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!
Join BiggerPockets and get The Ultimate Beginner's Guide to Real Estate Investing for FREE - read by more than 100,000 people - AND get exclusive real estate investing tips, tricks and techniques delivered straight to your inbox twice weekly!
- 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
Join the Largest Real Estate Investing Community
Basic membership is free, forever.