Related Posts
More Posts
Newbie to investing and never invested in a company that went through a reverse stock split.
In theory, I understand the market value should increase but I’m not seeing this reflected in the price and naturally my book value/ share is very disappointing.
A) When should I anticipate the stock appreciation to occur?
B) What’s the next move for companies that do this? Issue more shares?
TIA!
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/retransmission-hive-blockchain-announces-5-100000300.html
Waddle or Theilen?
Additional Posts in The Real Estate Bowl
New to Fishbowl?
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.





Id say 2006 built if similar price. Can always upgrade the quality to increase value (cookie cutter isn’t great quality either) and with more sqft AND larger lot, it’s worth more. Also new builds can have issues the first couple years. You’ll figure out if the home was built properly like was the shower sealed properly, settling of foundation leading to cracks in paint (most of the settling happens in the beginning)
Similar price. Old one is little bigger and old traditional layout. New ones looks shiny with open layout and less formal. I love old layout, but worried will it appreciate well after 5to7 years
I would agree 2006 built is a better investment - 1. Bigger lot size, land will always have a higher future value even if the building loses to depreciation, 2. the quality of material of building material is on a downward trend, 3. you can update the house as per your taste in the future, 4. Taxes will lag on a 2006 property due to value of the land + building on municipal records. Good luck with the purchase
Thank you
I don’t know about yall but in 2006 they were trying to get homes built as fast as humanly possible - this is a time period where a stripper held 6 mortgages because banks figured the homes would raise in value fast enough to pay for themselves if the borrower ever defaulted.
That said, I would go with the 2006 built home before some of the crap builders are putting up now. Years of ‘cost efficiencies’ for a builder only equates to early hardships for the new owner.
If you want durability - look to the 1940s.
I think their argument is even if 2006 was built poorly, time has exposed most of the flaws for repair vs. those of the new build which are yet to come.
Having multiple young homeowner friends, the worry that’s real is… did the previous 2006 owners ACTUALLY fix it or just slap some affordable bandaids on?
Edit: sorry I didn’t think about this being for investment purposes but moreso for personal residence… the logic still holds - if you’re looking for quality renters, you want an updated quality home
FWIW, I’m considering a cookie cutter new build that’s upgraded (don’t pick builders grade and upgrade later bc your mortgage has you paying on the builders grade for 15-30 years regardless!)
There are homeowners warranties that come with new builds and if you want added protection you can hire an independent inspector to evaluate the property before the warranty is up. A couple 1,000 bucks for that service could land you in a better spot than repairs on an older home