I’m finding (most notably trulia) that the main reason for a home to be sold cash only is because a bank won’t finance it mainly for 1 of 2 reason.  

I’m not sure if you have any insights as to the construction cost, but one nicer home was built in the area and it sold for $78 a square foot, which I think would be close to the cost of building one.

https://www.biggerpockets.com/forums/51/topics/354...94 year old sold an estimated $20M of senior living complexes. 

Nothing in life comes easy but I just sold a business with a bunch of employees (a major headache) but I had great ones too.

For all the turnkey investors out there:I'm starting to look into this space and I'm noticing that a post-rehabbed 65k single family house in Indianapolis (sold by Morris Invest) brings you, give or take, $1,000 in rent whereas in Milwaukee you need to spend a post-rehabbed 85k for a single family house (sold by Home Invest) to bring you about $1k in rent.So my question is, if you're after cash-flows, are there any reasons an investor would go with the house in Milwaukee versus Indianapolis?

I am amazed at the numbers of deals right now that are cash flow negative that get sold on bad advice.

The offer sounds tempting since  the group has to finance about 3M$ (the rest comes from a bank with a low interest) and the building is bought about 1.5M below value, so when we sell we should expect a 50% return when selling which should be 3 years from now.The thing that bugs me is the way the building value was evaluated, i am copying a section from the presentation:"Market activity has shown similar properties consistently trading in the 4.75-5.25% cap range (refer to “Comparables” slide for specifics).

See what properties she's recently sold and if any were in her name before.

Strangely the local real estate companies did not know much about rental rates as they sold them and didn't rent them.

I purchase a certificate on August, 18th of last year and the property is listed as having sold on the 23rd of August.