My wife and I are selling a house worth $230k-$260k. Its a rental. Should we use an agent, limited service listing agent, or FSBO?
The answers you'll receive are going to be largely subjective. I can't tell you which option would be best for you, but there are plenty of things to consider.  Do you know how to sell a home? If your market is hot enough, FSBO may make sense as you won't need the marketing power and expertise of an agent. In very hot markets, you'll end up with potential bidding wars if you price your house correctly. But that's where things start getting tricky. Do you know what your house is realistically worth in your market, or are you making assumptions based on Zillow (or similar)? Do you know what paper work is needed to complete a FSBO sale? Are you any good at negotiating? There are certainly plenty of resources out there for FSBO sellers to learn how to do it, but it can be overwhelming.  FSBO isn't really fee free. If the buyer has an agent, they'll want a percentage (3%) for setting up their part of the sale. Without experience in negotiation, you may be leaving a decent amount of money on the table. Also, in negotiations, an experienced agent may nickel & dime you with contingencies all the way up until closing. Then there's anything you might need to pay for marketing materials and time off from work (if needed) to have the house shown. However, if you're in a market where people are literally walking up to your door to ask if you'd consider selling and for how much (which just happened to a friend of mine), then it might actually be a pretty painless process.  Traditional agents charge a fee, but that fee goes towards marketing and their experience in sales and negotiations. They do the work of getting your property in front of the right people and setting up house showings. The work is done on your behalf, and you won't need to alter your personal work schedule anywhere near as much as you would with FSBO. They only get paid if the house sells. Limited service agents are a bit of an unknown to me, but it's more than likely the buyer will have an agent, so assume the higher fee. It also appears that the LSA gets paid at least $500 no matter what happens, so they're certainly not putting in any extra effort to help get your house sold. It appears that you're simply paying to get on their list of homes and get some marketing from them, but that's about it. I'd imagine you could get the same exposure as a well educated FSBO seller.
I assume by not-so-good prospects you mean small account clients whose revenue will not justify the time required to close a deal and/or post-sale service.  Glad to see you are being realistic about the value of your time vs. what a prospect is paying.    A big part of your practice is going to come down to what infrastructure/processes your dealer firm or back office support has.  Is yours one with a formal small account policy that assigns servicing to a centralized service center (aka call center)?    I've also seen others separate direct at fund vs held in-house (omnibus) based on client assets.  Small accounts go direct to at fund and are directed to the mutual fund transfer agent for post-sale servicing needs.  The up-front sales charge compensates for the initial consultation and the rest is self-servicing / support by the fund transfer agent. Even after the real estate crash, there are banks that lend money outside of the rules I'll share.  A fully qualified mortgage is typically run at debt to income ratios of 28/36, where 28% of your gross monthly income can apply to the mortgage, property tax, and insurance, and the 36% is the total monthly debt (including the mortgage, etc) plus car loan student loan, etc. It's less about the total loan on the potential than about these ratios. The bank may allow for 75% of monthly rent so until rentals are running at a profit, they may seem a loss, even while just breaking even.  This is just an overview, each bank may vary a bit. "If you're losing money or breaking even, you own a bad investment.  The problem you have is that you are emotionally invested in your tenant. That isn't a bad thing in general but it's costing you money and, unless interest rates fall enough to justify a refi or property taxes go down in your area, that's kind of unlikely to change.  Option #1 - Tell your wife that you are willing to accept a loss up to a certain level because of your long term relationship with your tenant. In a perfect world, the two of you would then discuss what the ""magic number"" would be where you got out and come to a compromise. For example, if you are comfortable losing up to $3,000 per year and she is unhappy with any loss, you may agree on selling the house when your losses climb to $1,500. In a less perfect world, it would cause an argument as she has already told you what she wants you to do.  Option #2 - Raise the rent to the break even point. From what you've said, this will likely result in the loss of your tenant but you could then rent to someone else for significantly more.  Option #3 - Sell the house. It's an investment property which means it's supposed to make money for you. It can do that very quickly by way of a sale and then it's no longer your problem. Option #4 - Sell the house to your tenant. You bought it for $50,000 and it's currently worth $150,000 (roughly). The problem you face is that property taxes have gone up and caused your mortgage to increase past your tenants ability to pay. My guess is, after 15 years, your payoff is somewhere in the high $20's to mid 30's assuming you got a 30 year loan and haven't refinanced. If you sell to her for say $75,000 (or even up to $90,000) you will still make a profit (wife is happy), she will get a mortgage she can afford and be able to stay in the house (you and the tenant are happy). Added bonus is that her property taxes would be lower (assuming a different rate for investment property in your area). I would discuss this at length with your wife as well before making such an offer.  Option #5 - Get a property management company. As mentioned above, they will keep a percentage but will remove your emotions from the equation altogether and turn the situation into a winner.  I don't know if your wife is right in saying you don't have the stomach for this, but I do think your heart is getting in the way in this particular situation. I get the feeling that if your tenant was 25 years old and had only been renting from you since last October, you would have no problem raising the rent to market levels at every renewal." Great question, but I'm thinking you'll want to get a professional who can look at your specific situation and do it right.  I wouldn't go solely on advice here.  Having said that, though, my decidedly non-professional advice: The other alternative is to take a bit of a profit hit, and demand that the seller pay cash.  Then the transaction becomes much easier and quicker. But again, I urge you to have a pro look at this! You don't have to use an agent (broker, as you call it), but it is strongly advised. In some counties lawyers are required, in some not. Check your local requirements. Similarly the escrow companies that usually deal with recording and disbursing of money. You will probably not be able to get a title insurance without using an escrow service (I'm guessing here, but it makes sense to me). You will not be able to secure financing through a bank or a mortgage broker without an escrow company, and it might be hard without an agent. Agents required by law to know all the details of the process, and they can guide you through what to do and what to look into. They have experience reading and understanding the inspection reports, they know what to demand from the seller (disclosures, information, etc), they know how and from where to get the HOA docs and disclosures, and can help you negotiate the price knowing the market information (comparable sales, comparable listings, list vs sales statistics, etc). It is hard to do all that alone, but if you do - you should definitely get a discount over the market price of the property of about 5% (the agents' fees are up to 5% mostly). I bought several properties in California and in other states, and I wouldn't do it without an agent on my side. But if you trust the other side entirely and willing to take the risk of missing a step and having problems later with title, mortgage, insurance or resale, then you can definitely save some money and do it without an agent, and there are people doing that. After a 6% commission to sell, you have $80K in equity. 20% down on a $400K house.  5% down will likely cost you PMI, and I don't know that you'll ever see a 3.14% rate.  The realtor may very well have knowledge of the cost to finish a basement, but I don't ask my doctor for tax advice, and I'd not ask a realtor for construction advice. My basement flooring was $20/sqft for a gym quality rubber tile. You can also get $2/sqft carpet. I'd take the $15K number with a grain of salt until I got real bids. What's there now? Poured cement? Is there clearance to put in a proper subfloor and still have adequate ceiling height? There are a lot of details that you need to research to do it right.  That said, the move to a bigger house impacts your ability to save to the extent that you are taking too large a risk. The basement finish, even if $20K, is just a bit more than the commission on your home. I like the idea of sticking it out. Once the nanny is gone, enjoy the extra income, and use the money to boost your savings and emergency funds.  As I read your question again, I suggest you cut the college funding in favor of the emergency fund. What good is a funded college account if you have no funds to sustain you through a period of unemployment?  There's a lot to be gained in holding tight for these 3 years. It seems that what's too small for 5 would be spacious once the nanny is gone and the basement added. The cost of a too-big house is enormous over the long run. It's going to rise in value with inflation, but no more, and has all the added costs that you've mentioned. On a personal note, I'm in a large house, with a dining room that's used 2 or 3 times a year, and a living room (different from family room) that is my dog's refuge, but we never go in there. In hindsight, a house 2/3 the size would have been ideal.   Finishing the basement doesn't just buy you time, it eliminates the need for the larger house. You and your husband are fronting all the money upfront. I'm guessing this will cost you around 67,000 once closing costs and fees are included. So obviously you would be hundred percent owners at the beginning. You'll then pay 31% of the mortgage and have your sister pay the remaining 69%. This puts your total investment at the end at 67k + 74.4k + 31% of interest accrued, and your sisters total investment at 165.6k+69% of interest accrued. If you hold the full length of the mortgage, your sister will have invested much more than you( assuming 30 year fixed rate, and 3.75%, she'd pay 116.6k in interest as opposed to your 49.6k) She will have spent 282.2k and y'all will have spent 191k. However if you sell early, your percentage could be much higher.  These calculations don't take into account the opportunity cost of fronting all the cash. It could be earning you more in the stock market or in a different investment property. Liability also could be an issue in the case of her not being able to pay. The bank can still come after you for the whole amount. Lastly and most importantly, this also doesn't include the fact that she will be living there and y'all will not. What kind of rent would she be paying to live in a similar home? If it is more than 1400, you will basically be subsidizing her living, as well as tying up funds, and increasing your risk exposure. If it is more than 1400, she shouldn't be any percent owner. For what its worth, I recently closed on a 30 year refinance mortage with an agent I found through Zillow.  The lender has a perfect 5/5 reputation score, whose office was located within 5 miles of my house, and as suggested by justkt on MrChrister's response, I checked out the business on the better business bureau and its online presence prior to going forward with the bank. The process was relatively painless, and the APR and closing costs were less than my previous loan with a federal credit union which I've used in the past.  I can't say if the bank I'll be using going forward is as good as the one I've used in the past, but overall I'm quite happy with it. I never met the individual in person but this saved both of us a fair amount of time honestly. Sales are useless. Profit determines value.  Others made good suggestions, but make sure you don't personally guarantee anthing.  Understand your requirements to continue having the investor involved. Understand who has approval authority and decision making authority, ie are you a hired gun or the managing owner?  Finally, probability of success is low, so do your homework, bust your ass, and understand when you will wall away (ie if you aren't profitable in 3 years, or below $500k in rev, etc) "Your agent doesn't understand what ""willing to sell"" means in the housing big market.  Willing to sell doesn't mean they can wait forever to sell. It used to be these people were moving so they had to sell their house. Now the people who own houses don't need to sell it because they can just sit around and rent it to someone.   If people are unwilling to list the house they are unwilling to sell the house." If there are a lot of houses for sale, can you be sure that in a year or two you can sell yours? How long does the average house in that area stay on the market before it is sold? What percentage of houses never get sold?  If it can't be sold due to the crowded market you will be forced to rent the house. The question for you then is how much rental income can you get? Compare the rental income to your monthly cost of owning, and managing the house.  One benefit to buying a house in a market that is easy to rent a house would be if you are forced to move quickly, then you aren't stuck being 3 months into a 12 month lease.  Keep in mind that markets can change rather dramatically in just a few years. Housing costs were flat for much of the 90's, then rocketed up in the first half of the last decade, and after a big drop, they are one a slow climb back up. But the actual path they are on depends on the part of the US you are in.  The rule of thumb in the past was based on the fact that over a few years the price would rise enough overcome the closing costs on the two transactions. Unfortunately the slow growth in the 90's meant that many had to bring checks to closing because the equity gained wasn't enough to overcome the closing costs due to low down payment loans.   The fast growth period meant that people got into exotic loans to maximize the potential income when prices were going up 10-20% a year.  When prices dropped some found that they bought houses they couldn't afford, but couldn't sell to break even on the transaction. They were stuck and had to default on the mortgage.  In fact I have never seen a time frame when the rule of thumb ever applied. Because it appears you have in the neighborhood of 30 years remianing on your mortgage for the first house, If you can sell it you will likely be better off in the end.  While renting has the potential for greater income it is a business.  And like any business there are risks, expenses, and work required to make it successful.  There will be times where you can not find a renter immediately and will be responsible for making both payments, maintaining both houses, the insurance(which for an owner is higher for a rental property than a domicile), and paying the applicable taxes.   You need to look at your best and worst case numbers.  If your best case numbers leave you in the hole 300/month then that is not the sort of business you want to run.  Your investment should build your savings and retirement funds not deplete them.  Further you are more likely to fall between your best and worst case scenerios.  So you need to be able to thrive at that level.  If something in the middle is going to take you into bankruptcy then sell the property.  If you are not willing to put the time into your business that it will need (My rental home took about 10-30 hours a month despite renters being responsible for basic upkeep and maintenance.   Finally your plan B:  A home with 800k value will have higher costs and higer expenses and maintenance.  If the 800k home is the home you and your family needs then by all means go for it.  But if it can do just as well in the 450k Home then go there.  Pay the home off early by making the payments you would be making for the 800k home.  In this way you pay less in total cost of the home and set your self up for the greatest chance of success.  Once that home is paid off the break even point for renting goes way down as well.  So the rental option could be in the future.  I would just aviod it now if possible. For example: do I need a realtor, or can I do their job myself? In general in the United States the real estate agent fee is paid by the seller of the property. Their agent will be more than happy keep the entire fee if they don't have to split it with your agent.  If you don't have an agent you will be missing somebody who can help you find the property that meets your needs. They can also help explain what the different parts of the contract mean and give you advice regarding making an offer. Do I need to pay for an inspection, or am I likely to save enough   money from skipping it to cover potential problems that they would   have caught? Inspections are optional. Though the amount you are risking is the entire value of the purchase. If the property has a problem in the foundation, or the septic system, or the plumbing or electrical the cost to fix the issue could render the purchase not worth doing. If you discover the problem a year later and you have to repair the house and have to find temporary housing for a few months, you will regret skipping the inspection. What are some of the ways I can cut expenses on closing costs? Is   there any low-hanging fruit? You need to do your homework. When you are ready to purchase a property take good look at the good faith estimate and look at each item.  Ask them what the expense covers. Push back against those that seem optional or excessive. Keep in mind that moving the closing date from the end of a month to the start of the next month only changes the timing those charges, it doesn't really save you money. Rolling the costs into the loan sound easy but you have to think about. It means that you will be paying interest on those charges for the life of the loan. It is good that you are starting to think about all the costs. Having just gone through this process as a buyer via broker in Israel, here are my thoughts: Tl;dr: An incentive such as you are suggesting would not be particularly helpful. In this case, your best option is to spend your efforts shopping for a broker that you can trust. The rest: Your main concern is that the broker will find you a place at the top of your budget and will not negotiate aggressively. The main person responsible for negotiation is YOU. You are paying for the property, and you are putting in bids: not your agent. The agent should advise you, but in the end should pass along your bids directly. The real problem is that you, as the buyer, generally do not have as close a feel for the pulse of the market as the broker, who should be quite aware of recent closings in the neighborhood. Therefore, there are a few things that you can do to help arm yourself: At the end of the day, if you have decided to use a broker, you are making a large financial commitment to hire someone to find you the best place, and therefore it may be more important at this point to spend your efforts shopping around for the best broker, rather than trying to figure out how to outsmart her. You are correct: buyers' agents DO have incentives to sell you on places that may not be right or good for you. For example: Although your scheme may help a bit with the first concern, it will not help at all with the other two, which I assume to be much more likely problems in any event. Instead, find recommendations for brokers from others. Have the broker show you a few properties and put in some low bids to get a feel for how she handles them. Discuss the properties together and try to assess if they really have your interests in mind. You are paying a lot for their service, and you should make sure, as much as possible, that they really are working honestly and in your best interest. A good broker who knows his market and is trying to help you can be a great asset in the opaque, cutthroat real estate market. הבל הבלים, הכל הבל. סוף דבר הכל נשמע, את האלוהים יירא ואת מצוותיו שמור כי זה כל האדם. Good luck! "First of all, never ask a realtor for advice. The realtor represents the SELLER. Blankip's advice above is by far the most accurate of the previous answers. The first step is to estimate the market. Look at past sales in the neighborhood over time, and from them estimate the prospects for the house at different time durations. Based on other sales, how fast do you think the house will sell at a given price? 60 days, 90 days, a year? If a house is high priced, that means the seller is prepared to wait. He is saying ""I am happy to wait a year to find somebody who will pay this."" Next, who is the owner? Young professional? Retiring couple? Landlord? Flipper? Who is it? The more you know about the owner, the better. Everybody has a time table, you need to find out what that is. Next, what is YOUR timetable? You need the house by the end of the month, or by the end of the year, or never, which is it? Objectively rate the house. Plusses and minuses. Good houses are those which everybody else hates and you love. You will get the best price there. (Assuming you need to find a house in 90 days) Based on these considerations determine the lowest price you think the owner will accept in a 30-day time frame. Make a written offer with an address and email, no phone number. If he comes back with a counter offer, ignore it. If for some reason a realtor has your number and calls you, tell them ""My written offer speaks for itself. I have nothing further to say."" It is very important not to entertain haggling or counter offers. Don't even pick up the phone. He has your WRITTEN offer. He can email or write you: I accept.  If the 30-days elapse, move onto your #2 choice and make a more aggressive offer. If that doesn't work, go to choice #3 and accept the listed price. This strategy may seem counter-intuitive because the natural tendency for people is to want to communicate. Trust me: the way to succeed in a negotiation is to NOT communicate. Make your offer and that is that. That is the pro way to do it, and will produce the best result for a short-term situtation. Long term situation If you are an investor (""flipper""), or have a lot of time to wait/spend, you can use a different strategy which involves pressuring the seller. What you do here is find a property you want in which the owner is vulnerable. That means someone who is old, bankrupt, out of work, indicted and on their way to prison or already in prison, etc. Bank owned properties fall into this category. In this case you figure out the 6-month price or however long you are willing to work on it. Then you pester the person. Become their buddy. Visit them in prison. Take the bank officer to lunch. Show up on holidays. Invite them to Thanksgiving. Start a relationship. Every two weeks you pester them. Want to sell yet? Want to sell yet? You basically harass them until they capitulate. Maybe it takes 6 months. Maybe it takes 2 years. Eventually they will give in. By this means you can get a much better deal than in strategy 1 above, but it takes a lot more time and effort and is appropriate more for an investor."