I have been lurking here on BP for some time now and recently started posting. Something I am trying to wrap my mind around is the apparent near-hatred for the dreaded wholesalers. 

Back in the day, (early 90s) when I first started out investing, wholesaling was just buying cheap and skimming a bit off the top. Maybe you assigned the contract, maybe you took title. Either way, no biggie. Somewhere along the way that the idea of assigning a contract has become evil in the eyes of some.

If I purchase a house for cash, take title, then turn around and immediately sell it for a 75% profit, is that unethical? Do I need to disclose my intentions to the seller? As long as there is no coercion involved and you have two willing parties, then I don't see any problem. It's no different than finding anything of value that is underpriced. 

Now, I understand that if one makes a lot of unsolicited offers, there is a slightly higher probability that one could hook a less sophisticated seller. I'm not sure that changes anything though. Maybe it does, but maybe it doesn't. The operative word is still seller. Assuming no one is FORCED to sell, then as long as I actually close, then I am not a wholesaler and therefore good.

That takes us back to the assignment being the problem. I guess I'm slow, but I don't see how the act of assigning the contract makes one evil. Just can't find the nexus. Maybe some of the brighter minds on here can help me see clearly.