@Chris Seveney I don't necessarily agree with you. In my mind the whole point of a properly executed anonymity structure is to mitigate risk. Yes it costs, (the old mantra "nothing in life is free") but I think it is entirely up to each persons personal opinion towards what risks do I want to take?
For me if I am going to go through the hassle of setting up LLC's to hold my real estate, and I am going to go through the effort of actually following the rules to "not pierce the corporate veil" Why wouldn't I spend the extra money to make sure that my entity structuring also protects my privacy and doesn't open me up to litigation and lawsuits? The structuring also has the added benefit of estate planning so that when I pass on and leave this world that my heirs and possibly my spouse are set up in a way that is going to be best for them as well?
You are very correct that anonymity doesn't stop someone from suing you, and I totally appreciate the "I don't give a ... mentality. I live a large part of my life that way every day. However, in my mind the only thing that stops lawsuits to be a good person, landlord, or tenant and to not be shady in your business dealings. (be proactive instead of reactive to your tenants and clients needs)
The entity structuring does isolate you from your properties, it isolates your properties from each other and only allows a lawsuit to go so far.
In my mind the whole game of real estate investing and SFR to be more specific is to protect the gains that you make through equity and inflation. Most SFR properties that I have looked at, cash flow so close to breakeven that if you aren't protecting the gains that you make in equity and inflation of your property, why are you going through all the work and stress of being a landlord to only net 200-500/month for a $200-$500,000 dollar investment? SFRs are a huge investment to only get you an extra $2400-$6,000/year?