They of course have a different opinion. not sure in SC as I don't hold rentals there.. but I have been buying courthouse steps and tax sales going on 40 years now.. and hold over tenants in all of my deals and they number in the 100's have always been subject to eviction laws not trespassing.. and crap out here in liberal land west coast many times even full blown squatters the cops will tell U you have to evict.during the GFC in CA untold thousands of people moved into vacant homes and squatted for years.. they knew they could get cash for keys..

Can certainly be profitable but you need deep pockets or a liberal bank to provide lots of working capital. 

This allows administrators to be much more liberal in accepting assets and allows the ability to align with investment sponsors.

." -- Jacques LacanThere was enormous intellectual liberation in that quote from the chronic fear of failure I felt during my first renovation.

In more liberal areas, a small landlord may be sued for 5M and get an obscene judgment and in more conservative areas, the same issue may not justify 100K.

The reason this is done is policies are allowed to liberalize their coverage to include losses that other policies would not include.

That is what makes looking at smallish rental investing so interesting, we all watch and learn, leap and burn, hit Jackpots, and just live through boredom.

If you are a buy and hold investor looking for cash flow then congratulations, you just hit the jack pot.

Because of their nature, the FHA loans are inherently risky (high loan to value, inexperienced borrowers, liberal income guidelines) and because they are riskier than say a regular conventional loan at 80% ltv, the mortgage insurance is higher (significantly higher) and doesn't go away like it used to.On the other hand, for a first house that will accommodate up to 4 units, I say FHA is the way to go if the rents qualify.

OB no longer has the feel of the liberal, cheap, small surf town (which I loved).