You are saying that the poster is breaking the law in this specific instance. 

Some out of state areas appreciate so slowly that, if you need to sell after such a purchase, you either have to sell at a lost or wait for years to break even after selling costs.

Of course if you compare what they go toward to that of a SFR, some would say it's a break even and other's would say it's not and that SFR "costs" can be better controlled.

These sorts of folks are often way more valuable than an employee you're paying a crapload more money to have who clocks in and out, takes their breaks, etc.

You also lost one month of rent and (I'm assuming you're leasing the space yourself, and not paying a broker 1-mo rent), your cost is $2,550, and you gained $50/mo.Yes - your "Break Even" is a 3.5ish years, but this ignores the value increase.Assuming a 10% cap, and you're already covering expenses, that $50/mo = $600/year = pure NOI.  

There are always deals out there and it is absolutely insane to buy something where you can't at the very least break even immediately!  

A property can look clean and well maintained but still have high repair costs and capital expense costs when old systems and appliances break down.Are the tenants current on the rent?

I am looking to change up the way I go about making offers to sellers by breaking down the repair fees and holding costs in a nice spreadsheet that will convert to a branded PDF.

And when someone raised their hand with a question, he would ask that it wait til the break.

I think that if you put 10K into it and have another 10K that you would be losing anyway to cover any months that you don't have tenants you should rent it until you can break even atleast. 10K reserve will net you atleast 3 months of no rent coming in and if your home is really that desirable then you should have not problem renting it in just a few weeks. it certainly beats the hell out of losing 20K outright.