When calculating feasibility for a development site, why are the holding costs for the first 12 months not included? The answer I have received when I asked someone was that the property is held as a regular negatively geared property until ready to bulldoze and only then does the property become a development site. I then asked for further feasibility reports to include holding costs for the first 12 months, to which the response was no, as the profit would be watered down to a point where I will 'never do a deal.' Needless to say, this person already has my BA fee (which was not included in their 'acquisition costs' on the feasibility report until I requested it, nor were their project management fees included in the costs until requested). I'm pushing pretty hard for a decent site by questioning every single number they put in front of me and yes they can often get defensive and make me feel stupid when I believe I am asking valid questions. EVERYBODY should question every single number put in front of them. Business is business and if a deal or calculation makes you feel uncomfortable, any investor worth their salt would encourage you to question it. Every investor knows that people choose which numbers to share to encourage the outcome they want. Just as journalists choose which information to share to encourage the hype/fear they want. Can others shed light on my above question? Is it typically the norm to 'overlook' holding costs in the first 12 months while going through council in a feasibility calculation? It seems counterintuitive to me but happy to hear other perspectives.