Would you take a sub-to where the underlying loan is FHA or VA

A large share of the low-rate loans that wholesalers bring to sub-to buyers are government backed, and experienced operators split hard on whether those are workable. The argument for taking them: the rate is the rate. A 3.1% FHA loan is worth the same monthly saving as a 3.1% conventional one, and the mechanics of a sub-to do not change with the loan type. The deed moves and the loan stays in place, and the buyer makes the payment. Some of these loans also carry assumability features that in theory make a formal assumption possible instead of a sub-to, which would remove the due-on-sale problem entirely if the buyer can qualify and the servicer cooperates. That is a better outcome than any sub-to. The argument against: government backed loans come with occupancy conditions attached to the original borrowing, and on VA loans the seller's entitlement stays tied up while the loan is outstanding, which is a real cost to them that a conventional seller does not pay. If they ever want another VA loan, the sub-to buyer is the reason they cannot get one at full entitlement. That is a disclosure conversation most buyers do badly. Servicer behavior on transfers of these loans also tends to be less predictable than on conventional paper, and the acceleration language still sits in the note. What any of this means legally depends on the program rules in effect and the specific note, so it is a question for counsel and the servicer in writing rather than a forum consensus. The question here is about practice. Do you take these, route them to a formal assumption attempt, or pass?