The original letter there is complete BS. These people would "buy" your house w/o putting much down. They "manage" it. This could end up OK. But more often than not, you as the seller will end up with a mess.
Consider following scenarios:
The market goes up, the tenant that he puts in the house pays on time. At end of term, this investor would buy your house at the agreed-upon price, then sell it at then-current price. Pocketing a nice profit. This is the best case, and everybody is happy.
Now, if the market goes down, this investor walks away, and you're left with what the house is worth of at the end of term. This is actually a pretty good scenario.
Next, consider what would heppen here: this investor puts some guy with crappy credit there with minimum deposit, but large monthly rent. The tenant pays one month then stops. The investor has to evict. Before the tenant moves out after 2 months, he pokes couple holes on your wall, also causes water damage to your carpet. Then the investor bails. Now you are left with a mess.
Of course, as a landlord you could get the same problematic tenant, but at least that's your problem as you control the screening process. "Control" is what you want in RE, as opposed to stock where you have none.
In summary, if your tenant wants to lease to own, that is worth considering considering the option fee is large enough. Other investor? They would have to either buy the place outright, or at least pay your iniatial cash input to get a rent to own.
