So while you as an investor can find a motivated seller and get a good deal, its much harder to a REIT to do this over and over again in large deals where most sellers are a lot more rational.  

You're rationalizing a bad deal by saying you can afford to make a bad deal. 

You are trying to rationalize why you should be allowed to correct your own mistakes at her expense.

A FOOL'S GAME.MikeOH wrote; Throughout the United States, operating expenses run 45% to 50% of the gross rentsTrust those numbers, do not think, "oh, these are newer 'well constructed' houses, we don't have the harsh winters" or any of the other rationalizations that will put you in the toilet 5 years down the road.

Would love to shop my appraisal and get it reassigned to a lender who will underwrite more rationally.

Last but not least, Rent-to-price ration.

For instance, the closing date, inspection clause, financing contingency, transfer of clear title language, pro-rations, etc.......It will be cleaner to start with the purchase contract.BTW..... a purchase contract that has contingencies, by definition, is an option.

So, I found a job in Vancouver and spent the summer sleeping in my truck because I couldn't rationalize paying two rents.  

Believe it or not, plaintiffs' lawyers are rational in that they are often advancing expenses and so have a financial interest in not throwing away tons of money on a meritless case.I think at bottom so much of this fear mongering is based on a misunderstanding of the court system.  

Maybe this ration can be devised after some feedback?