Let me know.SwannyI'm holding non-beach MFR in the area bounded by Clairemont down to North Park and east to College.No advice implied - I haven't been down the road of laddering up properties.  

I don't think mutual funds are in any way comparable because that implies diversification across many deals. 

Increasing inflation implies housing prices would be going up, not down.

Agency can be "specific" or "implied" it is also determined by your actions, the result of how you are doing a transaction.

Meaning, I don't have to necessarily provide them evidence of current title insurance....just sufficient evidence that the title is clear.9c(iii) seems more favorable to the Seller than 9c(i), since the language in 9c(i) is the following:Seller shall designate Closing Agent and pay for Owner’s Policy and Charges (but not including charges for closing services related to Buyer’s lender’s policy and endorsements and loan closing, which amounts shall be paid by Buyer to Closing Agent or such other provider(s) as Buyer may select);It seems to me, that 9c(i) is implying the Seller would pay for the Owner's policy, which could amount to over $200.  9c(iii) limits the Seller's responsibility to $200 to simply cover title search expenses.Any thoughts?

When I read articles here on BP as well as books and even listen to the gurus, they either imply or outright say that I don't need an agent to make first contact or even negotiate apartment deals.

That would be any implied terms, necessary terms, or stated terms. 

This implies a robust demand for housing.  

This would imply that the rehab down to the studs was done years ago, right? 

I don't have a problem with the first part, but I believe you are implying that you can sell the property without a taxable gain which is not true.Your gain will be the selling price (less costs to sell) minus your cost basis.