It’s also why you end up with HMLs to loan during that gap period (and fund improvements) until their can be a subsequent refinance of the “improved” value.

I would love to be a part of this; unfortunately, I won’t be able to make the first one but if there are subsequent meet ups I will make it a point to get out to one.

I'd go with simple interest on this one- it would be compounded if the $50 stayed in the same account, and the 5.6% interest accrued on the new amount in the subsequent period(so for instance, the tenant would have to pay the late fee of 5.6% on $950 in the following month, then the late fee of 5.6% on (1.056)($950) in the month after that, and so on...)Either way- compound or simple- the return is too good to ignore.

You may be able to find a local bank lender that will do it, but they may be very puzzled by the $1 sale price in the chain of title and ask awkward questions.You could sell and potentially 1031 into a more expensive property to defer the tax liability, but it is generally advisable to hold the initial property for one year prior to selling to be comfortable that the IRS won't challenge your subsequent 1031 tax deferral treatment.

BUT if you execute another 1031 down the road when and if you want to sell your new properties, you can, essentially, keep deferring taxation until you die, avoiding paying taxes on this sale or any subsequent sales for your entire life.Bonus: your heirs inherit your investment props with a 'stepped up' basis equal to the market value of the property at the time of your death, meaning all that capital gain and depreciation recapture that's been rolled into each successive property gets wiped out.

I think the holding period would be about a year so the first year would hemorrhage cash flow (not included in the analysis above), but subsequent years would be fruitful.

This may sound silly and cumbersome as a sincere suggestion, but might it end the controversy to simply "reset" the original deal by temporarily deeding the house back to the seller and having it recorded, while holding a subsequent deed from them back to you, notarized and official, but with deferral on your recording of it?

In aggregate one could argue the effects are positive (and for which it's likely on objective answer really exists - it kind of depends on your political and social philosophy), but at the micro level you get a lot of the winners and losers, and where your position as a winner or loser is dictated more by specific sets of circumstances rather than your "role" as say a property owner, landlord, tenant, forclosee, etc.If you're not paying your mortgage and you happened to have gotten it through Chase which securitized it and it's subsequently been resold multiple times and now no one can get to all the right paperwork to foreclose on you, you win!

.), so I could see how 80% of the homes suspected to be contaminated, which are then subsequently tested, will come back as positive. 

If the borrower subsequently returns to the area where he/she owns a property with an FHA-insured mortgage, he/she is not required to re-establish primary residency in that property in order to be eligible for another FHA-insured mortgage.