I feel sometimes if tenants have some skin in the game they are more responsible.

Really it helps validate my position going forward which is to only look at a) for buy-and-hold, true partnership JVs where the on ground partner has skin in the game, b) notes (and I buy your point on lack of leverage being a problem...but I'm reading up on hypothecation...yes I'm foreign-based but still US citizen so I don't believe any unique tax issues for me), c) fix-and-flip partnerships.

"There is more than one way to skin a cat."

How much skin are you bringing to the game?

I seriously did not want one penny because as they day, "it is no skin off my butt".

Just remember if you sell it for more than it is worth, and the market falters and is worth less than owed, the borrower can hadn the keys back to you or you could be forced to foreclose, especially if they have little skin in the game.  

As a private lender, we do look for "skin in the game" - but it can come from anyone that has a vested interest in the LLC/partnership, etc...

My first question is will the lender require skin in the game or is the asking price, rehab, closing costs covered by the lender?

Hard Money lenders are going to want you to have skin in the game.

So even within the same strategy, with the same resources, and in the same asset class, there are STILL a ton of ways to skin the cat.