I saw in another thread you're at UK, we probably know some of the same people.

They got their loan and bought the house and the seller didn't have to lift a finger.It was a gamble for them but it paid off.

If you buy in those areas you are really gambling on appreciation on the back end more than cash flow growth today.

The agent may, in fact, be telling the truth and working in the buyer's best interest if the buyer doesn't want to gamble on a short sale.  

Same rules apply to your first deal as they should to gambling: only risk the amount you can afford to lose.

I worked in KC with Shaun Gamble from Veteran Home Inspection.

I don't gamble on future appreciation.

Appreciation 100% based on NOI.For a 5 year time frame I would not gamble on or rely on SFH appreciation.

Generally speaking, a primary residence shouldn't be considered an investment, as the cash flow is always going to be $0 in the best case (and if you purchased hoping for appreciation, you were just gambling).So, assuming you like your house, plan to live there long-term and it's paid off, why be concerned with the short-term valuation?

General consensus around here that I have seen is that:Buy and hold guys don't want the liability of a tenant getting sick or claiming to get sick from exposure to some area that missed treatment, or the soil in the yard if it has some unknown contamination.And flippers aren't willing to gamble that they got it waaay low enough to take the back end discount that they will need to likely take to get a end buyer to purchase.That is what I've seen pretty much every time this question has been posed in the past.