I'm sure you've seen, it's got some nice eye-candy and gives a good 1000 foot view, but I've found that I have too many "exceptions" to my holdings for it to work for me, at least right now.

Enjoy taking candy from a baby.  

In my opinion he picks pretty properties as eye candy for investors.

@Cody L. the issue is when there are too many bad actors in the market taking advantage of consumers, then the government MUST intervene on their behalf. 

& then there's the tried and true method of handing out business cards like halloween candy.

Despite critics who have characterized the weakened rules as the “Wild West,” Gallagher pointed out that safeguards for investors remain in place, including that antifraud laws still apply, accredited investor verification must still be complied with, no “bad actors” can be involved, and a Form D must be filed.In contrast to the Wild West of Rule 506(c), Gallagher said that the JOBS Act Title III crowdfunding provision, which was weighed down by “nanny state investor protections,” is more akin to 1970s East Germany, where the heavy hand of the state is “omnipresent and smothering.”

Basically, any act or scheme that is presented to an institution that is knowingly untrue and threatens the profits or business activities and provides any benefit to the party presenting such conduct may be construed as bank fraud or attempted fraud.

@Pat L asked the tough question about how the tenant got past the screening process, although people can be good actors (hey, I'm in L.A.).While I could recount tales of tough evictions, I think the main takeaways that other landlords and would-be landlords ought to consider is:1) The incredible unforeseen waste that eviction creates for the investor that can be minimized by effective upfront screening;2) If eviction becomes necessary, not to get all tied up emotionally with the tenants' responses and just keep moving forward.

.,, removal of a corporate partner or members interests will provided for in the event of any illegal act, or refusal to act or death, incapacitation will be by statute.

Sounds like a bunch of bad reasons to keep a bad actor IMO.As a PM, you should know that the owner must be able to withstand prolonged financial vacancies, especially those where the property remains occupied by non-paying tenants while an eviction is ongoing.