But, I will only walk away with a very small percentage.Core questionGiven continued negative cash flow and the fact that I don’t want to be a long-term landlord, what is the most rational next step:Sell one or both now and stop the bleed?

And sometimes the most rational move you can make is deciding that your current situation isn’t the final stop. 

Inventory is creeping up, days-on-market are stretching, and buyers are behaving differently than they did during the peak frenzy.For investors and move-up buyers, this shift opens the door to opportunities that didn’t exist even a year ago.More Inventory = More Rational OffersEven in a still-healthy market, more inventory instantly changes buyer psychology.

Most of the projected $150 million in synergies come from cost efficiencies—servicing operations, financing, hedging, and tech rationalization—not borrower magic.

I find the more inputs added to the deal diligence spreadsheets, the more opportunities an investor is provided to rationalize making a bad investment.

A good rule of thumb is: if the application requires a lot of exceptions or extra rationalizing, it’s usually a signal to pause.

Removing that fixed obligation materially changes how I can deploy risk elsewhere, even if it’s not the mathematically optimal move in isolation.I completely agree that real estate is work and that if someone can achieve similar or better returns passively through equities, that’s a very rational path.

also we probably can't get enough loan if it is solely based on debt/ incoming ration, usually does the bank approve loan based on projected rental income?  

No rational investor allocates capital to the same asset class in the same period while accepting more risk unless they expect a better performance.You mention the sponsors did not manage risk, but it's the same risk you personally bet on, right? 

These people usually have anger issues, and lack any ability to think rationally.