Since it hasn't been mentioned yet and is never talked about as a true contender, I'll go out on a limb and say the Crossroads of America - Indianapolis!

I would contend that if, as you say, the rent barely covers the mortgage, you will end up losing a lot more than that over time by holding onto the house.Repairs and maintenance on a house are not cheap, especially on one that is 100 years old.

Whether a property is brand new, newly rehabbed, or falling down, it is impossible, I contend, to accurately estimate maintenance expenses for any particular year.

I think we do a disservice to our community by getting into deals assuming the best only to find ourselves faced with the worst.I would contend there are many areas where you will see little or no profit on the sale of a house whether its in one year, five years, or 10.

Yet, I still contend that if you work your system...your system should work.

This is something you will have to contend with and work through.If the property is profitable, and carries minimal risk to you, it may be worth considering.

That's because the first year of PMI is pre-paid for loan set up, no returns.Good stuff guys.Probably won't have the seller carry backs, the 80/10/10 OO deals anymore unless the seller is exempt from the new requirements, then you have a servicing fees to contend with on the second too. :)

My hubby and I would rent out our current house because we do have a mortgage to contend with.

Even if you get a PM, You'll still have to contend with the propety(ies) in some form.

The most difficult to contend with was when the plumbing under the slab of the house had developed multiple leaks and needed to be replaced!