Second, you need to leave the majority of te profit on the table for the investor taking the largest risk and your $6k (split or not) is too high for this home.

The largest bellyaching on this comes from the old fart socialist incumbents and the liberal media is in lock step with them.

You can usually size up the professionalism of these workers by what they drive, in a way, a new truck, they must be making money, an old beater that barely runs and they need a jump start, they may want something at the end of each day for their recreational needs.

This is true for even the largest, most sophisticated institutional investors.DATA SOURCESIn addition to those listed on the excellent article that Bryan H. linked to above, there are:Axiometrics / REIS / Pierce-Eislen: These folks conduct phone surveys on a monthly basis and publish reports and analysis.

Perhaps in 40 or 50years, but not in 7.Maybe auto ownership could drop as taxis get better, but what about recreational driving and rural areas?

Rents are cheap (1 BR/1 Bath, 800 SF for $600 is not uncommon), decent to very good recreational areas, and decent shopping.

Maybe I am naive, but it seems like an ethical investor can go in, get a contract on the property, and if there is enough equity, strucurte a deal wherein the seller might receive a portion of their equity, leaving the largest share for the buyer, and you, the wholesaler receive a relatively small portion of the equity as the wholesale fee.

Google (The Best, has largest reach)2.

My experience is in lender negotiations and have a vast background due to having worked internally for one of the largest lenders in the U.S.

This is even more disheartening as the "echo boomer" generation, those born after 1986, is the largest generation in our history to reach its 20s, peak household formation years.