Are you talking about the 11 second rule, if so, have a read of it again, your first two are getting close (but not there), but the other 3 don’t fit it, the rent isn’t high enough.
The rule is just a guide though, so with the ones that are getting closer, spend some more time working your figures and investigating the areas etc.
It also depends on what your looking for, cashflow or possible capital gains too, this may affect whether your willing to accept something that’s slightly negative or not.
Well done on getting started by looking and good luck in the future.
Yes. I later realised I should not post after 11pm.
Those properties are not likely to be suitable.
Sorry.
Hopeful, keen and learning
I don’t get this…. you don’t ‘HAVE TO’ follow the 11 second rule you know. If those returns are genuine then those properties could be excellent investments.
(The first one) : A rent of $ 215 per week and council rates and Body Corporate levies totalling some $ 4,000 per year.
Thus the $ 215 per week rent is reduced by $ 80 outgoings thus giving a net rental of $ 135 per week.
Oh, I have made a mistake. What about the management fees ?
Cashflow +ve ?
Not by a long shot.
I noticed that the agent didn’t bother stating the size of the living area.
The second one : Whilst the agent taks about the 39 sq metres living area I notice that he doesn’t think it important to mention the council fees and the Body Corporate levies.
BTW, what is it that I don’t understand ? How come some people seem to think it is pretty close to complying with the 11 rule. ??
At least you are looking and not just whining Waulok.Kepp at at it and you will find real kick ass deals. On the suface these look good, but look deeper and they may be great………….or not. Keep it up.