well as i mentioned is a rule of the thumb. you may end up paying anything from 3-3.5% for units that arent so "hot" in demand. But while you may not pay 4%, there are other who would. In fact some areas have gone to 4.5%.Grim Reaper wrote:Interesting information you are sharing here lost fish, but when reading your rule for calculating the right rent, 4 to 4.5%, that means that basically the tenant is coughing up the equivalent of the mortgage of the premises.
And we all know that property is a long term investment, so why buying a condo, renting it out and after 5 years moan that the return on investment is so low? As stated, property is a long term investment and the profit is to be made on a longer term than the few years most people here wish for. Quick profits are always on the mind, but are in most cases far from reality.
Therefore as a tenant I would never agree to the proposed 4 to 4.5% rent, I am not gonna finance the owner's investment.
I am not blaming you, but your information shows why property here is so vastly overrated by agents.
oh sorry but i do believe the rental markets are determined by the tenants out there. so if you wake up in your current neighbourhood suddenly seeing rentals shooting up, i would really blame the new-comers =DGrim Reaper wrote:
I am not blaming you, but your information shows why property here is so vastly overrated by agents.
Sorry Grim but property isn't a long term investment in that you wait until you sell to get the return. All property investors look for the properties to be self financing, that way they can expand and many people retire on the generated income.And we all know that property is a long term investment
tell that to the millions of people from all walks of lives, to the small corporation to the big corporations over the generations whom have gone bust.huggybear wrote:anytime you invest money to the level that you could file bankruptcy...well that's just retarded.
again, tell that to the people who have earned around $800K - $1mil using about 150K cash and 150k CPF (central provident fund) over the past year.huggybear wrote: Housing is a piss poor short term investment because of things like closing costs and fees to agents you have to pay.
1.) there were almost no property speculators since 1997 to about 2004, save for a short rally sometime in 2000. (in defining speculators, i assumed you took the govt's idea about selling a property under 2-3years after it was purchased)Grim Reaper wrote:
On a short term, property is speculative investing in 99% of all cases, just like lost fish explianed happening here in Singapore in the last 10 years or so.
man i don't know where to start. first the comment was more for Jeppo. I think the "average" investor in the USA looks at a five - year horizon for real estate. were there people that were buying and flipping in a few months or even weeks? yes. were they the majority of the market? no. were other people left holding the bag and sitting on losses? yes. is this still going on? no.thelostfish wrote:again, tell that to the people who have earned around $800K - $1mil using about 150K cash and 150k CPF (central provident fund) over the past year.huggybear wrote: Housing is a piss poor short term investment because of things like closing costs and fees to agents you have to pay.
piss poor? compared to what?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests