Property management would erase most of the cash flow

[gate.strong]

Living elsewhere would make day-to-day tenant and repair decisions difficult. For the Singapore property, the immediate issue is that management quotes are about 12% of rent before separate letting and maintenance-coordination charges.

At that level, the current monthly surplus nearly disappears. I am not sure whether paying for reliable local cover is still sensible or whether it only masks a weak hold.

My next step is to model an ordinary year and a tenant-change year, including vacancy, maintenance reserves, insurance, property tax and financing costs. Before choosing between management and a sale, which missing figure would change the answer most: the full turnover bill, the manager’s exact scope, or how sensitive the loan cost is to a rate change?

 

[curious_table]

First ask each manager for a full worked example covering a normal year and a tenant-change year. The 12% alone may not be the deciding cost; letting fees, vacancy and turnover repairs could make the difference.

I would also stress-test higher financing costs and one substantial repair. If the property then runs negative and you are keeping it mainly for appreciation, compare that risk with the costs and consequences of selling. Management can solve the distance problem, but it cannot repair weak cash flow.