- UID
- 109645
- 热情
- 15337
- 人气
- 16514
- 主题
- 132
- 帖子
- 4084
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 18078
- 分享
- 0
- 记录
- 0
- 相册
- 0
- 好友
- 0
- 日志
- 0
- 在线时间
- 4466 小时
- 注册时间
- 2007-3-2
- 阅读权限
- 30
- 最后登录
- 2024-8-7
升级 61.56% - UID
- 109645
- 热情
- 15337
- 人气
- 16514
- 主题
- 132
- 帖子
- 4084
- 精华
- 0
- 积分
- 18078
- 阅读权限
- 30
- 注册时间
- 2007-3-2
|
variable 发表于 2022-10-31 08:19
兄弟先别急,我是看到一篇新闻按照记忆说出来的,我先找找
找到了 https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-sty ... -with-wider-problem
But the buyers of leaky apartments under remediation are invariably savvy investors. Gray and Levie talk to one investor who bought one apartment for $150,000 and two more for $70,000 each. He rents them out for just under $600 and just under $800 a week. If you do the math, you see it’s an excellent yield.
He says the investors carry out the minimum maintenance needed and simply don’t care about the long-term future of the building – there will always be a residual value in the land. “If I can get another 10 years out of it, I’m doing really well,” says one.
He says he was happy to pay the asking price, and the vendors were relieved to be rid of the problem.
“People think these investors prey on the wounded, but it is actually a way out for people who don’t want to live with this in their lives any longer,” says Levie
补充内容 (2022-10-31 08:25):
当然,跟我说的"不修了"有一些出入。 |
|