This is logic makes sense and it works.

(this is from analyzing his current video on “Due on Sale”)You and I are both good at math and logic and know how this works.

Logic = Rent. 

I am willing to bet 99% of you will throw my advise in the wind, but for that select 1% that see the common sense and logic in my posts, you, my friends have a decent chance making it big!

If it continues to have living expenses go up and up and focus only on tourists, I fear that the average worker won't be able to survive and therefore make it a very difficult small economy in general.So in all, as a local, I just don't see logically how the real estate can keep appreciating for much longer unless the living expenses stop hiking and lower and middle class workers are able to survive here, as that's what is the back bone of it all right now.

So with that logic, I want the LP to be protected and get paid out a baseline return first, but if the property exceeds expectations I believe the GP should capture  higher returns.With the proposed 75/25 waterfall breakdown suggested by the LP, I feel that I would be under compensated the first 4 or so years and it may not be worth it for me considering the month of labor it takes to furnish the property and the approximately 100-150 hours a year it takes for me to manage the property.

But my logic tells me otherwise.

Since I'm using the purchase price to calculate depreciation, it feels logical to allocate using a ratio from the year of the purchase.

In all markets, basing these expenses as a percentage of rent is not logical. 

I understand your logic related to the property not being in the LLC, but it still serve a purpose.