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

Half the low-rate loans coming across my desk from the wholesalers I talk to are government backed, and I've watched my team 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 don't change with the loan type. The deed moves, the loan stays, you pay. 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's 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 doesn't pay. If they ever want another VA loan, you're the reason they can't get one at full entitlement. That's a disclosure conversation most buyers do badly. Servicer behavior on transfers of these loans also seems less predictable to me 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's a question for counsel and the servicer in writing rather than a forum consensus. I'm asking about practice. Do you take these, route them to a formal assumption attempt, or pass?