mcw vs bjt, page-5

Good post and I agree with many concerns raised. You might consider BJT to diversify with your perspective.

However industrial properties often have a shorter lifespan before being redundant, and are harder to relet, as they can be quite specific and specialised. Also financiers are really tough on industrial properties. They will lend for the tenure of the lease and that is it - they do not want an indutrial security with no lease. Where office, residential, retail can be a 60% LVR and interest only - industrial is often 40% and P and I. Lenders often expect you to have a sinking fund to replace the building when it is out of date.
Reletting offices, residential is usually a matter of price in a softening market - reletting industrial is a matter of suitability of the site - price cannot be dropped to entice so much. However rents are higher which is the good side (but so is risk), - so in improving market industrial should outperform others.

Tokyo may have an earthquake. That would be nasty, as some buildings are not fully earthquake resistant I would think. Insurance must be expensive, but already factored in to profitability. Nuclear bombing is more of a worry I think.

I prefer only Tokyo - so it is interesting to hear your perspective here re diversification. I've actually thought Tokyo focus was a plus as it is the most dynamic and wealthy part of Japan. With reducing population Tokyo would still attract competition for tenancies (and for property ownership), where other areas may hollow out.

That's my opinion