Rental deal in Tokyo: ¥102,500,000 purchase, ¥650,300/month — sanity check / price-per-square-metre

[walksAndKey]

The 7.6% gross figure is what made me stop and question the assumptions rather than accept the projection. This is a one-bedroom new-build flat in Tokyo at ¥102,500,000, with expected monthly rent of ¥650,300.

I have budgeted for empty periods, management, ordinary upkeep and a major repair, but I do not yet have the property-specific building charges. Tax, insurance, reserve-fund contributions and the full cost of replacing a tenant could materially reduce the cash flow.

Which of those tends to be missed first? I plan to obtain the management and reserve schedules before choosing an acceptable net yield. The floor area is also still missing, so any price-per-square-metre comparison would be premature.

 

[BalancedLedger]

The gross arithmetic works: ¥650,300 × 12 is ¥7,803,600, or roughly 7.6% of ¥102,500,000. I’d focus first on recurring building management charges and reserve-fund contributions, then ask whether either is expected to rise. Those sit outside ordinary in-unit maintenance and can quietly compress cash flow. Get the actual fee schedule rather than using a percentage estimate.

 

[knitsAndHarbor]

Before choosing a satisfactory net yield, how is the purchase being financed? A deal that looks comfortable without debt can become fragile if interest costs move or the loan terms are restrictive.

I’d also challenge the ¥650,300 rent assumption. Is it supported by comparable signed rents, or is it the developer’s projection? For a 1-bed, one vacant period plus leasing and turnover costs could matter more than routine repairs in a given year.

 

[LightStory]

I wouldn’t set a target net yield until the missing basics are filled in. Floor area is essential for the price-per-square-metre test, and the rent needs independent support. I’d run three cases: full projected rent, lower rent, and a turnover year, each including property tax, insurance, building charges, management and reserves. If the return only looks attractive in the first case, the 7.6% headline is doing too much work.