Just not my cup of tea with the way the law reads.

It just wasn't my cup of tea, so I haven't been back.

It's no different than insurance -- if you're high-risk for needing care, you'll pay more.Because the risk is MUCH greater with inexperienced investors, the cost of the money is MUCH greater.

Vacant properties are not my cup of tea you don't have to pay for any future numbers.

If that doesn't sound like your cup of tea, I would sell the property.

If short sales and REOs are your cup of tea, by all means dig in.

Your arguments to the contrary, or soft back pedaling, make you look inexperienced, unknowledgeable and just plain ridiculous.The reason private lenders do not want to lend on owner occupied homes is that those loans must comply with the SAFE act, resulting in burdensome regulations, increased costs, and greatly increased risks of litigation.

He as a PM had nothing to do with placing that tenant so he would not be saddled by a poor choice by a desperate or inexperienced Landlord, if he did help place the tenant(with LL approval and criteria of course) then his time spent on an eviction or whatever would be free as he had a hand if the tenant placement and therefor his job was to rectify the situation and get a new tenant in place as quickly as possible.

If I could make an inexperienced criticism I'd say this one and only criticism:A $3.3K profit seems too small, this leave almost no room for error.

Steven,You make great points and I've thought about it, but truth be told, I'm still a very inexperienced investor still trying to learn what I could do and ect.By savings, are you referring to just a regular SA (Savings Account) or CD's, or other types of savings with investment in funds or stocks?