Offhand maybe stupid thought:
Houses retain value much better than cars. Why? Houses need just as much up keep, and sometimes very expensive upkeep, as cars do.
What's the reasoning? Is it really just the land underneath that is causing the value retention?
Houses retain value much better than cars. Why? Houses need just as much up keep, and sometimes very expensive upkeep, as cars do.
What's the reasoning? Is it really just the land underneath that is causing the value retention?
Show all 13 replies
Mike: Right! I'm trying to remember where I read up on this before (other than WP); I remember it being a near impossible feat to assess the "true" value of the bare land, even though I also remember it being a line item when I almost bought a house (sic: "rented from the bank") in Michigan.
Greg Grossmeier at 2013-08-07T21:17:25Z
Mike Linksvayer likes this.
You already put it in scare quotes, but a joke I like is that "true value" is FUD (or insert your topical term of art) except when giving directions to a hardware store. As such things go, it's trivial to assess the value of land less improvements, just has to be done with a modicum of consistency, and is done all the time.
Maybe that's what the issue was that I came across, the consistency aspect. (also, lovely true value joke).
They're not making any more land. They make more cars every day.