Hacker News Reader

Comment by tbabb | Hacker News Reader

20-25 years is at the limit of what I could imagine staying in one house with any certainty. How does the extra longevity justify the cost unless I plan to never ever move again?

View on HN

It goes to the home's value (aka you'd get more when you sell it). I kind of think of it like brick. Brick has a much longer maintenance cycle than vinyl or wood siding.

The is true in theory, but in practice the housing market isn't 100% efficient.

You'll no doubt recoup some of your value, but not all of it.

Part of our bubble is that at times it's been "more than 100% efficient", so to speak.

Witness dozens of TV shows, "You guys had $50K for your reno budget. Your original value was $250K, and you spent $50K and now your house is worth $350K!"

Your example doesn't show excessive value capture for the upgrades in the home. Rather, for the extra 50k in bank loaned money, the buyer is choosing not to engage in renovation for reasons typically related to: inconvenience, time restrictions, lack of vision, etc.

So you don't have to replace it again before selling it, or take the hit from someone deducting the cost of a new roof off of an offer, the first is typically better for you as a seller. It also adds value to the house in multiple dimensions: they don't have to replace the roof when they sell it, and a solar roof reduces their electric bill.

resale value?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com