My theory is people like this want to get angry at everything so why stick my head up to get whacked.

I think many real estate investors speak of $0 down more in theory and slang for low $ down or low risk getting in. 

Just briefly looked at the news report, it looks like they are addressing the "net listing" theory with agents, it may apply to anyone, don't know.Looks like the spot light is on and I don't think I'd be testing them attempting to circumvent the intent of the law especially when you can just take title and sell using other methods. :)   

Non are professional landlords and there are no statistics to support their fear based theory.

You always go with where you get the most bang for your buck on a risk adjusted basis and may very well mean looking outside where you reside (or not) based on what the facts are.

I would guess you can rent out the properties (in theory) pretty quickly so your float should be pretty low.  

Most of the San Francisco "real wealth" investors believe in the "perpetual appreciation theory" so they say it's always a good time to buy, even with negative cash flow because it will always go up.

My theory is that anytime someone lists their prices at an obviously above-average price point, theres always that 1 or 2% chance that a complete dummy will fall for it, and that 1-2% chance alone is worth it to most people for listing their stuff at a high price.I'm not like that.

I understand that I do t have many properties and the bang for buck factor isn't necessarily there I'd like some feedback

In theory, my thought was that this structure aligns our interests and motivates the GC to keep costs down while also making the place quality enough to sell.