I rent market rent and keep it there and if something happens in the local economy where the market rent still holds but is having some fluctuation due to a amajor source of local industry failing or something else; and that tenant stays, then I keep it the same if an annual increase would harm the investment or hurt the vacancy rating.

No real harm in that.

It doesn't scale to 250-500K houses.Personally I think BP promoting the 2% rule does more harm than good in that it scares off a lot of new investors that cannot find a house that meets the criteria in their market.

Steven Johnson, just tell them that they can continue to market the property themselves and if they get another buyer before you get your tenant, you'll part ways as friends no harm no foul.

They either have no idea or don't care about the damage they cause, the problems they set up between others and worse, the financial harm caused.

I know I have a long way to go, but I figure no harm in dreaming.

I'm not even sure if they will harm their own child to make a buck.

Although their actions were certainly criminal that does mean all corporations are out to harm the community.

Other than the wasted time for the 95-98% of people who aren't going to call anyway, I'd think this would do more harm than good since you'd be making inaccurate/uninformed assumptions with all your offers.

If they cannot bear they fact to lose money, I will give them a promissory note at 8% so that if the deal becomes a loser, the loss is only on me and it won't harm the relationship with the friend or relative.