Its not that I'm unwilling to play by the rules, I'm just unsure if it would still be worth it as someone just starting out.

Back 2 units rent for $300 front units rent for $375. 2 separate buildings - front 900 sq ft, back 2 are 576 sq ft.My question - if the rental income is accurate, why is this still on the market even though it meets the 2% rule?

However, most people don't follow SEC rules and the chances of them coming down on you are slim to none

Meaning, to fulfill the 50% rule, a landlord would have to rent such a place for $1800-2000/month.

If it will work with the 50% rule (or less if most of the utilities are separate and you plan on self managing) and a 30yr fixed @4.5% for $285K and assuming you live in the 1BR you would have $1,700 in expenses (I never reduce those just because you live in a unit, just my opinion) and $1,444 debt payment for a total of $3,144.

Also, if you're actively licensed and practicing in any way, shape, or form, you're acting as a real estate agent.I had no idea of this rule and makes me want to go back and re-read the TREC Rules line by line again.

It is certainly possible that your particular state has some statutory rule or other persuasive authority, but any guru giving a definitive nationwide answer on this issue is just guessing.

@Florence Oxenham, In light of a recent California Supreme Court ruling admitting an ILLEGAL immigrant to the California bar to practice law, I suspect the same will have to be true for all other state licensed professionals and immigration status should no longer be a factor... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/03/us/immigrant-in-us-illegally-may-practice-law-california-court-rules.html?

Remember these loans don’t have to follow the new QM rules that fall in our lap this month, so some borrowers may be electing to go with a non-conforming loan rather than a traditional loan.

Rehab of $30k will be also financed via 203k.If I apply 70% rule... 70% x ARV 210k = 147k.