It's rarely an issue in practice and from my perspective, there's really no reason why you wouldn't do that, if you can. 

I was trying to use Baselane but they only allow tenants to pay their exact rent due, not more or less, which is not practical because sometimes my tenants are short by $100 but I would rather collect something than nothing.

The condo was practically brand new inside. 

that not mentioning in the contract/anywhere else, at all, that they charge something for coordinating vendors - while, in fact, take ANY undisclosed compensation (and, incidentally, do not provide invoices as a matter of policy) - is compliant with TREC.It gets better: I recently had a local RE attorney, who allegedly deals with many major local PMs, claim to me that, even if there is no prior disclosure by the PM that the PM charges anything for dealing with vendors, as long as the PM tells the principal the total cost, and the principal agrees to it - before the vendor does the job - this is compliant with “annotated” (the lawyer’s stipulation) 62-12-312(b)(17).If you missed it: A local TN- and MS-licensed RE lawyer claims that no disclosure of the PM taking any cut is necessary - as long as the principal is told the job’s total ahead of time, and agrees.I have no idea where this lawyer happened to find any annotation like that for 62-12-312 - I did not, at least not in Westlaw at my law library.And this “industry standard” (attorney’s words) appears to be in serious conflict with the actual law, as far as my non-lawyer reading of it goes:“(b) The commission shall have the power to refuse a license for cause or to suspend or revoke a license where it has been obtained by false representation or by fraudulent act or conduct, or where a licensee, in performing or attempting to perform any of the acts mentioned herein, is found guilty of:(17) Paying or accepting, giving or charging any undisclosed commission, rebate, compensation or profit or expenditures for a principal or in violation of this chapter;…”Literally right there: “… accepting or charging any UNDISCLOSED commission, rebate, compensation or profit or expenditures for a principal.”But it may not end there:If you add to the above circumstances that the principal began to suspect this (undisclosed) practice and asked the PM whether it engages in up-charging/marking up vendor invoices - and the PM denied it - and they continued to do business as before after that denial… until the principal obtained evidence, which only then forced the PM to admit the practice, somewhere in there a “mere” TREC violation seemingly becomes: “An intentional deception or misrepresentation made by a person with the knowledge that the deception could result in some unauthorized benefit to himself or some other person…” Commonly known as fraud, a crime.But I am not a lawyer.

In practice, they tend to:Anchor heavily to in-place NOIGive partial, not full, credit for projected rent increasesRequire clear evidence that the higher NOI is achievable and sustainableDeferred maintenance and condition usually show up through adjustments or effective NOI assumptions rather than a big swing in cap rate.

It is common practice for mortgage companies to later sell the already funded loan to a 3rd party like a hedge fund or a bank after the fact.

In practice, lenders are underwriting whether the sponsor can manage timing risk, liquidity and downside scenarios long before pricing or leverage become decisive.

Didn't know their business practices aren't up to par...

That’s not how most first deals actually operate, especially SubTo where the margin is in control + time, not instant yield.You’re double-counting downside.CapEx + repairs at full tilt simultaneously is rare on a 2006 brick house unless you know something the comps don’t.

In California, this is unfortunately not a gray area, and the tenant’s threat has real leverage.Here is the clean, practical breakdown.1.