Sample Underwriting Memo — 1K income condo, Kitahama area, Osaka

This memo is independent research prepared from Japan's public data sources for the property identified below. It is not investment advice, not a licensed real-estate service (宅地建物取引業), not an appraisal (不動産鑑定評価), and not legal or tax advice. The preparer performs no brokerage, introduction, mediation, or negotiation, holds no stake in any transaction involving this property, and is compensated by flat fee only — never by commission or success fee. Figures derived from public records carry the limitations stated in the Method appendix. The buyer is responsible for their own due diligence and for engaging licensed professionals (宅建士, 司法書士, tax advisers) before transacting.

1 · The property, as listed

Item	As disclosed (原文)	English
Location	大阪市中央区東高麗橋（番地非公開）	Higashi-Koraibashi area, Chuo-ku, Osaka — Kitahama business district, 6 min walk Kitahama stn (Sakaisuji line), 10 min Tenmabashi stn
Price 価格	1,550万円	¥15,500,000 — seller-direct (売主): no buyer-side brokerage fee
Advertised yield 表面利回り	5.26%	Gross yield, claimed
Income 想定年収	816,000円（月68,000円）	¥816,000/yr projected — labeled 想定 (projected); actual contract rent not stated
Unit	1K・24.44㎡・バルコニー3.00㎡・8階/13階建	1K, 24.44㎡ + 3.00㎡ balcony, 8th of 13 floors
Building	2005年2月築・RC造・総戸数46戸・所有権	Feb 2005 (22 yrs, post-1981 seismic standard), RC, 46 units, freehold
Monthly fees	管理費7,080円・修繕積立金6,110円	¥13,190/mo total — 19.4% of the claimed rent
Tenancy	賃貸中（オーナーチェンジ）・引渡相談	Tenanted, owner-change sale; delivery by consultation

Derived: ¥634,000/㎡ price · claimed rent ¥2,782/㎡ · repair-reserve rate ¥250/㎡/mo (rate looks healthy for the class; fund balance undisclosed).

2 · Price check — the public transaction record

All recorded pre-owned condominium transactions, Chuo-ku, 2024Q1–2025Q4 (MLIT reinfolib, 2,921 records), filtered to the subject's class:

Comp set	n	¥/㎡ p25	median	p75	Subject ¥634K/㎡ sits at
Kitahama/Tenmabashi walk zone, 18–32㎡, built 1998–2012 (32 of 39 are 1K)	39	640,000	700,000	800,000	21st percentile
Ward-wide, same class (context)	306	633,333	733,333	840,000	26th percentile
REINS rows only — actual closed prices reported through the brokers' transaction network, the highest-fidelity slice of the record	8	560,000	563,333	640,000	75th percentile (only 8 sales — treat as a secondary check)

Finding (factual placement): the asking price sits at roughly the 20th–26th percentile of recorded transactions for comparable stock — that is, priced lower per square meter than about three-quarters of the comparable sales in the public record. Below the middle of the market, not above it.

Four limitations of the public record, so you can weigh this finding appropriately: (1) the government database reports each sale's location only down to the district (町) — not the street or building — so these comparables are "same district, same class of unit," not "same building"; (2) recorded prices are rounded to two significant figures — a ¥15.5M sale appears as ¥16M — which blurs fine price distinctions; (3) sales are published roughly 4–6 months after they close, so the record trails today's market; and (4) the data contains no adjustment for floor level, view, or interior condition — a renovated high-floor unit and a tired low-floor unit of the same size and age read identically. None of these change the placement finding; they are why this memo treats it as a placement check, not a valuation.

3 · Achievable rent — quoted as a range

Nine live rental listings in two 2007 15-story RC buildings bracket the subject's location: one two blocks away in the same Kitahama micro-district, one in southern Chuo-ku. Method: comparables within ±4㎡ / ±7 build-years (7 of 9 qualify); predictor = median comp ¥/㎡ × subject area. Rents exclude management fees where separable.

	Result
Predicted market rent (method central)	¥67,700/mo — the listing's projected ¥68,000 is +0.5% vs. this: consistent with market
Range (typical comp error, ±8.8%)	¥61,700 – ¥73,600/mo
Tail band (90th-percentile error)	¥55,200 – ¥80,200/mo
Micro-market bracket	Same-district building comps imply ~¥79,600; southern-ward comps ~¥67,200 — the method median sits at the conservative end

Why a range: this comp method was blind-tested on 450 listings in this exact segment (Osaka Chuo/Kita/Nishi 1R/1K). Typical error is small, but tail cases cannot be identified in advance from comp statistics — a single point estimate would overstate precision. Comps are asking rents; achieved rents typically settle somewhat lower.

4 · What the yield looks like after the full cost stack

All-in cost basis ≈ ¥15.9M (price + estimated registration, acquisition tax, stamp, 司法書士; no brokerage — seller-direct). Assumptions stated: property management 5% of collected rent; vacancy 1 month per 2 years; property tax estimated ¥45,000/yr (verify against 課税明細); insurance ¥10,000/yr.

Annual line	Low rent (¥61.7K)	Central (¥67.7K)	High (¥73.6K)
Gross rent	740,768	812,246	883,724
− Building fees (管理費+修繕積立金)	158,280	158,280	158,280
− Property management (5%)	37,038	40,612	44,186
− Vacancy allowance	30,865	33,844	36,822
− Property tax (est.)	45,000	45,000	45,000
− Insurance (est.)	10,000	10,000	10,000
Net operating income	459,585	524,510	589,436
Net yield on all-in cost	2.89%	3.30%	3.71%

The central finding: the listing's numbers largely check out — the price sits in the lower quartile of the transaction record and the projected rent matches comps within half a percent. The advertised 5.26% gross is arithmetically correct as labeled. And after the full cost stack the listing does not model, the same deal nets approximately 2.9–3.7%. Building fees alone consume 19.4% of gross rent. None of this is a recommendation in either direction; it is the drag a buyer must price before wiring funds.

5 · Red flags & checks

Severity	Item	What resolves it
HIGH	Income is labeled 想定 (projected) on a tenanted unit — the deal's most load-bearing number is soft. Comps make ¥68,000 plausible; only the contract makes it actual.	Request the 賃貸借契約書/rent roll: actual rent, contract type (普通/定期借家), start date, tenure
MEDIUM	Repair-reserve fund balance and long-term repair plan undisclosed (the monthly rate looks healthy at ¥250/㎡)	修繕積立金 balance, arrears rate, 長期修繕計画, any planned 一時金
INFO	22-year RC building: a long amortization carries the building deep into age; resale-horizon consideration	Buyer's own financing/horizon analysis
INFO	Seller is a licensed real-estate dealer selling as principal (取引態様: 売主) — read from the Japanese original. Dealer-sold units typically carry statutory buyer protections not present in individual-seller transactions, and no buyer-side brokerage fee applies	Confirm the specific protection scope in the sale contract with 司法書士/counsel
CLEAR	Hazard maps: no flood or liquefaction flag at the subject block (MLIT hazard portal, checked 2026-07-29)	—
CLEAR	事故物件: no incident record for the subject building (Oshimaland, checked 2026-07-29). An adjacent building shows 2 incident pins — incidents in neighboring buildings attach no disclosure obligation to the subject and typical market impact is marginal; noted for awareness only, not a legal conclusion	—
LOW	Unit facing/direction (方角) not disclosed — the floor plan itself is provided as a listing image; reason for sale not stated	Ask items 5–6 below

6 · Questions to send the seller, as-is

Please provide the current tenancy contract details: actual monthly rent, contract type (普通借家/定期借家), start date, and tenant tenure (賃貸借契約書 or rent roll).
What is the building's repair-reserve balance, arrears rate, and current 長期修繕計画? Any special assessments levied or under discussion?
Most recent management-association AGM minutes (総会議事録) — any disputes, planned fee increases, or deferred maintenance?
Any rent arrears or late payments by the sitting tenant in the past 24 months?
Reason for sale (譲渡理由)?
Unit facing/direction, renovation history, and any 告知事項?
Delivery is listed as "consultation" — what determines the timeline, and is the tenancy assigned as-is at closing?

7 · What this memo did not assess

Legal title conclusions (registry review is the Deep tier) · buyer-specific tax position · building physical condition (no inspection) · financing availability for non-resident buyers · currency considerations · any recommendation to enter or not enter the transaction.

Method appendix — every input auditable

Sources & pull dates: listing captured 2026-07-29 (major investment-property portal, seller-direct listing) · MLIT reinfolib Chuo-ku pre-owned-condo transactions 2024Q1–2025Q4, 2,921 records · 9 SUUMO rental listings captured 2026-07-29 · MLIT hazard portal & Oshimaland checked 2026-07-29.
Comp rules (applied mechanically, set before analysis): price comps = walk-zone/ward, 18–32㎡, built 1998–2012; rent comps = ±4㎡/±7yr around the subject, widen once if fewer than 3 qualify (not needed: n=7); predictor = median comp rent/㎡ × subject area; rents exclude management fee where separable.
Calibration: the rent-comp method was blind-tested on 450 one-per-building listings in this segment (Osaka Chuo/Kita/Nishi 1R/1K): rent error MAE 8.8%, 90th-percentile 18.5% — the ranges in §3 are those measured errors, not judgment calls. The subject is inside the calibrated segment.
Extraction QA: all listing and comp figures dual-pass verified against source captures; this memo's extraction error count: 0.
Known limitations: rent comps are asking (not achieved) rents; portal rent figures may fold in common-area fees (direction: makes the prediction conservative); the 9 rent comps come from 2 buildings (mitigated by their location bracket); transaction prices are district-grain, 2 significant figures, ~4–6 months lagged.