How many of the 31 notes I serviced had a wholesaler anywhere in the chain? Four.

The note size confounding the close speed is the part worth pulling on before drawing any conclusion about wholesale economics. If the Yuma parcels were structurally simpler, fewer encumbrances, cleaner title, smaller dollar amounts that any buyer can absorb without much diligence, they would close faster and at lower prices regardless of who sourced them, and the 18-day gap tells you almost nothing about what the network actually contributed.

The risk the thread has not touched is that on seller-financed notes specifically, a wholesale assignment in the chain can create a seasoning problem if the note ever gets sold downstream. Some institutional note buyers treat an assignment within the first 12 months as resetting the seasoning clock, which compresses what a note seller can get for paper that is otherwise performing. If those four notes were ever taken to a note buyer or pledged as collateral, that assignment history would have shown up in the due diligence and affected pricing.

On your actual question about network attribution, do the active network operators in this room track whether a buyer in a pooled list was introduced to the seller through the network, or whether the buyer already had a direct relationship with the seller before the network referral?

That closing-speed gap is real and worth naming clearly. In wholesaling, "disposition speed" means how fast you find the end buyer after you have the property under contract. A network's shared buyer list is specifically designed to shorten that window, so 23 days against 41 is about what you would expect when a two-person group has more buyers in rotation than a solo seller does.

Your deeper question, how much of a network's volume is genuinely network-generated versus deals members would have closed anyway, is one I cannot answer with confidence, and I am not sure anyone has clean data on it. The informal nature of most micro-wholesaler networks means attribution rarely gets tracked rigorously. A member who brought their own buyer to a deal they found themselves might count it as a network close simply because the contract sat in a shared system.

What the strategy guide does flag is that the core value proposition is not volume creation, it is conversion rate. More contracts close because there are more buyers available when a deal is locked up. Whether that raises a member's total output or just improves the batting average on deals they were already finding is a distinction the guide does not resolve, and I would be skeptical of any network operator who gives you a confident percentage without showing you the attribution methodology.

Your 13% figure from actual payment files is more honest data than most discussions in this area produce.

One thing worth separating out: the smaller note sizes on the wholesale-touched deals could be parcel size, wholesale discount, or seller motivation (sellers who engage a wholesaler may be more motivated and therefore more flexible on price). Those three explanations produce the same observed number but have different implications for how you think about the channel.

What was the parcel size distribution on those four versus the other 27?