As long as your negative cash flow is about equal to what you would be spending on rent, it is a good deal.

Account Closed is correct, absolutely do both.. especially if youre just starting out even Grant Cardone started with a SFR. but for the sake of his question lets say you have 100k saved up for a real estate endeavor TOTAL, and you find a SFR that fits the 1% ratio (100k house that brings in 1k rent) that is doable if you calculate it out that would equal a 8.2% cash on cash IF it stays at a 90% occupancy rate. on the other hand if you invest that 100k into a limited partnership with a company that invests in value add apartments will now your cash on cash can be a preferred 10% with a target of 16-20% IRR which would essentially double your money in 2-5 years.. in this scenario the SFR would take sweat equity from you and risk while only returning a measly 8% CoC while the MF would be completely passive allowing you to learn and grow without hindrance with a 10% CoCnow we are over simplifying but I hope this made sense.. cuz my brain hurts ;D

All insurance is not created equal.

I can get equally safe wall anchors for under $20.

Hopefully by the time the larger deal comes about, I will be able to use the equality from the property that I want to buy with a credit card. 

I like all of these strategies, I just don't want to wait because I have a personal belief that when rates drop, when and if they do there will be another run-on Real Estate pushing prices way up.

I've certainly learned my lesson that not all are created equal and I need to ask more questions before choosing one.  

Size of the Units - larger units generally equals more tenants equals higher usage.

I would argue market and submarket dynamics are far riskier than property class, i.e. a C property from amenities standpoint in an A area will, all else being equal, out perform an A asset in C market.Was the property that you invested in that lost money marketed as a C property?  

There's no cash flow that equals that.