Cash flow defines value.

As a Realtor if I "hold" an offer that I may only receive the listing commission side to submit another offer that I may receive both listing and selling sides of commissions then that is not only unethical, it is definately not in the bank's best interest.

Pretty much all the case law is at the administrative level (ALJs, etc.) and you can expect them, as government employees, to interpret the law broadly so that the maximum number of people are required to be licensed.

Where each partner had a clearly defined role to play and responsibility.3.

Financing the option price is an acceptable way to get an income stream and avoid any claim that it finances the property as defined under the SAFE Act.

Not yet sure how they define 3rd party, but I would guess it is a non-licensed or non-chartered lending institution.Perhaps Ted Akers or Eric Michaels can chime in on this one?

The proposal specifically states that it applies to residential mortgage loans, defined as: “. . . a loan that is primarily for personal, family, or household use.."

Just better understand how the formula works/is relative in different situations.Thanks for any & all who can add clarification for me.Is there some place where all this is defined already?

Also, if they are managing multiple properties for you, then I personally believe that they are definately worth the 8-10%.

:Originally posted by Jon Klaus:Rev N Youhttp://www.youtube.com/user/RevNYouThanks - watched 'em all, too bad it's not updated any longer....The Broad's have a blog that is more up to date: http://lifeasrealestateinvestors.com/