Our methodology
Our editorial standards exist to make this publication citable and trustworthy. Here is how we source, verify, and maintain what we publish.
Our data
Our analysis is grounded in a proprietary broker dataset. Based on 110 originated Estimated Term Sheets and 77 approved Scope of Work budgets across 14 states and 22 lenders, 2022–2026, our editorial team surfaces the patterns behind real investor-loan outcomes. Our lending network spans 90+ private lenders across 34 US states.
What the data shows
Aggregate, pattern-level findings we publish include: roughly 46% of fix-and-flip scopes follow a skeleton of kitchen, bath, flooring, paint, and contingency; about 58% of approved budgets carried $0 permit line items; the median contingency is around 4.8%; and rehab cost intensity varies widely by state — from a ~$36/sqft median in South Carolina to ~$75/sqft in Pennsylvania. We publish patterns only — never a named borrower, a named lender, or an individual deal.
How we fact-check
Decision-driving figures trace to a source before we publish them. Market data carries its vintage. When our own analysis diverges from a third-party reference we cannot reconcile, we surface the divergence rather than pick a side.
Updates and corrections
We review high-value pages on a recurring cadence and update them as programs, rates, and market data move. Corrections are made in place.
Our compliance perimeter
Everything here concerns business-purpose loans on non-owner-occupied investment property. We do not publish rate quotes, eligibility decisions, or adverse-action language, and nothing on this site is an offer of credit.