Gap funding or junior position funding is highly risky. your team has no real money in the deal..

He didn't even do an assumption here...with an assumption the lender knows the property is being conveyed and the new buyer is assuming the existing mortgage which is a lot less risky for both the buyer and the seller.

My reason is always to point out that your risk is lower and your exit is easier.

This is less risky and can earn you money quicker to use to buy investment properties.Also ask burnt out landlords if they would sell with owner financing.

That includes going to the bank and getting a cashiers check.Pay them at the bank, get deed notarized there, then take it to Register of Deeds and file deed.I have done this a half dozen times to keep from missing out on a great deal.For what I'm paying any risk is negligible.  

Yes it can work, but it is risky and very hard.

I just can't imagine why you would liquidate your successful, growing real estate holdings to send your money off to something that is super risky and doesn't pay that well over the long term.

Proposition 13 fits well for a price volatile state like California and we don't have the ever moving out of state property tax situation to deal with in states like Texas.

Many sellers will not accept this since they are in second position, and it is very risky since if you default (higher probability for investors with no money and/or no skin in the game), they will most likely be wiped out during a foreclosure.

Risky for your client and they rarely work out.