If it was a bad deal to begin with, or one that you shouldn't have made but did out of lack of patience or some kind of rationalization of it actually being a good deal, then shame on you for agreeing to that deal n the first place.

Questioning the competitive advantages that a sponsor promotes is a good way to identify if they are rational investors.

That’s how ability to pay (ie debt to income ration, types of income) are set and the required condition of the home is set.

I may have been looking in the wrong areas, or asking the wrong questions, but the looks and responses I got were all (rationally) “umm . . .

His rational is:Property value will increase dramatically in short orderRenters like the idea of being the first resident and are more likely to stay long termZero maintenance costsAs long as the cashflow still makes sense, does anyone know of any concerns?

It is also dangerous when we try to rationalize away something a candidate says by saying, "it would never pass congress".

It sounds like doing the 30 year refi (cash out or not) is the smartest thing to get my current primary payment the lowest so that I'll have the most cash flow and better DTI ration.

Try to remember that she's probably feeling embarrassed and may not be thinking completely rationally, so proceed with caution. 

The rule of thumb in investing is that you shouldn't time the market and in reality, you almost can never time the market as investment sometimes is not about rationality; it could be a game where random variables appear all of a sudden.

My point isn't whether you are average or not, but rather just be careful that you are not rationalizing your decisions.