Now we can argue all day what the best investment is and the truth will only be revealed over a defined holding period. 

I argued that if we just sit on it and it takes 5 years to sell (for example), that's taxes and possibly debt service costs eating away at our bank account every month until we offload it at (hopefully) more than we paid.  

Note: "Experience" at my company is based on titles held for investment purpose.I have heard of lenders increasing their LTV or reducing points based on FICO but would argue this isn't common practice.

And now, the partnership is arguing about what to do with the property and since they can't agree on anything.. they're liquidating to dissolve the partnership.  

So in some cases I could easily argue that a cash-loss isn't really a cash-loss.  

As an example: In a universe where distance does not matter, we could objectively argue that Indianapolis is a better market than Sacramento: Higher cash flow, better tenant laws, lower taxes.

I would argue no. 

Some of the great books I've read recently are:The Millionaire Real Estate Investor by Gary Keller (of Keller Williams)What Every Real Estate Investor Needs to Know About Cash Flow..and 36 Other Key Financial Measures (as a Corporate Finance guy myself I gravitate towards numbers naturally)The ABCs of Real Estate Investing by Ken McElroyThe Book on Tax Strategies For the Savvy Real Estate Investor by Amanda Han (BiggerPockets book)The Real Book of Real Estate: Real Experts.Real Stories.

If a California investor were to take their money out of their home state and put it into a high property tax state, AND pay income tax in CA, that investor would be shooting himself twice.I would argue that smart people will make tax consideration as well as time/resource management key parts of a well rounded wealth accumulation strategy.

If the majority are going to be up in (hypothetically) the next 90 days it doesn't make much sense to try to argue with tenants over signing (resigning) leases.