Here is an analogy that might explain my confusion.

I view this house as a econo box on a lot full of luxury cars and since the luxury cars are worth so much, the seller of the econo box wants just as much.

It isn't even a classic econo box.

I largely agree with what he says, just not the deposit part. Ask for a deposit of one month rent. If there is no damage, give it back to them. If something is broken, then you get to take something out of the security deposit. Cleaning after the tenant moves out is standard cost of doing business and not to be taken out of the cleaning deposit. I have had tenants be careful to keep the place in good condition so they would get their deposit back.

Find out what the laws about security deposits are for your location. For example, we are required to notify our tenants within 2 weeks of their departure if we plan to take anything out of their security deposit. We have to tell what the money is being taken for. They have a period of time to contest it. And, we have to give them their security deposit back within a certain amount of time. If not, we have to give them back the whole security deposit. In some places, you can be required to give them 2-3x the deposit. Know what is required of you and do it.

There are very few perfect tenants. We don't disqualify someone because they have had credit issues. We disqualify them if they are not fixing those credit issues. Our units are in a good location, well maintained and not cheap. But, basically everyone we have gotten an application from has had credit issues. As long as the issues weren't too bad and they have been cleaning up credit issues, we will consider them as a tenant.

We are not able to run the tenant's credit report. I don't remember the exact reason for this. We just have them bring us a copy of their credit report from one of the bureaus. We look at the accounts that they have had issues with and the trend over time. Anyone who balks at taking 10 minutes to get a copy of their credit report and print it out is not someone we want to rent to.

Don't let little problems become big problems. If you happen to notice something that isn't quite right, then fix it right away.

Do not let the tenant get away with being late for rent. If you do, it will get worse. We let it slide one time and we probably shouldn't do that. If we don't have the rent by the end of the 3 day grace period, we send them in writing that we will be enforcing late payment penalties if it happens again. We are flexible though. If someone who has reliably been paying on time tells me that they forgot to pay before they left town and they will be happy to pay it when they get back in a few days, I don't enforce any late payment penalty. As long as I know there is a legit reason for being late and they will pay, then I'm fine with it.

When we rented, we thought it was stupid that one of our landlords gave us a bank account number where we could go deposit our rent. We have found that most of our renters prefer that instead of writing a check. I have offered other payment options as well, but the most popular options seems to be them depositing the cash/check. I can't explain it.

I can't emphasize this enough. I used to live in Chicago, where there are very strict rules governing security deposits. (Rules that favor the tenants.) One landlord tried to withhold some of the security deposit for bull**** reasons. But when I said, "You didn't notify me of any withholding within the required period. In addition, you didn't pay any interest on that security deposit. That's a straightforward violation of the ordinance, and is subject to 2-3x the deposit. So how about you don't be a jerk and I don't pursue payment for those violations."

It's very straightforward to get a large judgement against a landlord who doesn't follow those rules.

I've been looking at data showing amount recouped from renovations, and it's usually anywhere from 60-80% meaning if I spend $10k on new floors, I'll see an increase of $6-8k on sales price not including what I'm losing in commission.

This leads me to believe I'm better off buying something that has already been updated for value. The downside would be that I don't get to pick the exact things I want. Am I using the right logic here or overlooking something?

Normally that is the right logic, however not everyone pays market value for renos (connection, crappy jobs, etc). Also people usually way over-report how much they've spent on renos to buyers.

I was flipping through channels and came across Bad Santa during the scene your avatar is from.

If you suspect a renovator is inflating how much they spent, is there an easy way to figure out how much they did spend?

How much do you think historical significance adds to a house's value?

There is no easy way unless they have receipts (which they rarely do, and if they do and it doesn't back their story they will say they paid cash etc). it doesn't matter what someone paid for an upgrade though. . it's how much that upgrade increases the value. The main reason listing agents list the value of upgrades is hoping to justify a high list price or make a fair list price seem like a good deal. /realtor

Getting back to my question about historical significance adding value to the house, the significance is the house was designed by an internationally known architect who is now deceased. In fact, he died before the house was built.

I do know that a house of his which zillow estimated had a value of around 130k sold for around 470k.

Like all of your other questions, it's just a massive "It depends".

Here's just one thing to consider. Around here 'historical significance' is almost always protected by local bylaws that makes modifying or repairing the house a huge pain in the ass. There's no way I'd ever buy a house like that just because of the extra regulations. Other people might think its worth it. But how that affects the market price is almost impossible to predict in a general sense.

It does not matter. At all. As has been pointed out numerous times, how much the current owner spent on renovations is completely irrelevant to its current market value. DUCY?

Please read this response again:

Or this one:

Until you understand this concept, any further discussion is a complete waste of time.

This is, admittedly, a flawed analogy (because the seller isn't "putting money into" the stock, but the concept is very similar), but it may be good enough to set a light bulb off: If you are purchasing a stock from a seller, is it at all relevant how much the seller purchased that stock for?

I will say the one time that 'renovation cost' can be relevant is when you're comparing two houses that are very similar except for the renovation.

So for example when we bought our house it had a brand new deck while the most comparable house that had sold in the last year didn't. So the selling realtor used the cost of the new deck to try and show us one reason why the house we were buying was listed higher.

That being said, I still didn't really care what they said they spent on the deck. It was more about how much value I put on having that specific deck and how much value I put on not having to build or get one built myself.

I think we agree. For example, assuming the quality of the deck is the same in both cases, it is completely irrelevant if the seller is a contractor who spent $3k on materials and built the deck himself, or if he instead got fleeced by a guy who charged him $100k to build it.

The only time it's relevant is to the seller's psychology (for negotiation purposes), but that's only because most people don't view things 100% logically. It's still something to consider when negotiating though ("with this offer, you get back what you put into the deck plus what you paid for the house!" etc.)

I know a guy who knows the owner of a house with historical significance in this area and he has to get any changes approved.

Knowing the house and the historical significance, I am glad that restriction is in there.

Are people basing their answers because that is the way things should be or because that is the way things have always been done?

If the latter, that doesn't make it right.

Everything is worth what people will pay for it. There is no other answer.

When people buy homes they overpay for "new carpet, appliances, paint". That **** is relatively cheap and you can bet that when selling the house they went for the cheapest options. It looks nice because it is new, but it is likely crappy. Now you are stuck with a crappy washer and dryer for the next 10 years before it breaks. These are things that have a very high return for the seller because buyers over value them. Also, most Americans have a really hard time saving and always want something more they can afford so they don't want to have to put money into the home after they buy it. These types of buyers, especially first time home owners tend to overlook the age of the roof/hvac system which costs significantly more than carpet/appliances.

If they pay by check landlords are not required to issue a receipt. By law if rent is paid by cash or any other form of transaction other than check it must be issued a receipt. Using a check is just easier in the eyes of state laws

Vent: I have no idea how people ever fixed anything before the internet and I still can't seem to find answers for some of my minor home ownership issues.

I have an Ikea light fixture that takes MR16 bulbs. Instead of being the screw in base, they have two prongs. Thanks to the power of the internet I was eventually able to figure out that when a bulb burned out I could remove it by using a suction cup to pull out the bulb from the fixture.

Went to change a bulb last night, the suction cup just pulled the bottom glass off the bulb, leaving the cone in place. Now how the **** and I going to get that out of there?

Is it in a recessed light?

I have some MR16s in recessed cans and have to take the whole assembly down to get the bulb out. Take the whole thing out and then remove the bulb vs just removing the bulb with the fixture in place. A royal PITA.

Also have a mix of Gu10s and out of production fluorescent tube fixtures here so changing light bulbs is always an adventure.

Nope, not recessed, it's a fixture, vaguely track light ish. Stupid annoying.

This is good stuff as I'm in the most Americans category here and looking for my first home.

How long should a roof last? Should I assume it's the age of the house unless they can say otherwise? What about hvac? I assume you're talking about more than just the ac or you would have said that. People replace entire hvac systems?

Depends on the shingles for a roof. Generally about 20 years. Manufactures make shingles that have 20,25,30+ year lifespans. That is assuming no storm comes along and ****s up your roof. Also remember that if your roof is 10 years old, has 20 year shingles, and a storm comes along that requires you to replace your roof, your insurance may only cover 50% of the cost depending on the coverage.

I don't know if that applies to insurance, but it applies to the single manufacturer. The warranty depreciated on a linear basis depending on how long you've had the roof.

I'm looking at redoing my kitchen. Feel like i am fairly handy when it comes fixing/repairing stuff, and we have had a few contractors come out to give us estimates on how much it would cost depending on materials picked. Is there any areas that anyone could suggest that are should be enough to do that i could do myself and save some money? I believe I have seen somewhere that some people suggest doing the demo yourself which should help with cost a little. Thanks.

What do you plan on doing to the kitchen, and how quickly do you want it done?

A contractor can turn around a simple cabinet and counter upgrade in 2-3 days.

I hate to "it depends" you but it really depends. How handy are you exactly, what tools do you own, what kind of room do you have to work, how much are the new cabinets worth and so on. Your time, how much you're looking to save.

Generally kitchen demo isn't too hard, transporting and disposing of materials tends to be the bigger PITA there so account for logistics and costs of that. Just watch your water lines.

Cabinet installs are doable if you're tedious about measurements and own a couple good levels and a driver. Understand that walls aren't always completely square and floors aren't always completely level so some shimming (or floor leveling) may be required. Hanging them goes better with two people if they're heavier but I use a 1x1 screwed into the wall as a temporary brace.

Before you do that make sure you get real measurements for the appliances you're putting in and don't forget to account for the door swing on the fridge if it could fowl something. Also ensure when planning that your cabinet drawers won't run foul of the stove door or something else if an L-shape or U-shape.

If you toss an electric stove save the power cable from it to use on the next one. They run 3- and 4-prong and cost a little bit and often aren't included when you buy them new.

Countertops is where it starts getting a little more involved, cutting, cutting out the sink and it depends on what materials you're working with. My advice is to go find a solid surface on sale and have someone else install it for you, they're not all that much. I'm not into doing this for what SS counters cost these days especially if you're dealing with any L-shaped tops. Or really at all tbh.

My biggest advice is to wait until you can gut the kitchen completely and do the whole thing at once, flooring, new sink, appliances and all. You don't necessarily have to but things tend to be in other things' way when you get to the point of replacing cabinets.

And of course you may be able to just resurface the counters and paint the cabinets + change out some hardware too, depending on your situation and what you're trying to accomplish.