Is it better to buy a house that needs minimal work?

[Stacey]

I noticed some houses that come on the market are considered "move-in ready" which implies they need no work done to them. It would make sense if you are looking to buy property to rent out that you go this route as you can start making money on the property a lot faster. The downside though is that you are likely going to pay more for these properties because no work is needed and the house likely recently had a good amount invested into it for repairs. Is it better to buy a house that needs minimal work or should you stick with ones that need some elbow grease for a cheaper cost?

[James]

Depends on why you are buying the house in the first place. 

If you are looking for a home to move into for yourself and do not foresee doing any work then yes getting yourself into a "turn-key" place and paying a bit more will likely be worth it to you. 

Now my wife every time we have moved she always wants to do some kind of remodel. So the last house we purchased I made sure needed some work since I knew it was going to be done anyways and we were able to get a slightly better buy. 

Now when I am evaluating rental property I typically can not get a place that is "turn-key" to match my investment return criteria to make a purchase. So I have to find ways to get the house for less which is typically buying property that a bank will not finance which means it needs work. 

You do need to understand though how much all the work is going to cost. Then for safety reasons add another 10-20k on top of that for surprises while you are getting used to the process. 

I would much prefer to buy turn key homes that are ready to rent out but in our area my returns would be so little that it would make no financial sense to do. 

It really all boils down to what your end goals are. 

[Emma]

I think this depends on how much work is needed. If it needs things done that are considered cheaper like new carpet, some paint, maybe a few new windows and doors that is not a big deal and you can often get a house for 10k less just because of those few things needing updating but if you need to do pluming, remodel a kitchen, fix a basement/foundation issue, ect. you are looking at needing another 50k+. If you can get a house that is turn-key ready for $200k or you can get a house that needs 50k worth of work but it is only $120k, then the one that needs the work will likely be the better deal longterm. 

[Sophia]

I would say you have to think about what location the house is in and what plans you'd have for it. I think it would be a good idea for anyone who is young to buy a house they can live in and work on in their spare time. You will have the freedom of having your own space and you will be able to learn about home repairs. When the house is fixed up and the market is good, you could then sell it for a good profit. 

[Damon]

Yeah sure, it's a better way to go. I would rather have a house ready to go, than have to repair it and put more money into it. But let's be honest, if we buy a house, we'll end up putting money into it anyway. You may not like the look, style or the floor plan. 

If you buy the house to live in, then minimal repairs would be ideal, but I'm sure most people will want to update the look and style. But if it's a house you plan to sell, it would be best to have minimal work, so that you can still update the layout and such, but all you'd need to do is stage the house and go from there. 

[Mila]

Short term, it is better but long term, it is likely more cost efficient to buy a house that needs work. If you know how to fix it yourself, then you will save a lot of money but if you don't, it likely is not a good idea. I know a lot of people who live in houses as they repair them in their spare time but they know how to do this stuff.