How do you go about buying a house directly from an owner? I.e. no broker involved?
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.
Mostly ditto Pete B's answer. There's little you can do about closing costs. Some closing costs are government fees. There's nothing you can do about this. Sad and unfair as it is, taxes are not optional and not generally negotiable. Title insurance and fire insurance are required by the lender. Even if you're paying cash, you don't really want to skip on these. If your house burns down and you have no insurance ... well, if you're worried about saving a few hundred on your closing costs, I assume that losing $200,000 because your house burned down and you have no insurance would be a pretty bad thing. Title insurance protects you against the possibility that the seller doesn't really legally own the property, maybe a scam, more likely a mistake or a technicality. You can, and certainly should, shop around for a better deal on insurance. Last couple of housing transactions I made, title insurance was a one-time fee of around $200. (I'm sure this depends on the cost of the house, where you live, maybe other factors.) Maybe by shopping around I could have saved $10 or $20, but I doubt there's someone out there charging $50 when everyone else is charging $200. Fire insurance you're probably paying a couple of thousand a year, more opportunity for savings. Typically the buyer and the seller each have a realtor and they split the fee. If you go without a realtor but the seller hires one, she'll keep the entire fee. So the only way to avoid this expense is if neither of you has a realtor. I've never done that. Realtors cost a ton of money but they provide a useful service: not only helping you find a house but also knowing how to deal with all the paperwork. Plenty of people do it, though. I presume they get the title agency or the bank or somebody to help with the paperwork. There are also discount realtors out there who don't show your home, do little or nothing to market it, basically just help you with the paperwork, and then charge a very low fee. Timing closing for a certain day of the month can reduce what you owe at closing time -- by reducing the amount of interest you pay on the first month's loan payment -- but it doesn't save you any money. You'll make it up over the course of the loan. You might possibly save some money by timing closing around when property taxes are due. Theoretically this shouldn't matter: the theory is that they pro-rate property taxes between buyer and seller so each pays the taxes for the time when they own the house. So again, you might need less cash at closing but you'll make it up the next time property taxes are due. But the formulas the banks use on this are often goofy. Maybe if you live some place with high property taxes this is worth investigating. You could skip the inspection. But inspections I've had done generally cost about $500. If they found something that was a major issue, they might save you from buying a house that would cost tens of thousands in repairs. Or less dramatically, you can use the inspection report for leverage with the seller to get repairs done at the seller's expense. I once had an inspector report problems with the roof and so I negotiated with the seller that they would pay for a percentage of roof repair. I suppose if you're buying a house that you know is run down and will require major work, an inspection might be superfluous. Or if you know enough about construction that you can do an inspection yourself. Otherwise, it's like not buying insurance: sure, you save a little up front, but you're taking a huge risk. So what can you control? (a) Shop around for fire insurance. Maybe save hundreds of dollars. (b) Find a seller who's not using a realtor and then you don't use a realtor either. Save big bucks, 6 to 7% in my area, but you then have to figure out how to do all the paperwork yourself and you severely limit your buying options as most sellers DO use a realtor. Besides that, there's not much you can do. I think  the cleanest way to do this is to rent the house from your father for 2 years, possibly adding an option to buy at a set price to the lease agreement.  That takes care of any gift issues, and avoids complications like you living in a house that you couldn't afford to own otherwise.  If/when you are able to afford a mortgage, get a mortgage on the house and buy it from your father.   Will a bank be willing to take out a mortgage on a house that I technically own for the full amount? I would not take out a mortgage for anything more than 80% of the house's market value.  Anything more than that, and you need to pay mortgage insurance, which will increase your monthly payment for no benefit to you.   My biggest concern is that you won't be able to afford an 80% mortgage after 2 years.  If your father really wants to keep the house in the family then he should either keep the house and rent it to you, or give you the down payment as a gift (keeping under the maximum gift to avoid taxes). If neither you or your father cannot afford the house you may have no choice but to sell it.  I would not advise you make a bad financial decision purely for sentimental reasons. "You've laid out several workable options.  You might try going to mortgage broker and looking at what offers you get each way.  I can say that it sounds like your partner will have a difficult time qualifying for a mortgage.  That puts you on the first and third options. Forget about ""building equity.""  You cannot rely on the house you're living in to provide a return on investment.  Housing is an expense, even if you own it outright.  Keep that in mind when you consider taking from the stream of money contributing to your retirement. This link is to a blog which really clarifies the ""rent vs. own, which is better?"" question.  The answer is, it depends on the individual and the location, and the blogger in the link explains how to answer that question for your situation.  One of the key advantages of ownership is that it gives you freedom to modify the interior, exterior, and grounds (limited by local building codes of course.)" For a real estate transaction there are multiple stages: From the sellers viewpoint: From the buyers viewpoint: If both parties are comfortable skipping some of the steps the role of the agent can be minimized. How will a fair price be determined? Some realism might be needed, to make sure that the loan appraisal will not be a problem. Will an inspection still be needed? What warranty will exist if the A/C dies this summer?  If you still want help from an agent one should be able to help for far less than the normal commission. The seller normally interviews three agents before selecting one, do the same in this situation. Ask how much they would charge for a sale between friends. They can complete their task in just a couple of hours. If the home inspection comes back relatively clean, the transaction should be very easy. The paperwork is the biggest hurdle. You should jointly identify a local settlement company. They will be the ones actually filing the paperwork. They have lawyers. They will check the county records office for existing liens, plats, mortgages and address all the issues. They can send the proper paperwork to the existing mortgage companies and arrange for mortgage insurance. The cost will be the same regardless of the presence of real estate agents and other lawyers.  When they say a lawyer is required, it is only because of the paperwork. I've done this, but on the other side.  I purchased a commercial property from someone I had a previous relationship with.  A traditional bank wouldn't loan me the money, but the owner was willing to finance it.  All of the payments went through a professional escrow company.  In our case it was a company called Westar, but I'm sure there are plenty out here. They basically serve as the middle-man, for a fee (something like $5 a payment, plus something to set it up).  They have the terms of the loan, and keep track of balances, can handle extra principle payments and what that does to the term of the loan, etc.   You want to have a typical mortgage note that is recorded with the local clerk's office.  If you look around, you should be able to find a real estate lawyer who can set all this up for you.  It will cost you a bit up front, but it is worth it to do this right. As far as taxes, my understanding is that the property itself is taxed the same as any other property transfer.  You would owe taxes on the difference between the value of the property when you inherited it and when you sold it.  The interest you get from the loan would be taxed as regular income.  The escrow company should send you tax forms every year listing the amount of interest that you received.  There are also deductions you can take for expenses in the process. If you really want to help your friend buy a house, make a counter-offer to buy the house yourself and lease it to your friend, with the option to buy for original purchase cost, plus all interest paid so far to the bank, plus closing costs and other expenses incurred by you, minus payments made so far by the friend. Otherwise, just no. The other answers already detail why. 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. "The easiest way to find a buyer should be to ask the company to connect you to some of their other shareholders. I imagine they are much more likely to take those shares off you than a random investor on the street. Otherwise, well, talk to people. At a golf club, maybe? :) Valuation is not going to be very straightforward. Basically you'll get whatever someone is willing to pay. That's what FMV means when there's no real ""market"". Realistically, the price is mainly going to be based on divididend history and the company's assets, discounted for risk and liquidity (you're currently feeling the reason for the latter discount)." While I agree with the existing bulk of comments and answers that you can't tell the lender the $7k is a gift, I do think you might have luck finding a mortgage broker who can help you get a loan as a group.  (You might consider as an LLC or other form of corporation if no one will take you otherwise.)  That is, each of you will be an owner of the house and appear on the mortgage.  IIRC, as long as the downpayment only comes from the collective group, and the income-to-debt ratio of the group as a whole is acceptable, and the strongest credit rating of the group is good, you should be able to find a loan.  (You may need a formal ownership agreement to get this accepted by the lender.)  That said, I don't know if your income will trump your brother's situation (presumably high debt ratio or lower than 100% multiplier on his income dues to its source), but it will certainly help. As to how to structure the deal for fairness, I think whatever the two of you agree to and put down in writing is fine.  If you each think you're helping the other, than a 50/50 split on profits at the sale of the property seems reasonable to me.   I'd recommend that you actually include in your write up a defined maximum period for ownership (e.g. 5yr, or 10yr, etc,) and explain how things will be resolved if one side doesn't want to sell at that point but the other side does. Just remember that whatever percentages you agree to as ownership won't effect the lender's view of payment requirements.  The lender will consider each member of the group fully and independently responsible for the loan.  That is, if something happens to your brother, or he just flakes out on you, you will be on the hook for 100% of the loan.  And vice-versa.  Your write up ought to document what happens if one of you flakes out on paying agreed upon amounts, but still expects there ownership share at the time of sale. That said, if you're trying to be mathematically fair about apportioning ownership, you could do something like the below to try and factor in the various issues into the money flow: The above has the benefit that you can start with a different ownership split (34/66, 25/75, etc.) if one of you wants to own more of the property. "Not sure why the downvote - seems like a fair question to me. Who owns a house and in what proportions can be totally separate from who is named on the mortgage.  There are two ways to do this - one way would be for you loan them the money  first under a separate contract, which you should have a solicitor draw up; then they buy the house themselves. The contract would state the terms for repayment of the loan, which could be e.g. no repayment due until the sale of the house at which point the original amount is returned plus interest equivalent to the growth in value of the house between purchase and sale (or whatever). You'd need to be clear about what happened if the house lost value or they ended up in a negative equity situation. The other option is where you are directly a party to the purchase of the house and are named as part owners on the deeds. Again the solicitor who is handling the house purchase for them would help with the paperwork. In either case you would need to clear this arrangement with the mortgage company to make sure they were OK with it.  To answer your specific questions in order: - Yes, they would still be eligible for the Help To Buy ISAs (assuming that is what you are referring to) even though you would not be - I'm not sure what ""penalty"" you are referring to. You'd have to pay tax on any income or capital gain you made from the deal. - No-one can say whether this is a good deal for you without knowing a great deal more about your individual circumstances (and even then, any such advice you would get on here is worth as much as you pay for it.... if in doubt, consult an IFA.)" My question is, how do you rebuild a home, without the money to rebuild the home? I ignorantly thought that was why we paid for insurance. The reason that you have insurance is so as to keep the mortgage lender from losing money.  That's why you buy the insurance through the mortgage lender and they get paid.  Without the insurance, you'd have no home but still have a mortgage.  You'd either have to pay off a mortgage with no house or have to declare bankruptcy to shed the mortgage.   You essentially have two paths.  If you (or the builder/suppliers) can afford to float the cost, you can rebuild the original house.  You'll eventually get the $161,000 and can pay off the builder and suppliers.  This may involve taking out a construction mortgage to refinance the original mortgage.  Presumably the construction mortgage would be with a different lender.   The other path is that you can sell the existing property as is, and use the insurance and proceeds to pay off the existing mortgage.  Then you'd have no house and no mortgage.  You start over and buy a house with a mortgage.   It's possible that your insurance payoff isn't enough to pursue either path.  Then your option is to get the insurer to make a bigger payoff.  This may involve suing them.  Note that you may be able to talk the government into suing the insurer for you.  They do have regulators who can review things.  If you can't get government action, there are lawyers who will do the suing and take their fees out of their winnings. "There are loans. Usually they're secured by the assets, and you also cosign them personally. Your own credit worthiness comes to play, your own assets are in jeopardy. As to what it is that you're buying - no, it is not necessary for the seller to sell you the building. You might buy the business, but not the actual space it occupies. In fact, the space may not even belong to the seller. You may find yourself taking over the lease, which is in fact a liability, not an asset. You should agree with the seller on what exactly it is that you're buying. You should ask for a full inventory list that would include all the assets and the liabilities that would be transferred to you. Lease, as mentioned, but you might also ""buy"" loans, debts, lawsuits, and god knows what else that is attached to the business." In theory you can buy shares directly from someone else who owns them. In practise, if the stock is listed on an exchange, they are unlikely to own them directly, they are likely to own them through an intermediary. You will have to pay fees to that intermediary to transfer the shares to your name. There are thousands of small companies owned by the guy who started it and a few other investors. You can buy stock in that kind of company directly from the existing owners, as long as they are willing to sell you some. It's a super-high risk investment strategy, though. This is the kind of deal that happens on Dragons Den. What options do I have? Realistically?  Get a regular full time job.  Work at it for a year or so and then see about buying a house. That said, I recently purchased a decent home.  I am self-employed and my income is highly erratic.  Due to how my clients pay me, my business might go a couple months with absolutely no deposits.   However, I've been at this for quite a few years.  So, even though my business income is erratic, I pay myself regularly once a month.  In order to close the deal with the mortgage company I had to provide 5 years worth of statements on my business AND my personal bank accounts.  Also I had about a 30% down payment.   This gave the bank enough info to realize that I could absolutely make the payments and we closed the deal. I'd say that if you have little to no actual financial history, don't have a solid personal income and don't have much of a down payment then you probably have no business buying a house at this point.  The first time something goes wrong (water heater, ac, etc) you'll be in a world of trouble. "First off; I don't know of the nature of the interpersonal relationship between you and your roommate, and I don't really care, but I will say that your use of that term was a red flag to me, and it will be so to a bank; buying a home is a big deal that you normally do not undertake with just a ""friend"" or ""roommate"". ""Spouses"", ""business partners"", ""domestic partners"" etc are the types of people that go in together on a home purchase, not ""roommates"". Going ""halvsies"" on a house is not something that's easily contracted; you can't take out two primary mortgages for half the house's value each, because you can't split the house in half, so if one of you defaults that bank takes the house leaving both the other person and their bank in the lurch. Co-signing on one mortgage is possible but then you tie your credit histories together; if one of you can't make their half of the mortgage, both of you can be pursued for the full amount and both of you will see your credit tank. That's not as big a problem for two people joined in some other way (marriage/family ties) but for two ""friends"" there's just way too much risk involved. Second, I don't know what it's like in your market, but when I was buying my first house I learned very quickly that extended haggling is not really tolerated in the housing market. You're not bidding on some trade good the guy bought wholesale for fifty cents and is charging you $10 for; the seller MIGHT be breaking even on this thing. An offer that comes in low is more likely to be rejected outright as frivolous than to be countered. It's a fine line; if you offer a few hundred less than list the seller will think you're nitpicking and stay firm, while if you offer significantly less, the seller may be unable to accept that price because it means he no longer has the cash to close on his new home. REOs and bank-owned properties are often sold at a concrete asking price; the bank will not even respond to anything less, and usually will not even agree to eat closing costs. Even if it's for sale by owner, the owner may be in trouble on their own mortgage, and if they agree to a short sale and the bank gets wind (it's trivial to match a list of distressed mortgaged properties with the MLS listings), the bank can swoop in, foreclose the mortgage, take the property and kill the deal (they're the primary lienholder; you don't ""own"" your house until it's paid for), and then everybody loses. Third, housing prices in this economy, depending on market, are pretty depressed and have been for years; if you're selling right now, you are almost certainly losing thousands of dollars in cash and/or equity. Despite that, sellers, in listing their home, must offer an attractive price for the market, and so they are in the unenviable position of pricing based on what they can afford to lose. That again often means that even a seller who isn't a bank and isn't in mortgage trouble may still be losing thousands on the deal and is firm on the asking price to staunch the bleeding. Your agent can see the signs of a seller backed against a wall, and again in order for your offer to be considered in such a situation it has to be damn close to list. As far as your agent trying to talk you into offering the asking price, there's honestly not much in it for him to tell you to bid higher vs lower. A $10,000 change in price (which can easily make or break a deal) is only worth $300 to him either way. There is, on the other hand, a huge incentive for him to close the deal at any price that's in the ballpark: whether it's $365k or $375k, he's taking home around $11k in commission, so he's going to recommend an offer that will be seriously considered (from the previous points, that's going to be the asking price right now). The agent's exact motivations for advising you to offer list depend on the exact circumstances, typically centering around the time the house has been on the market and the offer history, which he has access to via his fellow agents and the MLS. The house may have just had a price drop that brings it below comparables, meaning the asking price is a great deal and will attract other offers, meaning you need to move fast. The house may have been offered on at a lower price which the seller is considering (not accepted not rejected), meaning an offer at list price will get you the house, again if you move fast. Or, the house may have been on the market for a while without a price drop, meaning the seller can go no lower but is desperate, again meaning an offer at list will get you the house. Here's a tip: virtually all offers include a ""buyer's option"". For a negotiated price (typically very small, like $100), from the moment the offer is accepted until a particular time thereafter (one week, two weeks, etc) you can say no at any time, for any reason. During this time period, you get a home inspection, and have a guy you trust look at the bones of the house, check the basic systems, and look for things that are wrong that will be expensive to fix. Never make an offer without this option written in. If your agent says to forego the option, fire him. If the seller wants you to strike the option clause, refuse, and that should be a HUGE red flag that you should rescind the offer entirely; the seller is likely trying to get rid of a house with serious issues and doesn't want a competent inspector telling you to lace up your running shoes. Another tip: depending on the pricepoint, the seller may be expecting to pay closing costs. Those are traditionally the buyer's responsibility along with the buyer's agent commission, but in the current economy, in the pricepoint for your market that attracts ""first-time homebuyers"", sellers are virtually expected to pay both of those buyer costs, because they're attracting buyers who can just barely scrape the down payment together. $375k in my home region (DFW) is a bit high to expect such a concession for that reason (usually those types of offers come in for homes at around the $100-$150k range here), but in the overall market conditions, you have a good chance of getting the seller to accept that concession if you pay list. But, that is usually an offer made up front, not a weapon kept in reserve, so I would have expected your agent to recommend that combined offer up front; list price and seller pays closing. If you offer at list you don't expect a counter, so you wouldn't keep closing costs as a card to play in that situation."