@Susan Thelen it’s likely easiest you do this in excel so you can easily modify variables and test the NPV sensitivity.

Contracts are to safe guard against all the what-if's and potentials. 

Ask about their strategies for mitigating potential losses and protecting investor capital.Inquire about insurance policies or other safeguards they have in place.

During the session, they will ask you for financial information (nothing sensitive) under the guise of seeing what type of loan you are capable of getting. 

The nuances of mortgage lending are constantly evolving and time sensitive.

And sensitive financial/personal information can not be disclosed, like ss#, etc.  

If there's a hole, it may be a red flag.b) sensitivity analysis: I examine all the assumptions, and make sure I can live with the worst case scenarios.c) "Stall and see": if they are getting money over multiple years, and there is no penalty for investing later, I would usually wait so I get some real performance data, versus having to look at theoretical pro forma information.d) Recession stress test: I will not invest in anything, until I subject it to recession level stress and see if I can live with the result.

If there's a hole, it may be a red flag.b) sensitivity analysis: I examine all the assumptions, and make sure I can live with the worst case scenarios.c) "Stall and see": if they are getting money over multiple years, and there is no penalty for investing later, I would usually wait so I get some real performance data, versus having to look at theoretical pro forma information.d) Recession stress test: I will not invest in anything, until I subject it to recession level stress and see if I can live with the result.

One of the principal industry concerns about the vast power granted to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was that these powers were too insulated from review….The ruling sends a crystal-clear message to federal agencies that their powers are not unlimited…We would not be at this point today if government agencies were more prudent and consistent about staying within their statutory authorities, grounding their rulemakings in empirical facts, and heeding appropriate procedural safeguards…Instead, too frequently, our regulators appear to be chasing headlines and short-term political wins.”National Association of Homebuilders - “Today’s Supreme Court ruling is an important step forward to advance meaningful regulatory reform because it means that federal agencies can no longer continuously change the law – and the intent of Congress – by implementing their own interpretation of statutes as long as the interpretation is viewed as being ‘reasonable.’

It is a really good safeguard against contractor malfeasance.