The property has to be purchasable at that price, or you don't do that deal.I know it seems like semantics because, yes, you can rearrange the formula but if you have the foregone conclusion of what the purchase price is, you could be tempted to fudge repairs or choose slightly better comps to make it work, but if the comps and repairs are figured out objectively, then you can't argue with the MAO.Hope you follow my thinking.  

Hello, @Nicholas Moffett ,I just bought;The ABCs of Real Estate Investing: The Secrets of Finding Hidden Profits Most Investors Miss: Written by Ken McElroyLove it but that is just an opinion.good luck

I wouldn't argue that it is "always" best to contact the listing agent directly.

If 5 properties seems to be too many to handle, think about doing 2-3.Also, I would argue that your strategy of putting all your capital into just one or two properties is in fact more risky than diversifying across several deals.

At most post offices you can actually use the street address (instead of po box 123, it will be 456 Abc lane #123).  

I spent a lot of time getting signatures from neighbors and researching the building code so that I could argue proficiently.

I've read books by Robert Kiyosaki and his advisors, such as "Rich Dad, Poor Dad", "The REAL Book of Real Estate", "The ABC's of Real Estate Investing", "Start Your Own Corporation", in the process of reading "Loopholes of Real Estate", and other books like "Buy It, Rent It, Profit!"

If I want the tenant to move out, I approach it as: "ABC is occurring (facts only).

This is how it would work in your case: of the three existing partners in ABC Corp (the existing entity you mention), the two allied partners, who happen to have a majority interest in ABC, form another entity called XYZ Inc, of which they are the only two members.

They tend to argue with the judge and go on and on trying to prove their case.