If you're house hacking you're going to be there for a couple of years anyways, so what's going on today is arguably not as important.

Having guardrails against the hubris is arguably noble, but the freedom versus safety infinite game can easily be framed in a manner to make the pursuit of safety the villain instead of the other way around.

In reality there are no perfect rules and sure Peter Thiel use the system to his advantage [and arguable broke the law because there is already a rule that prohibits stuffing your IRA with grossly under valued securities and no one seems to ask why the IRS didn't go after him for that] but is the societal cost of this happening one or two time greater than the benefit of the thousands of others who use their IRAs to invest in non public securities?

A lot has changed for the worse but for a lot of us arguably it has changed for the better at least in some aspects.  

They are arguably in better shape than those buying today.I do agree, for the most part the 1% rule is no more unless you get a stellar deal. 

Arguably the #1 mistake I see newer investors make is thinking the "room-in-a-room" won't be of issue, it will be.

Its up to you. 1st scenario will arguably have you learn/scale faster while 2nd scenario is the more typical method for many.

IndyMac is infamous for "Liar Loans" and suffered as it was arguably the epicenter of the crash of 2008 due to its 13billion impact.

So, if you are able to buy notes at say 50% of their performing value and get them reperforming, you stand to arguably double your money, or earn 100%.

Purchase price: $207,000 Cash invested: $1,500 Sale price: $289,000 Bought in 2007 at arguably one of the worst times.