Sounds like they didn't set proper expectations with the seller, didn't uncover all hidden objections, or didn't have a solid contract in the first place.

This of course could have been accomplished without the need of using negative interest rate leverage.I also find it interesting that for some velocity believers a simple (flawed) personal finance strategy has taken on a cult like worship.

Company just claimed they were reducing their exposure in Fla. We

The model is totally flawed.

Every system you try will have flaws or you'll salivate over a feature that shows up in other software.

. 😊  I've been thinking more about your question based on my LA experience, and some great advice I've read from three days of lurking here on BP from some RE veterans, based less on my fantasy but more on what I would do with your idea to start out at 1.5 and move into 3-5 million houses.First, it's all going to come down to your goals, here's a quote about that from Don Konipol (from the forum post https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/519/topics/1150499-the-...Quote from @Don Konipol:IMO, the financial reasons for investing in real estate include 1- Asset Preservation2- Increase Wealth3- Current Income4- Tax MinimizationWhile these four are not mutually exclusive, the more you benefit in one area the less will be the benefit in the others, given normal market conditions, unless you uncover something everyone else has missed.

After that, you may be subject to other forms of inspections that uncover more.

His biggest flaw in my opinion is his refusal to admit that.

Here's what would be great to share:The unexpected: Did you uncover any surprising elements during the flip?

Are there any major flaws with this plan, other than tying up a significant amount of capital on the first property?