Kerry the presenter did suggest a possible strategy is to build then flick several until you get to a point and build hold a house.
That way you get a low maintenance house with a better class of tenant. A completely viable strategy for some investors.
I have addressed here whitt's above comment in another thread, so as to avoid hijacking that other thread.
( http://www.propertytalk.com/forum/sh...9072#post69072 )
Out of interest, do the big time landlords believe this is really true?
Does a newer or new property necessarily mean a better quality of tenant?
In my experience the two do not go hand in hand. A new house in a rough area will attract rough tenants, not quality ones.
A rough house in a quality area will attract quality tenants.
Rough tenants will not live in blue chip residential suburbs and quality tenants will not live in rough suburbs.
A better guide, always, is clean, tidy, functional and in working order.
So as not to start a semantics war, by quality tenant I really mean one that pays the rent and looks after the place and is honest. By rough tenant I mean one who doesn't. Plenty of rough tenants are stuck up snods with a university degree and who dress well. Plenty of excellent tenants swear, smoke, work as mechanics and eat fish and chips every day while farting in front of Shortland St.
xris
That way you get a low maintenance house with a better class of tenant. A completely viable strategy for some investors.
I have addressed here whitt's above comment in another thread, so as to avoid hijacking that other thread.
( http://www.propertytalk.com/forum/sh...9072#post69072 )
Out of interest, do the big time landlords believe this is really true?
Does a newer or new property necessarily mean a better quality of tenant?
In my experience the two do not go hand in hand. A new house in a rough area will attract rough tenants, not quality ones.
A rough house in a quality area will attract quality tenants.
Rough tenants will not live in blue chip residential suburbs and quality tenants will not live in rough suburbs.
A better guide, always, is clean, tidy, functional and in working order.
So as not to start a semantics war, by quality tenant I really mean one that pays the rent and looks after the place and is honest. By rough tenant I mean one who doesn't. Plenty of rough tenants are stuck up snods with a university degree and who dress well. Plenty of excellent tenants swear, smoke, work as mechanics and eat fish and chips every day while farting in front of Shortland St.
xris
Comment