If any such damage is a result of the act or omission of Tenant, Tenant shall be responsible for all costs to repair such damage.

In my experience, I have not had pet damage that goes beyond the initial security deposit (although I know others that have) so I prefer the extra income. 

If we had made the same mistakes on a larger property, it could have been financial damaging and lost money.

Unless you have the exact right person, you are taking too much risk and the damage can be too huge..... just pay them and carry on as usual....

There are definitely things you need to keep in mind like that most of the tenants do not have income coming in to pay for tenant caused damages.

Too much to explain here, but park owned homes due to turn over, damage, stolen appliances, wrecked ACs etc you bairly make a nickle on the home rent.  

If the squatter incurred any additional damages I would claim those with the other broker. 

If we had made the same mistakes on a larger property, it could have been financially damaging.

Now obviously, that is beneficial to sponsor, and less risky now for the investor being that their capital was returned back so I see how that is fine and not too horrendous, but seems to me that could damage investor returns or maybe that sponsor may lose out to a competing sponsor that doesnt restructure the termsJust curious and would love to get opinions and a conversation started, what are your thoughts and have you or anyone you know done that?

For example, "Tenant agrees to pay for the entire cost of repair of damage caused by the Tenant's willful damage or negligence."