NSW Investment, less negative cash flow with good potential

I am trying to buy an nvestment house, need less negative cash flow (rent) with good potential, here are the options, for a 10-20 year term

1) a renovated house with granny flat, negative cash flow about $10,000 a year, but need pay more $300,000 than below one (actual pay just 20% $60,000, the rest borrow from bank ),

2) a old house, need me spend about $60,000 for renovation to rent, but price is $300,000 less than first one, with similar negative cash flow.

3) both 2 location wise is the assumed same.

my calculation shows, 10 years later, the only difference is the 1st one will consumer me additional $300,000 borrow power, the 2nd one may be not suitable for further living (the rent income about $300,000 )

which one is good for investment?

 

the rent income about $300,000

*** the rent income gap is about $300,000, the 1st one has $300,000 more rent than 2nd one

 

The best one is without granny.

It gives you option to increase value, you can build a new granny yourself.
May be do minor renovations to existing one for higher rental potential.

If u r paying 300k doewnt means the grannybis worth the same.
In nsw, you can build a granny in 150k.


Regards

 

With a granny flat and still negative rent - don't think it's a good investment option.

 

None of them seem to be good investments to me. Losing money on all of them. I suggest doing more research and seeking advice.

 

If your focus is cashflow, why don’t you acquire a positive cashflow investment rather than a ‘less negative’ one?

 

a balance of cash flow and capital gain.

 

To me there isn't enough information - just because you lose cashflow doesn't make it a bad investment.... Otherwise boy there would be a lot of people who are bad investors on this forum...

I would rather loss 1% on income and receive 20% on growth than have 7% income and 2% growth... Yes I know total return isn't the same but income is only a small part of the picture...

Even at same total return I would still rather 7% growth and 3% income than 7% income and 3% growth - as you will be surprised but eventually the income from the 3% will overtake the 7% in terms of actual dollars and income is taxed today where as growth is taxed in the future.

Not saying to only count for growth as you cannot live on growth (technically you can) but rather look at total return.

 

How the heck are you buying a house + granny flat and being in negative cash flow? That'd be almost impossible with the low IRs we have currently.