The rule that a double close spread has to eat both closing costs deserves a closer look at the actual numbers
The conventional wisdom in rooms like this is that a double close needs a spread big enough to eat both sets of closing costs or the structure is wasted. Run two Cleveland examples side by side and the rule gets less certain. First, a property under contract at 61k with an end buyer at 74,500, a 13,500 spread. Transactional funding quoted at 1,100 for the day, both sides of closing around 2,900 combined, net right around 9,500. That confirms the math and nobody argues with it. Now take a second deal, in at 48k and out at 57k, a nine thousand dollar spread that most operators would say cannot survive the structure. Run the numbers anyway. Funding comes in at 950 because the loan amount is smaller. Title runs 2,200 total because the same company handled both closings and did not charge a full double rate on the second transaction. Net lands just over 5,800. The comparison that matters is what that deal would have paid as an assignment, and the honest answer is maybe 8,200 in that market, and only after cutting the fee because the end buyer's attorney pushed back hard on assignment language. Doubling down on a spread the rule called too thin still worked. The variable that rarely gets discussed is what the assignment alternative actually costs in a specific deal with a specific buyer, and that number is never fixed.
