Can a tenancy lease be broken or shortened?

Hi,

I’m interested in purchasing an apartment, but the only problem is that it’s currently tenanted for a very low rental rate (I mean under market rental value big time) till late 2011:confused:, but the good side of it is that the vendor is willing to sell below market price.

My question is, can a tenancy lease agreement be broken to have current tenants pay at current rental market value or what other options do I have after purchase?

I would really like to give the vendor a ridiculous offer but I doubt that he will accept that.:D


Cheers:)
George
 
Thanks all for your reply's. Yep I will give it a miss, I've done the calculations & it will be a huge out of pocket cost.:eek:


Cheers:)
George
 
Interesting. If someone is willing to pay more than you, why is he selling to you?

And if nobody is willing to pay more than you, aren't you the market price?

The property in today's market is worth over $500K, vendor is accepting offers from $400k up, so lets say around $100k under market value. Why is this? Because there is a tenancy lease agreement till late 2011 at a very low 2.0% rental yeild.

Now I'm aware that this property is in a blue chip area, with high capital growth potentials, but having it costing me at -$30k per year I would say that it would suit a person with a high income or someone that has a positive cash flow.


George:)
 
The property in today's market is worth over $500K, vendor is accepting offers from $400k up, so lets say around $100k under market value. Why is this? Because there is a tenancy lease agreement till late 2011 at a very low 2.0% rental yeild.

I still don't get it. If someone is offering him over $500k, why is he accepting other offers for $400k up? Is it to spite the $500k offer? Personal feud so strong he'll reject an extra $100k?

Or maybe it's you that doesn't get it. If your offer of $400k is the best offer he has, isn't the market price $400k?
 
I still don't get it. If someone is offering him over $500k, why is he accepting other offers for $400k up? Is it to spite the $500k offer? Personal feud so strong he'll reject an extra $100k?

Or maybe it's you that doesn't get it. If your offer of $400k is the best offer he has, isn't the market price $400k?

Are you trying to antagonise the poster or do you really not understand?

If the property was empty it would be marketed at over $500. Because of the tenant's low rent he is willing to accept under the true value of the property.
 
The property in today's market is worth over $500K, vendor is accepting offers from $400k up, so lets say around $100k under market value. Why is this? Because there is a tenancy lease agreement till late 2011 at a very low 2.0% rental yeild.

(2083+433+136+) x 4 + 721 = -11329 yearly outgoings (before interest)
160 x 52 = 8320 yearly income

Yearly g/l: -3009 (before interest)

the rental yield is not +2% but -0.75% (based on the perceived value of 400k)

My guess is that the vendor is trying to arrange free accomodation for his MIL at buyer's expence :D
 
I still don't get it. If someone is offering him over $500k, why is he accepting other offers for $400k up? Is it to spite the $500k offer? Personal feud so strong he'll reject an extra $100k?

Or maybe it's you that doesn't get it. If your offer of $400k is the best offer he has, isn't the market price $400k?

Wow, way to be totally unhelpful whilst also taking something far too literally. How do you think that valuers are able to calculate deviations within a suburb, street or postcode if in your opinion market prices are set per property? Why bother even calculating a median house price when it represents nothing in your opinion?

Many statisticians would happily prove you wrong. The poster was clear and reasonable in their question and using generally accepted language to describe the question to us helps (most of) us provide a useful response.
 
I still don't get it. If someone is offering him over $500k, why is he accepting other offers for $400k up? Is it to spite the $500k offer? Personal feud so strong he'll reject an extra $100k?

Or maybe it's you that doesn't get it. If your offer of $400k is the best offer he has, isn't the market price $400k?

Hi Sunder,

Ok, let me tell ya what I mean by market price. A median unit price for this suburb is at $540k & looking at recent sales for a 2 br units are over the 500k. If this unit was to be purchased for $400k that makes it a purchase under market value regardless of rental yield or expenses.

I hope where clear here? Or is it me that does not know how to explain?:confused:

Cheers:)
George
 
If purchased at 400K, then borrowing the lot at 9.5% on a 30% MTR ;

Interest.............38K
Outgoings..........11K
Total Expense.....49K

Rent...................8K

Loss per annum...41K

Tax Refund.........12K

Cost to Hold........29K p.a.

Property must appreciate at 29/400 = 7.2% just to breakeven. Ouch.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

If purchased at 450K, then borrowing the lot at 9.5% on a 30% MTR ;

Interest.............43K
Outgoings..........11K
Total Expense.....54K

Rent...................8K

Loss per annum...46K

Tax Refund.........14K

Cost to Hold........32K p.a.

Property must appreciate at 32/450 = 7.1% to breakeven. Ouch.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

If purchased at 500K, then borrowing the lot at 9.5% on a 30% MTR ;

Interest.............47K
Outgoings..........11K
Total Expense.....58K

Rent...................8K

Loss per annum...50K

Tax Refund.........15K

Cost to Hold........35K p.a.

Property must appreciate at 35/500 = 7.0% to breakeven. Ouch.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see from the three above very different purchase prices, your breakeven cost remains relatively stable. Amazing huh !!! Go the 400 option every time.


If the place is leased 'til end of 2011, you'll have to endure this for 3 years.


The only questions you need to ask are ;

1. What is the place going to be worth in 3 years time. If you cannot answer this question accurately, then walk away - you don't know what you are doing.

2. Can I afford to endue this negative cashflow. If the answer is no - drop it. If you can, revisit question # 1 for your answer.


As with everything to do with property investing, all manner of sins can be forgiven if the capital growth is there. If it's gonna grow by 30% p.a. then jump on it. If it's gonna grow by 3% p.a., avoid it like the plague.


This is where the investor streaks to the front and the analysis brigade fall down in a heap.


So - what is it gonna grow by ??? :)


N.B. : Because we are surrounded by poncy lawyer wannabe's and lotsa folks who never take responsibilities for their own decisions and actions, I better put here that none of the above is advice. I'm not smart enough to give it, and don't have any useless bits of paper on my wall to prove to a court anything at all.
 
The only questions you need to ask are ;

1. What is the place going to be worth in 3 years time. If you cannot answer this question accurately, then walk away - you don't know what you are doing.

:eek::eek::eek::eek:

Does anybody know "accurately" what any given property will be worth in 3 years time??

Cheers
Sue
 
Hi Sunder,

Ok, let me tell ya what I mean by market price. A median unit price for this suburb is at $540k & looking at recent sales for a 2 br units are over the 500k. If this unit was to be purchased for $400k that makes it a purchase under market value regardless of rental yield or expenses.

The market price is where the buyer and seller meet. Nothing else.

The market price for a 2008 Honda Civic is $22,000. The market price for a 2008 ex-demo Honda Civic is about $18,000. Nobody would buy an ex-demo and claim he got it $4k "under market" They'd say they got an ex-demo cheap.

The market price for an apartment with an conditions on it, is the highest offer a buyer will pay, or the lowest offer the seller will accept, where there is a buyer and a seller with a cross over price. It's no more fair comparing an unencumbered apartment sold months ago, with an encumbered (used in the common english sense, not the financial term meaning money owing) apartment selling now, any more than it is comparing an ex-rental with a showroom one, just because they're the same year model and specifications.

I am not trying to antagonise anyone, but merely trying to highlight the fact that some people throw around "market price" as if there is a market maker for houses, like there is for CFDs, and ETFs.

If you bought the apartment today, could you sell it for 500k tomorrow(or in the near future?) with the same conditions attached? If the answer is no, then the market price is not 500k, it's the current highest offer which the vendor will accept, which is yours.
 
Back
Top