Looking for opinions on this situation. We are in cooling off for a recent purchase of a duplex (3 & 2 bed). We have bought sight unseen and will fly interstate to view the property prior to cooling off expiring. Property A (purchase) has a 6% yield with two existing tenants wanting to stay on. Property B had a 6.4% yield, one side vacant, the other side tenanted. Property A (5/3/3) was in a better position (cul-de-sac) had an additional garage and I thought the layout was slightly better. Property B (5/3/2) was on a slightly larger block (28 sqm), but didn't have the additional garage and not as much street appeal. One side was tenanted and the other was vacant. Early in the piece the agent for Property B told me the last tenant went through the place with a hammer and that the other tenant didn't want photos taken of the place for sale. Agent for Property B claimed the yield could easily be increased to 6.5%, I was skeptical of this because the rent he proposed for the 3 bed side was the same as an entry level 4 bedroom free standing home in similar condition in the same suburb. He couldn't provide a compelling reason why Property B was achieving such a high rent compared to other properties in the area (apart from "My agency achieves the best rents in the area"). We ultimately went for Property A based on the additional garage for the 2 bed side (something that is unique for the area), it having more appeal to families being a cul-de-sac, being fully tenanted, and having rents very close to fair market value (We could probably increase the yield to 6.2% with a slight rent increase, still within FMV) What are your thoughts? EDIT: I should mention a bit more of our thought process: Market rents on Property A = less vacancy, stable, decent tenants High rents on Property B = more vacancy, less applications, risk of undesirable tenants who can't compete on places with lots of applications.