However, I think we should re-visit some of the analysis here.  

It's a new year and we need to revisit our goals. 

@William Garcia if the numbers work on a given property you can give it a second look, but take two things into account.1) where it is on the flood map, not all properties in a flood zone are at risk of catastrophic flooding make sure that you know where your property lies and its risk of flooding before making the decision (females flood map can be found here https://msc.fema.gov/portal/ho...)2) FEMA is supposed to revisit the flood maps and flood insurance rates will be adjusted in October 2020 (this may have changed as a result of COVID-19) so the numbers and your ROI may look a bit different than your initial projections if and when the change happens.Hope this helps

I’ve told her we will keep the terms as-is for the next six months, then revisit.

Just need to get one bank with a little initiative and some common sense to re-visit investment loans and realize that inv properties bought in today's market are going to make for the best paper that bank will ever write.

It's a good concept we may need to revisit locally to help each other out.  

Id have to revisit that again. 

You're putting a lot of downstroke into buying a problem property, of course one that can be solved, but you should be compensated well for that effort.My suggestion would be you revisit the deal.

I believe this is being revisited and the requirement may change to a higher amount or other modifications, but as it stands now, I would 1099 everyone that is required, it won't hurt, even if the requirement is changed.Your 1099s will need to match your deductions taken.

Now, a few months later, I was going to revisit them and came across your post (thankfully).