How much financial information should a buyer give an estate agent?
"My guess is they are fishing for business for their in-house finance person. In the UK, all the estate agency chains (and many of the smaller outfits) have financial advice firms they are affiliated with, often to the extent that a desk in each branch will be for 'the finance guy' (it's usually a guy). The moment you show any sign of not quite having the finances for a place you like, they will offer you a consultation with the finance guy, who ""will be able to get you a deal"". On commission, of course. What you need to say with regards to financing is (delete as applicable) ""I am a cash buyer"" / ""I have an Agreement In Principle"". And that's it. They do not 'need' to know any more, and they are under obligation to pass your offer on to the vendor." Estate agents need the amount of deposit you will put down because they want to be able to assess the viability of your mortgage plans. If you have a high deposit (or are a cash buyer) that makes you an attractive buyer, and they can use it as leverage in your favour. It may also give them an idea of whether you could afford to pay more if you found a more expensive house you really liked.
To add to ChrisInEdmonton's answer: Your conveyancing solicitor should be able to advise on the details, but a typical arrangement involves: As an alternative to the numbers in Chris' answer, it could be argued that you should first be reimbursed for the fees you paid (accounting for inflation), but that any remaining profits from the property itself should be divided in proportion to your individual investments (so 51.6% to you, and 48.4% to your partner, assuming you contribute to the loans equally). A rule of thumb I like to follow when purchasing things from CL listed well below value is this.. Assess the level of affluence of the seller. People living in poor neighborhoods are much more likely to try and hide things that would deter buyers as they are more likely to need the money. I find that when I go to a big house with 4 cars in the driveway the seller is more likely to be honest because she likely doesn't need the money from the sale.  Edit: I seem to have angered the PC police with this answer. This is based on facts and statistics, not my opinion. I have no bias against poor people. The seller has a legitimate desire to know of your preapproval. I have two current anecdotes on this issue. As a realtor helping a client buy a home, I worked closely with buyer's bank, and got a pre-approval for the amount we were offering. When there was a counteroffer, and we were going to raise the price, the bank upped the numbers on the pre-approval letter.  I have a property of my own I am trying to sell. I had a negotiated price, P&S, but no pre-approval from the buyer. The buyer of his home couldn't get a mortgage, and so far, the deal has fallen through.  I agree with you, you don't want to signal you can afford more, nor show any emotion about how great that house is. That's just giving the seller a bargaining chip. Your adviser cannot advise you if you don't tell him the whole picture. You don't have to invest everything with the adviser, you can just say that you have the cash allocation portion already invested elsewhere, and he can consider your portfolio based on that information. He works for you and you pay him for this work, why would you want him to provide a result that you know is worthless, because you didn't tell him what he needs to know? Whether applying for a job or buying a house, Offer a more specific price like $72,500, which tells them you thought hard about the price. $70K is too 'round' of a number. Additionally, your financial ability/condition can be a factor too. If you have 20% down, and your Realtor assures the seller that your transaction will go down without a hitch, and you'll be approved for a mortgage, they may accept your offer of $72,500 over the other guys $78K offer if [s]he has less desirable finances. Good Luck! Hi I am assuming you are doing this in the US?  I run a social media / content marketing agency in the UK,  Some of our very first clients were real estate agents, the idea we had was to market properties through Facebook using interior and exterior video shots to commercial music,  This took off with some estate agents and not so much with others,  My biggest piece of advice find a chain and start there that way you will get a hell of a lot of recognition by the smaller firms,  You need to find a realistic price point for your clients that is measurable on the ROI and ultimately pays for your lifestyle. I started at £200 which is $257 dollars - arguably very underpriced but it gave me the opportunity to work with a cluster of people,  I even went to the extreme of offering free work so I could get work for the portfolio!  In terms of who to contact and how to find them.. enter Linkedin.com your new best friend - connect with real estate developers, buyers, owners you name it then informally introduce yourself and ask when they are free for a coffee. Post an article about why video and drone footage is the next big thing for real estate, don't be afraid to ask for the business at the end of the day you are providing cold hard value.  I've always tried to get retainer deals with clients in the real estate sector but to achieve this you have to talk to the big boys and not independent firms. I could be wrong though I haven't done business with a lot of people in the states so definitely something to keep in mind.  A good lot of this business idea is trial and error but I agree with it 100% just go and do basically,  Hope this helps - I am happy to show you some of my work if you want to shoot me over a private message! "The real estate agent industry is a cartel.  They seek to keep fees high even as their services are becoming less and less necessary.  To that end, traditional seller's agents will laugh at your attempt to negotiate their fee.  They can do this quite simply because the industry is designed so the vast majority of people think of buyer's agents as ""free"" even when they are anything but free. That being said, the only way to do what you're trying to do is to find a buyer's agent who will rebate to you a portion of the commission they receive.  It is extremely extremely unlikely you'll get a seller's agent to play ball especially once they know you're interested.  You can check out redfin which connects people to RE agents that rebate commissions but the buyer's cut isn't that high.  Your best bet, IMO, is to contact agents in your area before you go shopping to see what kind of rebate you can negotiate with them. A word of caution, if you look at a house without your own agent, instead asking the seller's agent to show the house they will claim procuring clause and you'll be sunk.  In other words, once they claim procuring clause, you can't, later, go back and get a discount broker to get the commission to rebate to you." Here, you can get a professional recommendation approximately any most important issues and the way they may affect the belongings over time. We offer you better inspection carrier all of that, it's miles an Australia's maximum trusted employer. We will offer you and your property agent with assets to help marketplace the document as one of a number of techniques that permit you to control the sale technique of a pre sale inspections. As one among a number of strategies that let you manage the sale technique. We tell you the real condition of the interior and exterior of the building. "In a hot market, aka a ""sellers market"", rates are low, money readily available, housing inventory low, and demand high. It's not rocket science, and in fact, the only thing the buyer is likely to need from his agent is advice on price. Is it possible the fair price attracts a buyer on day one? Sure. But it's far more likely the house should have been listed higher. Perhaps a lot higher.  (Disclosure - I am an agent) I'd rather set a price too high, and agree with the seller that we have room to go down, than to sell on day one at a low price, wondering how much money I just lost my client.  Even if an offer came at asking price on the first day, in a hot market, the right answer is ""we are entertaining a number of offers, please confirm your best and final by next Friday.""" "Based on what you asked and your various comments on other answers, this is the first time that you will be making an offer to buy a house, and it seems that the seller is not using a real-estate agent to sell the house, that is, it is what is called a FSBO (for sale by owner) property (and you can learn a lot of about the seller's perspective by visiting fsbo.com). On the other hand, you are a FTB (first-time buyer) and I strongly recommend that you find out about the purchase process by Googling for ""first-time home buyer"" and reading some of the articles there. But most important, I urge you DO NOT make a written offer to purchase the property until you understand a lot more than you currently do, and a lot more than all the answers here are telling you about making an offer to buy this property.  Even when you feel absolutely confident that you understand everything, hire a real-estate lawyer or a real-estate agent to write the actual offer itself (the agent might well use a standard purchase offer form that his company uses, or the State mandates, and just fill in the blanks). Yes, you will need to pay a fee to these people but it is very important for your own protection, and so don't just wing it when making an offer to purchase. As to how much you should offer, it depends on how much you can afford to pay. I will ignore the possibility that you are rich enough that you can pay cash for the purchase and assume that you will, like most people, be needing to get a mortgage loan to buy the house. Most banks prefer not to lend more than 80% of the appraised value of the house, with the balance of the purchase price coming from your personal funds. They will in some cases, loan more than 80% but will usually charge higher interest rate on the loan, require you to pay mortgage insurance, etc. Now, the appraised value is not determined until the bank sends its own appraiser to look at the property, and this does not happen until your bid has been accepted by the seller. What if your bid (say $500K) is much larger than the appraised value $400K on which the bank is willing to lend you only $320K ? Well, you can still proceed with the deal if you have $180K available to make the pay the rest. Or, you can let the deal fall apart if you have made a properly written offer that contains the usual contingency clause that you will be applying for a mortgage of $400K at rate not to exceed x% and that if you can't get a mortgage commitment within y days, the deal is off. Absent such a clause, you will lose the earnest money that you put into escrow for failure to follow through with the contract to purchase for $500K.  Making an offer in the same ballpark as the market value lessens the chances of having the deal fall through. Note also that even if the appraised value is $500K, the bank might refuse to lend you $400K if your loan application and credit report suggest that you will have difficulty making the payments on a $400K mortgage.  It is a good idea to get a pre-approval from a lender saying that based on the financial information that you have provided, you will likely be approved for a mortgage of $Z (that is, the bank thinks that you can afford the payments on a mortgage of as much as $Z). That way, you have some feel for how much house you can afford, and that should affect what kinds of property you should be bidding on." "Accounting for this properly is not a trivial matter, and you would be wise to pay a little extra to talk with a lawyer and/or CPA to ensure the precise wording. How best to structure such an arrangement will depend upon your particular jurisdiction, as this is not a federal matter - you need someone licensed to advise in your particular state at least. The law of real estate co-ownership (as defined on a deed) is not sufficient for the task you are asking of it - you need something more sophisticated. Family Partnership (we'll call it FP) is created (LLC, LLP, whatever). We'll say April + A-Husband gets 50%, and Sister gets 50% equity (how you should handle ownership with your husband is outside the scope of this answer, but you should probably talk it over with a lawyer and this will depend on your state!).  A loan is taken out to buy the property, in this case with all partners personally guaranteeing the loan equally, but the loan is really being taken out by FP. The mortgage should probably show 100% ownership by FP, not by any of you individually - you will only be guaranteeing the loan, and your ownership is purely through the partnership. You and your husband put $20,000 into the partnership. The FP now lists a $20,000 liability to you, and a $20,000 asset in cash. FP buys the $320,000 house (increase assets) with a $300,000 mortgage (liability) and $20,000 cash (decrease assets). Equity in the partnership is $0 right now. The ownership at present is clear. You own 50% of $0, and your sister owns 50% of $0. Where'd your money go?! Simple - it's a liability of the partnership, so you and your husband are together owed $20,000 by the partnership before any equity exists. Everything balances nicely at this point. Note that you should account for paying closing costs the same as you considered the down payment - that money should be paid back to you before any is doled out as investment profit! Now, how do you handle mortgage payments? This actually isn't as hard as it sounds, thanks to the nature of a partnership and proper business accounting. With a good foundation the rest of the building proceeds quite cleanly. On month 1 your sister pays $1400 into the partnership, while you pay $645 into the partnership. FP will record an increase in assets (cash) of $1800, an increase in liability to your sister of $1400, and an increase in liability to you of $645. FP will then record a decrease in cash assets of $1800 to pay the mortgage, with a matching increase in cost account for the mortgage. No net change in equity, but your individual contributions are still preserved. Let's say that now after only 1 month you decide to sell the property - someone makes an offer you just can't refuse of $350,000 dollars (we'll pretend all the closing costs disappeared in buying and selling, but it should be clear how to account for those as I mention earlier). Now what happens? FP gets an increase in cash assets of $350,000, decreases the house asset ($320,000 - original purchase price), and pays off the mortgage - for simplicity let's pretend it's still $300,000 somehow. Now there's $50,000 in cash left in the partnership - who's money is it? By accounting for the house this way, the answer is easily determined. First all investments are paid back - so you get back $20,000 for the down payment, $645 for your mortgage payments so far, and your sister gets back $1400 for her mortgage payment. There is now $27,995 left, and by being equal partners you get to split it - 13,977 to you and your husband and the same amount to your sister (I'm keeping the extra dollar for my advice to talk to a lawyer/CPA). What About Getting To Live There? The fact is that your sister is getting a little something extra out of the deal - she get's the live there! How do you account for that? Well, you might just be calling it a gift. The problem is you aren't in any way, shape, or form putting that in writing, assigning it a value, nothing.  Also, what do you do if you want to sell/cash out or at least get rid of the mortgage, as it will be showing up as a debt on your credit report and will effect your ability to secure financing of your own in the future if you decide to buy a house for your husband and yourself?  Now this is the kind of stuff where families get in trouble. You are mixing personal lives and business arrangements, and some things are not written down (like the right to occupy the property) and this can really get messy. Would evicting your sister to sell the house before you all go bankrupt on a bad deal make future family gatherings tense? I'm betting it might. There should be a carefully worded lease probably from the partnership to your sister. That would help protect you from extra court costs in trying to determine who has the rights to occupy the property, especially if it's also written up as part of the partnership agreement...but now you are building the potential for eviction proceedings against your sister right into an investment deal? Ugh, what a potential nightmare! And done right, there should probably be some dollar value assigned to the right to live there and use the property. Unless you just want to really gift that to your sister, but this can be a kind of invisible and poorly quantified gift - and those don't usually work very well psychologically. And it also means she's going to be getting an awfully larger benefit from this ""investment"" than you and your husband - do you think that might cause animosity over dozens and dozens of writing out the check to pay for the property while not realizing any direct benefit while you pay to keep up your own living circumstances too? In short, you need a legal structure that can properly account for the fact that you are starting out in-equal contributors to your scheme, and ongoing contributions will be different over time too. What if she falls on hard times and you make a few of the mortgage payments? What if she wants to redo the bathroom and insists on paying for the whole thing herself or with her own loan, etc? With a properly documented partnership - or equivalent such business entity - these questions are easily resolved. They can be equitably handled by a court in event of family squabble, divorce, death, bankruptcy, emergency liquidation, early sale, refinance - you name it. No percentage of simple co-ownership recorded on a deed can do any of this for you. No math can provide you the proper protection that a properly organized business entity can. I would thus strongly advise you, your husband, and your sister to spend the comparatively tiny amount of extra money to get advice from a real estate/investment lawyer/CPA to get you set up right. Keep all receipts and you can pay a book keeper or the accountant to do end of the year taxes, and answer questions that will come up like how to properly account for things like depreciation on taxes. Your intuition that you should make sure things are formally written up in times when everyone is on good terms is extremely wise, so please follow it up with in-person paid consultation from an expert. And no matter what, this deal as presently structured has a really large built-in potential for heartache as you have three partners AND one of the partners is also renting the property partially from themselves while putting no money down?  This has a great potential to be a train wreck, so please do look into what would happen if these went wrong into some more detail and write up in advance - in a legally binding way - what all parties rights and responsibilities are." Warranties are usually sold at 60-90% margin. They are just about always a bad deal. If you are forced to buy one, negotiate on price, and be wary of realtor or mortgage broker recommendations. I'm surprised by all these complicated answers. Yes @Victor, you can create a form that asks people to put down their financial information but you want to be careful and not put off potential tenants by asking for too many details. Depending on the OP's typical tenants, an extensive background and credit check may not be necessary. For example, if I have proof that someone is a graduate student at the local university, that's usually good enough for me because I am willing to bet that they will follow my contract.  Bidding war doesn't sound doable, you advertise a price correct? You can only be haggled down not up.  So my suggestion is to look at other rental advertisements in the area. Compare what you're offering (location, quality of house, cleanliness, amenities, etc) to the competition and price accordingly. If you're getting a flood of interest, then you're probably pricing below the average price in your area. Or you live in an area where demand is just much higher than supply, in which case you can also raise your rent. "Here in the UK, the rule of thumb is to keep a lot of equity in your home if you can. I assume here that you have a lot of savings you're considering using. If you only have say 10% of the house price you wouldn't actually have a lot of choice in the matter, the mortgage lender will penalise you heavily for low deposits. The practical minimum is 5%, but for most people a 95% mortgage is just silly (albeit not as silly as the 100% or greater mortgages you could get pre-2008), and you should take serious individual advice before considering it. According to Which, the average in the UK for first-time buyers is 20% (not the best source for that data I confess, but a convenient one). Above 20% is not at all unusual. You'll do an affordability calculation to figure out how much you can borrow, which isn't at all the same as how much you should borrow, but does get you started. Basically you, decide how much a month you can spend on mortgage payments. The calculation will let you put every penny into this if you choose to, but in practice you'll want some discretionary income so don't do that. decide the term of the mortgage. For a young first-time buyer in the UK I think you'd typically take a 25-year term and consider early repayment options rather than committing to a shorter term, but you don't have to. Mortgage lenders will offer shorter terms as long as you can afford the payments. decide how much you're putting into a deposit make subtractions for cost of moving (stamp duty if applicable, fees, removals aka ""people to lug your stuff""). receive back a number which is the house price you can pay under these constraints (and of course a breakdown of what the mortgage principle would be, and the interest rate you'll pay). This step requires access to lender information, since their rates depend on personal details, deposit percentage, phase of the moon, etc. Our mortgage advisor did multiple runs of the calculation for us for different scenarios, since we hadn't made up our minds entirely. Since you have not yet decided how much deposit to make, you can use multiple calculations to see the effect of different deposits you might make, up to a limit of your total savings. Putting up more deposit both increases the amount you can borrow for a given monthly payment (since mortgage rates are lower when the loan is a lower proportion of house value), and of course increases the house price you can afford. So unless you're getting a very high return on your savings, £1 of deposit gets you somewhat more than £1 of house, and the calculation will tell you how much more. Once you've chosen the house you want, the matter is even simpler: do you prefer to put your savings in the house and borrow less and make lower payments, or prefer to put your savings elsewhere and borrow more and make higher payments but perhaps have some additional income from the savings. Assuming you maintain a contingency fund, a lower mortgage is generally considered a good investment in the UK, but you need to check what's right for you and compare it to other investments you could make. The issue is complicated by the fact that residential property prices are rising quite quickly in most areas of the UK, and have been for a long time, meaning that highly-leveraged property investment appears to be a really good idea. This leads to the imprudent, but tempting, conclusion that you should buy the biggest house you can possibly afford and watch its value rises. I do not endorse this advice personally, but it's certainly true that in a sharply rising house market it's easier to get away with buying a bigger house than you need, than it is to get away with it in a flat or falling market. As Stephen says, an offset mortgage is a no-brainer good idea if the rate is the same. Unfortunately in the UK, the rate isn't the same (or anyway, it wasn't a couple of years ago). Offset mortgages are especially good for those who make a lot of savings from income and for any reason don't want to commit all of those savings to a traditional mortgage payment. Good reasons for not wanting to do that include uncertainty about your future income and a desire to have the flexibility to actually spend some of it if you fancy :-)" In the UK at least, dealers definitely want you to take finance. They get benefits from the bank (which are not insubstantial) for doing this; these benefits translate directly to increased commission and internal rewards for the individual salesman. It's conceivable that the salesman will be less inclined to put himself out for you in any way by sweetening your deal as much as you'd like, if he's not going to get incentives out of it. Indeed, since he's taking a hit on his commission from you paying in cash, it's in his best interests to perhaps be firmer with you during price negotiation. So, will the salesman be frustrated with you if you choose to pay in cash? Yes, absolutely, though this may manifest in different ways. In some cases the dealer will offer to pay off the finance for you allowing you to pay directly in cash while the dealer still gets the bank referral reward, so that everyone wins. This is a behind-the-scenes secret in the industry which is not made public for obvious reasons (it's arguably verging on fraud). If the salesman likes you and trusts you then you may be able to get such an arrangement. If this does not seem likely to occur, I would not go out of my way to disclose that I am planning to pay with cash. That being said, you'll usually be asked very early on whether you are seeking to pay cash or credit (the salesman wants to know for the reasons outlined above) and there is little use lying about it when you're shortly going to have to come clean anyway.