Unless I had occupancy of 40% or more, I would not make more than renting it out traditionally.

I also believe that creative finance techniques are what set apart investors instead of using traditional bank financing. 

Ya I understand that when going through a traditional lending method.

I just close on the property and then sell like a traditional sale and it seems to work well.

A traditional PM charges a percentage, and you pay them for payroll costs.

I'm not seeing how traditional financing, while using the 50% rule for est expenses, is going to cashflow at all with properties under $150K. 

.- my husband is in a tax bracket that capital gain is almost equal to normal taxes, so my accountant says it didn't make a difference when we sell traditionally-also we would have held it for less than one year, if all goes right. no real tax benefit there.

I'm buying a small condo in the northeast as an investment property for now and a place to retire to in 10 years.I'm trying to decide between getting a traditional second mortgage or getting a home equity loan.The condo I'm planning on purchasing is $69,000.

.- Second option is to partner with a few american family members with great credit score and possibly buy with 20% down using more traditional financing.I hear other options as well like using portfolio lenders, seller financing etc.

My question is, if I line up a seller financed deal and explain that this will ease the tax burden but then I sell after a year or so, does that in turn put him in the same spot as if he would have sold it traditionally to begin with?