Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are people so mad on this thread?

Right? The entitlement is weird.

If OP doesn't renovate the house will sell for less. This could be appealing to buyers who actually want a fixer upper and would prefer to select all their finishes. That market definitely exists, especially if the house is in a good location with good schools. Not everyone thinks of buying a house as a finished product and some like the idea of getting more equity out of their purchase when there is room for improvement.

This is exactly what we did. We recently bought a 1950s house in a top school district from the estate of the original owner. The heirs wanted a quick settlement and priced it accordingly. The house has great bones but needed to be updated. We painted, ripped out the carpet and refinished the beautiful original wood floors, replaced roof, gutters, siding, upgraded the electrical panel and replaced the oil furnace with a heat pump. We’re still ahead of what we spent based on comps. The kitchen, windows and baths are dated but functional. We’ll get to them over time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would paint and that’s it.

This. De-clutter, deep clean, paint, and price it appropriately. People would rather plan their own renovations than rip out brand new materials they don’t like.

I was grateful the previous owners of our house didn’t replace the worn carpet in our house. I painted the walls the colors I wanted, and then I got to pick a carpet color that worked, instead of facing the choice of matching my walls to brand new carpet or ripping out that brand new carpet and starting over.

All this.

Clean & declutter, fresh paint.

Agreed. All of the buyers in our neighborhood over the last few years have immediately done their own renovations, whether the house had been previously updated or not. Buyers in this area seem to have plenty of money for renovations and very specific ideas as to what they want.

So price accordingly and let the buyer deal with the hassle because they’re likely going to anyway.

Anonymous wrote:Why are people so mad on this thread?

Right? The entitlement is weird.

If OP doesn't renovate the house will sell for less. This could be appealing to buyers who actually want a fixer upper and would prefer to select all their finishes. That market definitely exists, especially if the house is in a good location with good schools. Not everyone thinks of buying a house as a finished product and some like the idea of getting more equity out of their purchase when there is room for improvement.

Or OP could do a full renovation and sell the house for a lot more. This will price out a lot of buyers but will be appealing to those who have the capital to purchase and want a turnkey home with new everything.There are two risks with this approach. The first ist hat sometimes renovations cost a lot more than whatever increase in price they will bring on the market. Especially true if the renovation isn't just about updating cabinets and appliances but about moving walls and plumbing. The other risk, which OP is already aware of, is that renovations necessarily requires you to make choices about how the house will look and if you don't feel confident in your ability to make design choices that will meet market demands, it might hurt more than it helps. Better no renovation at all then a bad renovation.

OP could also do a light lift on the house to make it more appealing for buyers but without spending tens of thousands on a full scale remodel. This could be a broad range of changes from simply painting and doing key repairs to actually taking on some of the smaller renovation projects to make the house look less dated -- replacing tile, flooring, and other design choices that may be a turn off for buyers but are cheaper than gutting the place and starting fresh. This could be a happy medium but carries the same risks as both of the first two options depending on how much it costs and how much you do.

But regardless of what OP does, no one on this thread will be required to buy the house. So I'm not sure I get the outrage here. Who cares? It's not your house, OP can and should do whatever makes sense for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would paint and that’s it.

This. De-clutter, deep clean, paint, and price it appropriately. People would rather plan their own renovations than rip out brand new materials they don’t like.

I was grateful the previous owners of our house didn’t replace the worn carpet in our house. I painted the walls the colors I wanted, and then I got to pick a carpet color that worked, instead of facing the choice of matching my walls to brand new carpet or ripping out that brand new carpet and starting over.

All this.

Clean & declutter, fresh paint.

Why are people so mad on this thread?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it depends on how dated the house looks. If your kitchen has a proper range hood built in appliances and working cabinets then you could get away with sprucing it up however if its got the terrible microwave above the oven or the down draft many people will pass

If you are passing on a house you like and can afford because it has a downdraft, you're an idiot and deserve to spend your life in a rental housing.

+1 -- why would you want the seller to replace that when you obviously have very specific ideas about what you want anyway? Just bake it into your offer price and plan on replacing it. You aren't even talking about a full scale remodel, you are quibbling over a single appliance. This is like passing on a house because you don't like the tile in the second bathroom. Why would owners sit around trying to guess what people like you are going to to want when they could just sell their homes as is and let you figure it out once you buy.

This isn't even what OP is talking about -- they are talking about a 20 year old kitchen with dated cabinets and likely layout that needs a fullscale lift. And the reason it doesn't make sense for OP to do that lift is that no matter how they renovate it, picky buyers will complain even about the brand new cabinets and appliances. Why bother.

This is one of the dumbest things about the modern real estate market -- the idea that every house for sale must be Instagram worthy and perfectly finished. Why? Buy the house and fix it up. That's how it's supposed to work.

No, thanks. I don’t want a project that requires rerouting plumbing and electrical, adding a new vent, cutting into walls, etc. I just want to move in. If the kitchen has a good layout and I only need to think about pulling and replacing appliances or cabinets, I might consider it, but I’m not interested in rearranging walls or structural changes. No one in my age range wants to deal with this; we’re all juggling multiple jobs and raising kids. We’ll just keep waiting.

For context, since my first house in 2005, I’ve followed this rule, and it’s worked out great for me. My first house involved pulling and replacing, which was a hassle but manageable. My second house was a flip, and that worked out perfectly. My third house was a new build that was move-in ready, and my last home was a custom build from the ground up to my specifications.

Building the custom home took a lot of time, and I’m not sure I’d want to go through that process again. For reference, I’m under 45.

Why are you moving so often?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It often is smarter just to price accordingly, rather than than mess about with allowances or to renovate yourself. Be clear in the MLS listing that the house is being sold as-is.

We renovated right after buying our current house. We were glad that the previous owner had not renovated, because it let us choose the cabinets, finishes, and such like.

I would never buy an "as-is" home unless it was offered at a substantial discount. We purchased a vacation home "as-is," but it was an estate sale following someone's passing, and it was heavily discounted because the sellers wanted to unload it quickly. We ended up investing about $80,000 in renovations, and while we may have saved $50,000 overall, it didn’t feel worth it to us. I’d rather buy a fully renovated property and roll the $50,000 difference into a 30-year mortgage.

In our case, the vacation market we were in was at the beach, where inventory was extremely limited, so we opted for the "as-is" property because there were no other options available at the time. For the original poster (OP), how is the market in your area? If there are other renovated homes available, a discount on an "as-is" property may not be as appealing because you're competing with move-in-ready options. Most buyers aren’t looking for a project—they just want something they can move into right away.

Selling a house “as-is” is different than selling it un-renovated. An “As-is” sale has legal implications that an unrenovated home sale doesn’t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can do the renovation at a very price effective cost, you can get back much more than what you put in. This is basically what flippers do.

Flippers often lose money. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Umm, if a flipper is losing money in this area, they probably shouldn't be in the business in the first place. Just because your prospects didn't work out, that doesn't mean OPs won't

Anonymous wrote:It often is smarter just to price accordingly, rather than than mess about with allowances or to renovate yourself. Be clear in the MLS listing that the house is being sold as-is.

We renovated right after buying our current house. We were glad that the previous owner had not renovated, because it let us choose the cabinets, finishes, and such like.

I would never buy an "as-is" home unless it was offered at a substantial discount. We purchased a vacation home "as-is," but it was an estate sale following someone's passing, and it was heavily discounted because the sellers wanted to unload it quickly. We ended up investing about $80,000 in renovations, and while we may have saved $50,000 overall, it didn’t feel worth it to us. I’d rather buy a fully renovated property and roll the $50,000 difference into a 30-year mortgage.

In our case, the vacation market we were in was at the beach, where inventory was extremely limited, so we opted for the "as-is" property because there were no other options available at the time. For the original poster (OP), how is the market in your area? If there are other renovated homes available, a discount on an "as-is" property may not be as appealing because you're competing with move-in-ready options. Most buyers aren’t looking for a project—they just want something they can move into right away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't listen to realtors who tell you to renovate. It only benefits them (easier to sell and higher selling price).

Um, easier to sell at a higher price also benefits the seller, genius

Except the higher price isn’t a benefit to the seller if you’ve spent more than the gain on renovations. It is a benefit to the realtor who makes a bigger commission.

You’re not very bright, are you?

The commission difference is negligible. An agent might net 100 basis points on a sale. If they get you another $10,000 for a house, that’s $100 in their pocket. Big wow.

The key there is selling quickly. That benefits both seller and agent. This is why interests align.

The biggest job in selling a home is removing all obstacles. So the real question for OP is do you want to sell it quickly or not? Updates are expensive and you might not recover the cost of them completely. But if it takes longer to sell your home, there is an opportunity cost to that, too.

Your fixation on agent compensation demonstrates just how stupid you are and proves you should not be opinining on these matters in a public forum.

And, since I can predict how your pea brain works, I will just cut off your lame retort by affirming I am not an agent, nor am I connected to the real estate industry in any way.

1) Not every seller needs to sell quickly. Some can be patient and wait for the right buyer.

2) Pp wasn’t fixated on agent comp, that was just one component mentioned.

3) If the renovations cost a large sum, let’s say $50k, there are two things to think about. How do they pay for that if they don’t have that kind of cash on hand? Borrowing money has costs. Secondly, they could very easily not recoup those funds in the sale price.

In the DC area, homes tend to sell quickly regardless of condition. Around here it usually doesn’t make sense to spend a lot of money on renovations. Maybe if you live in a podunk town, things work differently.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't listen to realtors who tell you to renovate. It only benefits them (easier to sell and higher selling price).

Um, easier to sell at a higher price also benefits the seller, genius

Not if the increase in price doesn't exceed the investment in renovations, genius.

What is the location? Is it a potential teardown?

We are selling a relatively worn house that almost 30 years old next year. We are just selling as is, no allowances. But it is in an extremely hot area with low inventory and whoever buys the house would want to reno themselves anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you can do the renovation at a very price effective cost, you can get back much more than what you put in. This is basically what flippers do.

Flippers often lose money. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Flippers often make money. You don't know what your talking about.

Also, I watched my neighbor purchase one of these old houses that needed a complete refresh it literally took them almost 2 years to complete everything, i don't want to deal with that i want to just move in and be done. Maybe paint it before moving in but as a general rule you will lose a lot of your buyers if its a fixer upper that needs a renovation.