I've not yet done the math to determine which strategy would save me more money, but the big cons of this areNo primary residence, therefore slightly higher interest rates, 20 - 25% down (but depending on the market, this may very well be equivalent to 3.5 - 5% down in LA).Depends on the quality of tenant screening, but it's probably safer to assume that they won't take as great care of the property as I would.Probably need a property manager, professional or tenant.Either strategy seems to net me the same cost around $1,500 monthly, but I'm biased towards Los Angeles as I can rent to friends which solves a lot of the tenant/landlord issues.I'm not looking for anyone to give me all the answers but would appreciate any insight, food for thought, and constructive criticism. 

I had to take all the necessary steps to get the property and find property management and rely on them screening and placing tenants, etc.

Short answer - if it were me I would self manage and I would have tenants cover utilities. 

I have plenty of wealth in investment accounts to cover the purchase, but I'm trying to maximize my passive income, so I'd like to leverage a mortgage using my current income to pay for as much of the property as a I can.

On conventional loan if you default the lender will take the property to cover the debt and can come after you for any remainder.

Alex:Our June 19th meeting covered selecting a business entity.

Let's just say wallet shock doesnt cover it.

In most cases the clause covers everything, I've read notes that even included renting the house out, at all.So just know going forward that pretty much any creative financing is going to involve the seller being in breach of the DOS clause.

There's no rule but I'm imagining you'd want to cover a month's worth of expenses if left vacant in January.

In the Acquisition section anything not covered by the HML is assumed cash out of your pocket.