Usually we try to put an actual number in there, but I don't think 120% sounds terribly unreasonable depending on the length of time you need to have all of the properties collateralized versus only the last couple.

The owner's policy protects you the buyer from future title claims, while the lender's policy protects your seller from title issues that might impact them as a lender.It wouldn't be unreasonable for the buyer to pay for one or both.

But between Covid, supply chain issues, material prices doubling, Etc.....that is not an unreasonable expectation.

Though I know as GC (Grant Cardone) says, you need to be unreasonable to be successful. 

It is only a problem if they request changes that are unreasonable.

Is this unreasonable considering the circumstances? 

Yeah I looked into the AirDNA website but some of the numbers looked unreasonable that's why I kinda wanted to verify with people in the area that have short-term rentals.

I think it’s unreasonable to expect your PM to take responsibility for damage to the property.

If all offerings required public company disclosures and audited financial statements, it would be cost prohibitive and we would not have many private market opportunities.Regardless, private offerings are the wild wild west and we all see problematic offerings all the time with misaligned interests, aggressive underwriting, insufficient disclosure, risky debt structures, unreasonable sponsor compensation, shady tactics, problematic legal arrangements buried in 100+ page private placement memorandums, sponsors who don't pass appropriate background checks, and even well-intended sponsors who lack the experience or business acumen to be managing peoples' savings. 

For me: metro permits being unreasonably long, waiting on contractors and subs to get to the job site.