Would You Pay Today for a Problem Ten Years Away?

Would You Pay Today for a Problem Ten Years Away?

Real Estate Coach · Miami, FL · Member since 2024 · 1k+ posts · 484 votes

I know a building with four apartments on the top floor.

Years ago, one of the owners started having problems with the roof. Leaks.

A team of roofers came. They repaired it. It leaked again. Another team came. Same story.

At some point even the professional building manager seemed to more or less give up. The roof wasn't collapsing. The problem wasn't catastrophic. Somebody would patch something when necessary, and everybody carried on with their lives.

Years passed. Eventually, the building changed managers. The new manager looked at the situation and said something quite different.

He didn't claim he knew the magical repair the previous roofers had somehow missed. He basically said: "This roof is going to become more and more of a problem. Eventually, we're going to have to replace it."

Fair enough. But then came the interesting part. He wasn't proposing that the building replaces it. He was proposing that apartment owners start paying for it. Now.

His idea was simple: create a dedicated fund for the roof. Everybody contributes a relatively small amount over the years. Maybe the roof lasts another ten years. Maybe less. But whenever replacement finally becomes unavoidable, the building has money waiting for it.

Fortunately, the apartment owners agreed. So now there's a fund quietly growing in the background for a roof that doesn't need replacing today.

And I've often wondered what would have happened if they hadn't agreed. Because saying no would have been completely understandable.

"The roof isn't leaking over my apartment."

"Why should I pay for something we're not doing?"

"We'll deal with it when the time comes."

"I might not even own this apartment in ten years."

And perhaps the most compelling:

"Why should I put real money into an account today for a problem that doesn't exist yet?"

All perfectly reasonable. Until the day the problem does exist. Then you don't have ten years. You have four apartment owners getting water through their ceilings, contractors telling you the patchwork is over, and an invoice for a complete roof replacement. And somebody has to find the money. Now.

That's what I find interesting about this story from an investment perspective. We spend enormous amounts of time discussing whether something is a good investment. We spend much less time discussing when an expense becomes real.

Is the roof replacement an expense ten years from now? Or is it an expense today that simply isn't payable for another ten years?

Those are two very different ways of looking at exactly the same roof. The first says: "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it." The second says: "We're already walking toward the bridge."

There's also an interesting problem for whoever has to manage the property. Nobody particularly likes the person proposing the reserve fund. He's asking you for real money today and giving you absolutely nothing today. No new roof. No nicer lobby. No higher rent. No visible improvement whatsoever. He's selling you the absence of a financial emergency ten years from now.

That's a remarkably difficult product to sell. And yet that's essentially what reserves are. The roof. HVAC. Plumbing. Parking lot. Elevator. Whatever your particular property contains that is quietly getting older while everybody collects rent.

Eventually something will need replacing. The unknowns are "when" and "how much".

This building got lucky. The owners agreed. But what if they hadn't?

And there's another complication for investors that makes the answer less obvious than it first appears. What if you're going to sell the property in five years? Should today's cash flow pay for a roof somebody else may eventually own? Should you sacrifice part of today's return to prepare for an expense that might not happen during your ownership? Or is that simply part of owning an asset - the building is consuming that roof a little bit every year, whether you're writing a check for it or not?

I don't think the interesting answer is simply "always have reserves." The interesting question is: how much of tomorrow's predictable trouble should today's investment be paying for?

Because either way, somebody eventually pays for the roof. The choice is whether ten years of you pay a little at a time - or one very unlucky version of you gets the entire bill.

(When you know a major capital expense is coming years down the road, do you start charging today's investment for it now - or keep today's returns and deal with the expense when it actually arrives?)

1Reply
580 views

Most Popular Reply

Honolulu, HI · Member since 2008 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
2mo

I don't know how you, or your State, are defining "apartments" or "owners", but this is no different than EVERY condo here, except that "reserves" are a normal portion of the monthly fee paid by all owners of units. In theory, every major element has a line item dollar amount and timeline for accumulating those funds. Ultimately, the Boards that operate them often make different decisions. Here, an "apartment" indicates ONE ownership of ALL of the units...whether 3 or 300, and that "owner" is solely responsible for the roof and other typical elements. Trying to get tenants to pay what amounts to a surcharge to pad your reserves would never work.

As to the original roof issue itself, I once managed a complex with a similar problem. Turned out, prior roofers had installed OVER several discharge pipes from AC sump pumps. Every time the weather got humid (which was often in the Midwest), ceilings would start leaking, eventually causing extensive damage through multiple floors. My call on the project once I walked the roofs myself, and investigated the top floor units, was to tear off all the old roofing. This exposed the actual problem...and new roofs were installed WITH the AC drains well protected and identified, solving the problem.

See this reply in the discussion

6 Replies

Jump to latestLatest
  • G. Brian DavisPro Member
    Investor · Hatboro, PA · Member since 2016 · 3k+ posts · 902 votes
    2mo

    I’d rather plan for it now. If you know the roof is going to need replacing eventually, I’d treat that as part of the cost of owning the property, even if the expense is years away. I wouldn’t necessarily put the exact amount into a separate account, but I’d make sure the cash flow and reserves are enough to handle it when it comes. Otherwise, you can have a property that looks like it’s producing great returns right up until the roof needs to be replaced.

  • Honolulu, HI · Member since 2008 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    2mo

    I don't know how you, or your State, are defining "apartments" or "owners", but this is no different than EVERY condo here, except that "reserves" are a normal portion of the monthly fee paid by all owners of units. In theory, every major element has a line item dollar amount and timeline for accumulating those funds. Ultimately, the Boards that operate them often make different decisions. Here, an "apartment" indicates ONE ownership of ALL of the units...whether 3 or 300, and that "owner" is solely responsible for the roof and other typical elements. Trying to get tenants to pay what amounts to a surcharge to pad your reserves would never work.

    As to the original roof issue itself, I once managed a complex with a similar problem. Turned out, prior roofers had installed OVER several discharge pipes from AC sump pumps. Every time the weather got humid (which was often in the Midwest), ceilings would start leaking, eventually causing extensive damage through multiple floors. My call on the project once I walked the roofs myself, and investigated the top floor units, was to tear off all the old roofing. This exposed the actual problem...and new roofs were installed WITH the AC drains well protected and identified, solving the problem.

  • Investor · Pacific Northwest · Member since 2026 · 538 posts · 314 votes
    2mo

    Drago — I think there are actually two different questions hiding inside this:

    When is the roof being consumed?

    and

    When should the cash for replacing it be set aside?

    Those aren’t necessarily the same date.

    If a roof has a 20-year useful life and costs $100,000 to replace, economically the building is consuming roughly $5,000 of roof every year whether anyone moves a dollar into a reserve account or not.

    The reserve doesn’t create the expense.

    It just acknowledges it.

    That distinction matters because otherwise a property can look like it’s producing fantastic cash flow simply because we’re treating deterioration as free until the day somebody writes the replacement check.

    Where I’d disagree slightly with “just save everything now” is that the funding strategy can still be flexible.

    If I know the roof probably has ten years left, I could:

    • Build a dedicated sinking fund.

    • Maintain a larger general reserve.

    • Fund part of it from ongoing cash flow.

    • Plan to finance some portion later.

    • Or intentionally accept the future capital call.

    Those are capital-allocation decisions.

    But I wouldn’t let any of them change the way I measure the economics of the property.

    And I think the “what if I sell in five years?” question is especially interesting.

    Selling before the roof replacement doesn’t necessarily mean you escaped the cost.

    If a sophisticated buyer sees a 15-year-old roof with five years left, they’re going to underwrite that liability too. Maybe it shows up explicitly in their offer. Maybe it shows up in the cap rate they demand. Maybe it shows up in an inspection negotiation.

    But the remaining useful life of the asset is still part of what they’re buying.

    So personally, I’d separate reported cash flow from economic cash flow.

    The property may distribute $30,000 this year.

    But if $8,000 worth of roof, HVAC, parking lot and other long-lived components were consumed in producing that $30,000, I don’t want to fool myself into thinking the building created $30,000 of sustainable income.

    It created $22,000 and deferred $8,000 of capital replacement.

    Whether I physically move that $8,000 into another bank account is a different decision.

    That’s the part I think investors sometimes miss:

    A future check can represent a present cost.

    The building doesn’t wait until replacement day to get older.

  • Real Estate Agent · Memphis · Member since 2026 · 619 posts · 356 votes
    2mo

    I look at it as the property using up a little bit of that roof every year, whether I’m the one who eventually replaces it or not. So I’d rather reserve for that wear as I go than let today’s cash flow make the property look healthier than it really is.

    The “I might sell in five years” part doesn’t really change that for me. If I sell before the roof goes, I haven’t lost anything by keeping reserves. If I still own it when the bill comes, I’m glad I planned for it. To me, reserves aren’t really paying early for a future expense—they’re recognizing a cost that’s already building while I own the asset.

  • Jimmy LieuBusiness Member
    Real Estate Agent · Columbus, OH · Member since 2019 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes
    2mo
    Quote from @Drago Stanimirovic:

    I know a building with four apartments on the top floor.

    Years ago, one of the owners started having problems with the roof. Leaks.

    A team of roofers came. They repaired it. It leaked again. Another team came. Same story.

    At some point even the professional building manager seemed to more or less give up. The roof wasn't collapsing. The problem wasn't catastrophic. Somebody would patch something when necessary, and everybody carried on with their lives.

    Years passed. Eventually, the building changed managers. The new manager looked at the situation and said something quite different.

    He didn't claim he knew the magical repair the previous roofers had somehow missed. He basically said: "This roof is going to become more and more of a problem. Eventually, we're going to have to replace it."

    Fair enough. But then came the interesting part. He wasn't proposing that the building replaces it. He was proposing that apartment owners start paying for it. Now.

    His idea was simple: create a dedicated fund for the roof. Everybody contributes a relatively small amount over the years. Maybe the roof lasts another ten years. Maybe less. But whenever replacement finally becomes unavoidable, the building has money waiting for it.

    Fortunately, the apartment owners agreed. So now there's a fund quietly growing in the background for a roof that doesn't need replacing today.

    And I've often wondered what would have happened if they hadn't agreed. Because saying no would have been completely understandable.

    "The roof isn't leaking over my apartment."

    "Why should I pay for something we're not doing?"

    "We'll deal with it when the time comes."

    "I might not even own this apartment in ten years."

    And perhaps the most compelling:

    "Why should I put real money into an account today for a problem that doesn't exist yet?"

    All perfectly reasonable. Until the day the problem does exist. Then you don't have ten years. You have four apartment owners getting water through their ceilings, contractors telling you the patchwork is over, and an invoice for a complete roof replacement. And somebody has to find the money. Now.

    That's what I find interesting about this story from an investment perspective. We spend enormous amounts of time discussing whether something is a good investment. We spend much less time discussing when an expense becomes real.

    Is the roof replacement an expense ten years from now? Or is it an expense today that simply isn't payable for another ten years?

    Those are two very different ways of looking at exactly the same roof. The first says: "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it." The second says: "We're already walking toward the bridge."

    There's also an interesting problem for whoever has to manage the property. Nobody particularly likes the person proposing the reserve fund. He's asking you for real money today and giving you absolutely nothing today. No new roof. No nicer lobby. No higher rent. No visible improvement whatsoever. He's selling you the absence of a financial emergency ten years from now.

    That's a remarkably difficult product to sell. And yet that's essentially what reserves are. The roof. HVAC. Plumbing. Parking lot. Elevator. Whatever your particular property contains that is quietly getting older while everybody collects rent.

    Eventually something will need replacing. The unknowns are "when" and "how much".

    This building got lucky. The owners agreed. But what if they hadn't?

    And there's another complication for investors that makes the answer less obvious than it first appears. What if you're going to sell the property in five years? Should today's cash flow pay for a roof somebody else may eventually own? Should you sacrifice part of today's return to prepare for an expense that might not happen during your ownership? Or is that simply part of owning an asset - the building is consuming that roof a little bit every year, whether you're writing a check for it or not?

    I don't think the interesting answer is simply "always have reserves." The interesting question is: how much of tomorrow's predictable trouble should today's investment be paying for?

    Because either way, somebody eventually pays for the roof. The choice is whether ten years of you pay a little at a time - or one very unlucky version of you gets the entire bill.

    (When you know a major capital expense is coming years down the road, do you start charging today's investment for it now - or keep today's returns and deal with the expense when it actually arrives?)

    Great example, Drago. I look at reserves as recognizing that the property is using up part of that roof, HVAC, plumbing, etc. every year, even though the bill hasn't arrived yet. I'd rather set aside a reasonable amount based on the age, condition, and expected life of the major components than treat all of the remaining cash flow as spendable profit. Even if I plan to sell before the roof needs replacement, that aging roof can still affect the future sale price, inspection, or buyer negotiations. The reserve doesn't necessarily need to cover every possible expense in full, but I think underwriting without any allowance for CapEx can make a property look more profitable than it really is.

  • Investor · Chicago · Member since 2026 · 17 posts · 12 votes
    2mo

    My two properties handle this differently. My condo sits in an association and the house doesn't. The association owns the roof and the other common elements, so that cost reaches me as a monthly assessment instead of a repair bill I have to time.

    On the house, I build the same charge into my custom P&L myself. I divide what a component costs to replace by the years I think it has left, and that number hits the property every month. Roof and HVAC are the two I track that way, and everything smaller I absorb as a repair when it happens.

Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.