Is the staging payoff in the price or in the carry? They lead to different decisions
I've been building a comp file while I look for my first couple of deals, and I can't get the two claims about staging to sit in the same model.
Claim one is price. Staged houses close higher, so you spend 3,000 and you get some multiple of it back at the closing table. If that's the mechanism, then staging is worth more on expensive houses, worth more where buyers are discretionary, and basically not worth it on a cheap house where the whole premium would be swamped by noise.
Claim two is speed. Staged houses sell faster, so the payoff is carry you didn't pay. If that's the mechanism, then staging is worth more when your monthly carry is heavy or your loan is short, worth more when the market is slow and days on market are stretching, and it can pay perfectly well on a cheap house if the carry per month is high relative to price.
Those two stories point at different houses. A stager pitching me leads with price every time, because that's the number a seller wants to hear. Everyone I've talked to who has actually paid for staging on a flip talks about the calendar.
Complicating it, the two are tangled in the comps. The houses that get staged around here are also the ones with the better rehab, so I can't separate the effect of the furniture from the effect of the finish work.
When you underwrite the staging spend, which side are you actually crediting?
When you underwrite staging, what are you actually crediting it with?
18 votes