Ohh. From the title of the thread, I thought that you were suggesting that everyone should go check out this castle, instead. Nevermind.
On the clip the Landlord reckons it's worth 600K, and she's asking $ 300 p.w. rent for it.
That's 2.6% gross yield. Her nett yield after having to pay {council rates, water rates, land tax, insurance, repairs and maintenance} would have to be closer to 1%.
She's obviously struggling to get the 2.6% gross yield or she wouldn't be advertising.
I don't get it.
That's 2.6% gross yield. Her nett yield after having to pay {council rates, water rates, land tax, insurance, repairs and maintenance} would have to be closer to 1%.
She's obviously struggling to get the 2.6% gross yield or she wouldn't be advertising.
I don't get it.
love the movie,
this bit is gold
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C_iocXPj8M&feature=related
also love the bit
'dad says the house is worth nearly as much today as what he paid for it'
this bit is gold
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6C_iocXPj8M&feature=related
also love the bit
'dad says the house is worth nearly as much today as what he paid for it'
Tell her she's dreaming
On the clip the Landlord reckons it's worth 600K, and she's asking $ 300 p.w. rent for it.
That's 2.6% gross yield. Her nett yield after having to pay {council rates, water rates, land tax, insurance, repairs and maintenance} would have to be closer to 1%.
She's obviously struggling to get the 2.6% gross yield or she wouldn't be advertising.
I don't get it.
Maybe she's already loaded and this is charitable giving ;D
Ohh. From the title of the thread, I thought that you were suggesting that everyone should go check out this castle, instead. Nevermind.
Strange, my initial thought was the same...
On the clip the Landlord reckons it's worth 600K, and she's asking $ 300 p.w. rent for it.
That's 2.6% gross yield. Her nett yield after having to pay {council rates, water rates, land tax, insurance, repairs and maintenance} would have to be closer to 1%.
She's obviously struggling to get the 2.6% gross yield or she wouldn't be advertising.
I don't get it.
She paid 90K for it...
I think he means yield on current val.
she got it in 94 they said?
Not bad to increase 6x in value and be cash flow + and when u burrow against it, it has the the cheapest I/R
she got it in 94 they said?
Not bad to increase 6x in value and be cash flow + and when u burrow against it, it has the the cheapest I/R
That is good. If she paid 90K for it, then it would just be +CF.
All the benefits of extracting equity and purchasing something else.
Yes it will, but it will also either increase the debt servicing payments dramatically, or she will lose the opportunity of cash if she is paying for the build without debt.
Either way, that new component will most likely be cashflow negative, probably enough to bring the very small +CF from the original house back into negative territory again.
I worked the numbers on an old house we bought for 96K back in '98 that currently rents for 300pw, comparing leaving it there renting or smashing it down and building 3 new ones. The Council contributions / headworks / construction costs, coupled with the low gross rentals received made it an easy choice. Do nothing.
Maybe hers is different.....but I don't see how, cos the numbers of acquisition and rental are almost identical and construction and council costs would be very similar. Anyway.
Dazz, I agree, but she also said that she likes the airport and wants to live there herself one day. Maybe this was why it was bought in the first place. She can live there and collect rent from the new units and (I'm just guessing here) maybe she will sell off something else to pay for the construction so she gets a nice little income from them in her retirement.
Who knows?
Who knows?
