Any underwriter will agree with you and I am not going to argue against obvious.

It was hard to argue.

You can argue I need a property management company and that I’m too lenient but this system is working for me.

I would argue that they are young so they haven't been burned by bad landlords or even know how to take advantage of the system.

You could argue that your property has not materially improved and does not meet the same value as the most recently sold properties.

I’ve seen seasoned investors mismanage funds just as I’ve seen newer investors deliver solid returns by being disciplined, transparent, and data-driven.Rather than focusing solely on experience, I’d argue that the real minimum requirements are:1.

I know.That's why I argue it has to be one on one.

Boring Can Be Beautiful, But Location Still WinsWhile I agree that boring markets offer steady cash flow, I’d argue that markets with a blend of stable tenant demand and tourist appeal like areas near U.S. military installations in Germany strike a better balance between cash flow and appreciation.

I've argued for this and the powers-that-be do have a good argument that they are still active just in other ways, how to cover labor and actions during that, etc..

I've vehemently argued against acquisition fees, syndicators that don't put a significant investment in their own deals, anything called a fund, large GP groups where you don't know who is in charge, and syndicators who ONLY raise money and don't manage the property, plus many other more minor sins.