Purchase recommendation 2 condominiums in a 3-family house

The owner is a publicly known person who has lived there themselves since moving in, albeit only sporadically. We read the reason in the newspaper a few months ago and initially thought they would rent out the house, but the house is listed through an agent.

As a publicly known person, I wouldn’t hire an agent who has to tap into the market for my property through listings – for me, only "quiet" discretion would be suitable. Even if it only means a city bath director.

I don't know if it is divided according to WEG,

The property and the common area are probably divided according to WEG.

As a publicly known person, I wouldn’t hire a real estate agent who has to explore the market for my property through listings – only "quiet" discretion would be enough for me. Even if that only means a municipal swimming pool director.

It is already a very well-known person in the field, worth millions.

Why the real estate agent was commissioned, no idea. Our area is not exactly where millionaires settle. I think the person was aware that they wouldn’t stay here very long. Probably they were not very familiar with the area. But these are just my speculative thoughts.

The property and the common usable area are probably subject to the Condominium Act (WEG).

I think I’m not expressing myself clearly..

The house was offered with the individual apartments at the time it was built. However, the current owner acquired the entire building and lived in 2 apartments himself and housed the parents-in-law on the upper floor. Therefore, I don’t know the status of the division.

I haven’t asked about these things either, because we were still discussing whether it would even make sense to acquire 2 of the 3 apartments.

But it doesn’t matter now, since the place doesn’t work out financially.

But now it doesn't matter anyway, because the numbers just don't add up.

Honestly, it always depends. Old houses in structurally weak areas have high yields, new properties in big cities do not. The difference compared to money in the bank is that appreciation usually offsets inflation. We now have 6 rented apartments in the extended family environment. Most of them are less than 20 years old (or completely renovated). The yields are between 3-5%. Such relatively new properties have the advantage of causing even less trouble with repairs/renovations. Also, with modern apartments, it is possible to find "higher quality" tenants. During the alleged market weakness of the last 3 years, we also "gambled" and made offers to sellers that bring at least 4% yield. All of these apartments were sold to higher bidders. ETFs would probably be the more profitable investment overall, but somehow real estate has also become a kind of "hobby" for me as a "special property manager" and our family lawyer for the legal discussions.

My personal experience is that it is difficult to achieve a good return with newer properties. My wife bought an apartment built in 1995 in 2009 at a great price and now has a gross return of over 10%. I rent out a two-family house built in 2025 and achieve a gross return of just under 6%, although the land price (150 k€) is not included here, since I already owned the land. And a lot of own work went into the construction of the property. If I had had to buy the land and build turnkey, the return would be closer to 2.5%. The advantage of real estate, in my opinion, is the leverage of borrowed capital. If I just wanted to invest my money without taking on debt and having to work, I would rather choose other investment forms.

I am renting out a two-family house built in 2025 and achieve a gross yield of just under 6%, whereby the land price (150 k€) is not taken into account here, since I already owned the land.

Then you are deceiving yourself, because the land value is part of it – in your consideration it is included with 0% yield.

the yield would rather be around 2.5%.

So the construction was economically nonsense.