cheaper? I could crunch a bunch of numbers, but from your experience, what is better off? Less cash flow but the lower risk of problems, or more cash flow and a higher risk of problems, and maybe a less desirable dwelling to rent out?
It all depends on the numbers .
@David Roberts it also depends on what needs to be done and your comfort level with doing those repairs or finding someone to do them for you. Dealing with a contractor can be an issue and not all problems can be solved with throwing some money at them.
Free eBook from BiggerPockets!
- Actionable advice for getting started,
- Discover the 10 Most Lucrative Real Estate Niches,
- Learn how to get started with or without money,
- Explore Real-Life Strategies for Building Wealth,
- And a LOT more.
Sign up below to download the eBook for FREE today!
We hate spam just as much as you
You must be a BiggerPockets member to post on the forums
Join the world's largest, most open Real Estate Investing Community online, 100% free forever!