quite a few substantial flaws with this.
First of all. They are using rent charges twice. once at 775, and then again at 1000, to calculate different numbers, used within a formal based on a previous one mind you.
Secondly, this is assuming a standard individual renter can afford a 1500/m mortgage, BEFORE INSURANCE. Mind you this is on a house worth less than 100k. (Rule of thumb is generally 700 per 100k.)
Next, its assuming FHA will allow an individual to do 110% market value (they wont). Another assumed flaw is FHA wont loan to people below a 620, also not true.
Source:
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/mortgages/7-crucia...
Additional problems with this is assuming someone who will live in a 60-70k value house can afford rent to any extent, especially those with bad credit. There are reasons why they are willing to live in a very cheap place, while also having bad credit, and its not because of ***** and giggles.
All in all, I think this is worth about as much as the toilet paper I just flushed.
The general concept of COC is good, and a great idea with seller financing, but adding on all the other ridiculous charges is assuming youre going to hook someone with a FANTASTIC INCOME but HORRIBLE credit. They arent going to want a crappy place. The biggest flaw with this is, once you start to expand on it, it has substantial diminishing returns as you increase the property value as compared to the market competitive rates.
Once you start to reach the 2k plus boundary, you start to hit severe competition to were its literally just cheaper to rent for now, and just buy later with FHA in a year or two.