Just yesterday I had a lady who barely spoke a lick of English call and ask what was going on with this particular property.

For example is the property is vacant or barely leased up then it is considered a higher risk and therefore costs more in rates and fees whereas property that has requirements to stabilize it will be less it rate and fees. 

@Tom Gimer  there was a big case in SF 20 to 30 years ago.. ( no rarely does an improved property in CA get all the way to tax sale its quite rare) BAre land yes thousands but not houses.Anyway little ole minority lady loses her 1 mil dollar SF row house for less than 10k.. in that case the county supervisors over turned it.. just like Oregon would do.but you have that one in SF right now were someone for 900. bucks bought the right of way to a Pacific Heights development..

.- your rehab costs of $150,000.Unless I am missing other reasons you won't have these costs, I see you barely making any profit ($10,000).

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.

I will provide detailed numbers below, but suffice it to say that this property barely breaks even after expenses and has proven to be a worthless use of the significant equity I hold in the property.

They will do the bare minimums.

So do the bare minimum to meet the these and advertise.

Big but, it barely scratches the surface of buying Notes.

You'll have a hard time cash flowing (cash flow is not equal to $100/property, which is barely enough to cover unexpected expenses/vacancy) in the GTA because the market is over priced.