I had a property where they didn't even supply comps, and there were hundreds available, just not the ones they needed to fund the fat pensions and other ridiculous gorwing fees they have.

I've made as little as $500 when the deal was skinny and as much as $65,000 when it was fat.

Originally posted by @Shaun Reilly:However if there aren't obvious assets the hope is that an ambulance chaser looking to try to get a settlement on a frivolous lawsuit isn't going to put much effort into doing this when they don't see the pot of gold.If the primary reason for placing a property in a LLC is simply to reduce liability from ambulance chasers, it would seem to be much simpler to have a nice fat umbrella insurance policy.

And, like it or not, no matter how much you like or think you can trust the people who work for you... eventually, one of them will decide that they can take a big, fat bite out of you. 

I'm new at this, but this is what I've worked our so fat.

We have refused to insure properties because of the fat that there was a double closing and there was no disclosure made

I think it is more important to "trim the fat" from the budget, rather than the always popular political method of charging the taxpayers more in some fashion or another.

This is dangerous because the seller has an incentive to minimize expenses in order to make the investment look as attractive as possible in order to get it sold; the real estate agent stands to earn a fat commission check.

I would like to raise the kids till about high school (roughly 10 years away) and sell for millions and move closer to the coast with my fat chunk of change (subject to the future outlook of the immediate area).

When I started running the numbers he said I was "too high" and we could trim the fat and still make profit.