Standing transactional funding versus defaulting to dry closes on double closings
Wholesalers running double closes generally choose between two structures, and the tradeoff is worth laying out plainly. Transactional funding, priced as a flat fee plus a few days of interest, gives control over the first closing regardless of what the end buyer's financing does, lets a seller's timeline be met without asking anyone's permission, and makes the wholesaler look like a real buyer to a listing agent. It costs a fee on every deal whether it was needed or not, which thins the spread. A dry close, where the end buyer's wire funds both legs at the same table with no outside capital involved, is cheaper and keeps the spread intact. But whether a settlement agent will run one at all depends on the company and on state closing practice, and some will not do it under any circumstances. That means the exit depends on a third party's internal policy rather than the wholesaler's own capital, which is a real risk on any deal with a tight timeline. There isn't one right structure here. The practical answer is to know which title companies and settlement agents in a given market will run a dry close, keep a funder relationship on standby for everything else, and treat the dry close as the exception that gets used when it's confirmed available, not the default plan the whole deal rests on.
What's your default funding structure on a double close?
26 votes
