How to incentivize a real-estate broker to find me a cheap house
"Here in the U.S., a realtor can act as a ""seller's agent"" or a ""buyer's agent"". I think what you are calling a ""broker"" in the U.S. we call a ""buyer's agent"", and this may just be a difference in terminology, from your post it sounds like the concept is the same. I am answering from a U.S. perspective, please let me know if something doesn't make sense in the Israeli context. Here, each typically gets 3% to 3.5% of the sale price (at least in my part of the country). So yes, the buyer's agent has an incentive to get a higher price, even though this is contrary to the interests of the person he is supposed to represent. On the other hand, the buyer's agent has a strong incentive to find a house at a price that you consider acceptable. If the absolute most you are willing to pay is, say, ₪1,000,000, and he keeps showing you houses that cost ₪1,500,000, he's just wasting his time. (He's wasting your time too, of course, but let's assume he doesn't care about that.) (I don't know what housing prices are in Israel today, just making up numbers.) Suppose he has two houses that he can show you, one in your price range and one not. If he shows you the first you may buy it and we will very quickly get his commission. If he shows you the second, you probably won't buy it and he'll get zero. If he keeps showing you houses above your price range, he's doing a bunch of work for which he will never be paid. The worst case from your point of view is if you're thinking that you're expecting and prepared to pay, say, ₪1,000,000 to ₪1,300,000, and you tell the broker that, his incentive is to concentrate on the upper end, maybe even push it a little. But still, if he shows a house that's well within your range so you'll quickly buy, he can get ₪30,000 today, versus trying to push you to go higher so he can maybe get ₪39,000 in a few months. Is the extra ₪9,000 worth several months of extra work? Probably not. Personally, I've never had a problem with a realtor trying to push me to buy a house more expensive than I said I was prepared to pay. At least not that I noticed. Maybe they were very skillful at it and I didn't realize they were doing it, like showing me houses that were totally run-down dumps until I decided I was willing to pay more. As to your specific suggestion: I don't know if a realtor would be willing to negotiate an alternative deal from their standard contract. I've never tried to do such a thing. Yes, this would give him an incentive to find the lowest possible price. Arguably this would create a perverse incentive to show you houses of very low quality just because they're cheap. And there would be the problem that he'd have no incentive to show you houses at or just over your stated maximum, as his commission would be zero. (Negative if it goes over slightly?) What I did on my last house was tell the realtor, I want to start by looking at houses costing under \$X. If I can't find anything I like, I'll go a little higher. By not telling the realtor my maximum, I discouraged her from immediately going for the maximum. At least that was my theory." From your profile, I see you are in Israel. The process is probably different from in the US.  In the US, an agent is usually happy to work with a buyer. After all, When I list a house, there are potential buyers all over my state and elsewhere. The best thing you can do is first, have your financing in order. A bank will be able to tell you how much you can afford and how much they'll lend you. If you approach an agent and tell them the exact range of price, area you're interested in, and other specifics such as number of bedrooms, etc, that agent should be happy to find houses to fit your request.  Obviously, an agent listing million dollar homes, busy with those all day, is not going to want to handle a buyer looking for a $200K home. But in the end, the real estate agents aren't all listing high end, and someone is moving the smaller houses as well. Often, an office will have a call center where agents who are less busy will answer the phone hoping to get a client that will bring a sale. That's one way to go. The other is word of mouth. Just ask others who you work with or socialize with if they know a good agent. In my case, I'd be happy to get such a referral. 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! Shop lots of houses.  Find at least three you want and start by offering a low price and working your way up.  Your risk is that houses you would have liked get bought by someone else while you are negotiating, that is how you discover how much you actually have to pay to get a house.   Brokers only get paid if a deal closes.  That is their incentive to get you a better price.  If they know you will buy a different house unless the one they are selling gets your business, then they will work to make that happen.
"Short answer: It depends :) It should generally be cheaper to get a loan directly from a bank, but often a mortgage broker can find you deals that you might not be able to get with a local bank.  If you are refinancing, the cheapest option of all is usually to go through the bank that holds your existing mortgage. As for how mortgage brokers make their money, there are two ways.  The first is on the ""front end"" through fees (origination fees especially) that go directly to them.  The second and less obvious is on the ""back end"".  This is where they make money by giving you a loan at a slightly higher rate than the lender was willing to give you.  So, let's say they find a lender that will give you a loan at 5.25%.  They offer that loan to you at 5.5% and pocket the extra .25% when the bank takes it over." "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.""" You would have to find someone in the other state who wanted to swap.  This is conceivable but difficult if you want the houses to be the same value.  How do you find the one person who lives in the right place now and wants to move to the right area?   The normal way this situation is handled is to simply put your house on the market.  At the same time, you find a new house in the new location.  You arrange for a new mortgage for the new house and make purchase contingent on selling the old house.  Your buyer pays off your mortgage and gives you a bit left over that you use as a downpayment on the new house.   Note that you take a loss on closing costs when you do this.  This is why if you are in the position where you move frequently, you may be better off renting.   Sometimes an employer will help with this, paying for a long term hotel or short term rental.  This can give you more room to sell and buy the houses.   If you have to move right now, immediately, not in a few months when your housing situation is fixed, consider double renting.  You rent out your mortgaged house to someone and pay rent on a new place.  You may put some of your stuff in storage until you get into your permanent place.   The downside is that it can be harder to sell a house with a tenant until you are close to the end of the lease.  And of course, you are probably not in the best position to get or pay good rent.  Your situation restricts your options.  You might get stuck in this situation for a year so as to get the time that you need to line up a buyer.   Of course, you may get lucky and find someone who wants your old house as an investment property.  Such a person won't be bothered by a tenant.  But they usually want a good price.  After all, they want to make money off it.   There are those operations that advertise that they buy ugly houses.  They want a good deal.  You'll probably take a bath.  But they can buy quickly, so you can move on quickly.  No waiting until they find a buyer.   And I'm not saying that you can't do a swap like you want.  I'm just saying that you may find it difficult to find a swapping partner.  Perhaps an investment person would be up for it.  They take your house in trade for their house, letting you stay in their house until they can fix up your old house and either rent it or sell it.  The problem is that it may be hard to find such an investor who can handle a house where you are and has a house where you need to be.   I don't have a good suggestion for finding a swapping partner other than calling a lot of realtors and asking for suggestions.  Maybe a bit of online checking for properties where the owner's business is managing the sale. "You can make a contingent offer: ""I will buy this house if I sell my own.""  In a highly competitive environment, contingent offers tend to be ignored. (Another commentator described such a contingency clause as synonymous with ""Please Reject Me"".) You can get a bridge loan: you borrow money for a short term, at punishingly high interest.  If your house doesn't sell, you're fscked. You pay for two mortgages (or even buy the other house for cash).  If you can afford this, congratulations on, you know, being super-rich. Or you can do what I am doing: selling one house and then living at my mom's until I buy another one.  (You will have to stay at your own mom's house; my mom's house will be full, of course.) Edit: A commentator with the disturbingly Kafkaesque name of ""R."" made the not-unreasonable suggestion that you buy both and rent out one or the other.  Consider this possibility, but remember: On the other hand, if the stars align, you might not want to extricate yourself.  If the tenant is paying the mortgage and a little more, you have an appreciating asset, and one you can borrow against.  With a little work and a little judicious use of leverage, doing this over and over, you can accumulate a string of income-producing rental properties." This is one way in which the scheme could work: You put your own property (home, car, piece of land) as a collateral and get a loan from a bank. You can also try to use the purchased property as security, but it may be difficult to get 100% loan-to-value. You use the money to buy a property that you expect will rise in value and/or provide rent income that is larger than the mortgage payment. Doing some renovations can help the value rise. You sell the property, pay back the loan and get the profits. If you are fast, you might be able to do this even before the first mortgage payment is due. So yeah, $0 of your own cash invested. But if the property doesn't rise in value, you may end up losing the collateral. First, this was never an arrangement for you to build equity, this was an arrangement for them to speculate on another house under the guise of teaching you a life lesson like responsibility or something contrived. The only way you profit from this is if the value of the house goes up and you sell it. You get 25% of the proceeds, maybe. If this was an equitable arrangement then they would be paying 75% of the property taxes and a little more for your maintenance efforts. 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. If you can find a tenant by networking -- co-worker, friend of a friend, etc. -- rather than openly advertising, that often gives you a better pool. Side advice:  Check what local housing laws apply to renting a room rather than having a housemate. Once you start advertising this you may be subject to fair housing laws, additional code requirements, and so on. Sounds like the seminar is about using OPM (other people's money), which means you're going to have to find not just real estate, but investors.  Those investors are going to need a business plan, contracts, and a lot of work from you to provide as much equity as possible before the property is sold.  If you're serious about Real Estate, I suggest finding the most successful broker/agent you can, buying them a beer, glass of wine, or cup of coffee, and picking their brain about it. It'll be cheaper then a scam seminar. Pay cash for the house but negotiate at least a 4% discount. You already made your money without having to deal with long term unknowns. I don't get why people would want invest with risk when the alternative are immediate realized gains. "Advice from a long-time flipper You negotiate price based on four factors and none of these are set in stone: How much you love the house.  Is this house a 100 out of 100 for you or a 85 or a 75.  How much have you compromised. What is the likelihood that you will find a house that will make you just as happy or at least close.  You might have a house that is a 95 out of 100 but there are five other houses that you rated between 93-95.   What is your timeframe.  Know that playing hardball takes longer and can knock you out of the game sometimes and takes a little while to find a new game. What is the relative housing market.  Zillow and other such sites are crap.  Yes the give you a generalized feel for a community but their estimates are off sometimes by 30-40%.  Other factors like street/noise/updates to house/ and so on are huge factors.  You will have to really navigate the area and look for very comparable houses that have recently sold.  Then use average housing movements to extrapolate your future houses cost. As a buyer you have two jobs.  Buy the house you want and manage your agent.  Your agent wants you to buy a house as soon as possible and to increase their reputation.  Those are their only two factors of working.   By you offering closer to the asking price they are able to get their sales as quick as possible.  Also other agents will love working with them.  In fact your agent is selling you on the home and the price.  Agents hardly worry about you paying too much - as most buyers oversell the deal they get on their home.  Admitting that you paid too much for your house is more of an admission of ignorance of yourself, compared to agent incompetency. If you decide to low-ball the owner, your agent spends more time with you and possibly reduces their reputation with the selling agent.  So it is common for agents to tell you that you should not offer a low price as you will insult the owner. My advice.  Unless the home is truly one of a kind for the market offering anything within 20% of the asking price is DEFINITELY within range.  I have offered 40% less.  If a house is asking too much and has been on the market for 8 months there is no way I am going in with an offer of even 15% lower.  That leaves you no room.   What you do? First think about how much you think this house could sell for in the next 3 months.  In your example let's say 80K based on conservative comps.  Then take the most you would actually pay for it.  Let's say 75K.  70K is about as high of an opening offer I would go.   Do NOT tell your agent your true breaking points.  If you tell your agent that you would go to 75K on the house.  Then that is what their negotiations will start at.  Remember they want the sale to happen as soon as possible.  Very likely the other agent - especially if they know each other - will ask if how flexible you are going to be.  Then next thing you know your agent calls you back and says would you be willing to go 77K or the owner is firm at 80K. Do not give up your position.  You should never forecast to your agent what your next bid or offer would be for the house.  Never get into scenarios or future counters.   So you offer 70K.  If your agent asks you how firm that is?  ""Very firm"".  If your agent doesn't want to take the offer to them, ""Thank you for being my agent, but I am going to be working with someone that represents what I want.""   If the owner says ""You are done too me cheapskate.""  Well that's how it goes.  If the owner stays firm at asking or lowers - then you can come up if you feel comfortable doing so.  But understand what your goal is.  Is it to get a house or to get a good deal on a house?  Mine was always to get a good deal on a house.  So I might offer 72K next.  If they didn't budge, I am out.  If they moved down I went from there.   Easy Summary The fact is if they aren't willing to negotiate with you enough it always ends the same.  You give them your take-it-or-leave-it offer.  You tell your agent that if he/she comes back with one penny over it comes from their commission (god I have said this 100 times in my life and it is the best negotiation tactic you have with your agent).  The owner says yes or no and it is over." 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. So obviously, realtors are not economists and have a strong bias here.  A lot of actual [economists](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-tax-deductions-economists-hate/) think the mortgage deduction is nonsense and doesn't actually promote home ownership. Countries without the deduction have about the same ownership rates as the U.S.  Worth noting that this proposal doesn't actually scrap the mortgage deduction, it just makes the standard deduction bigger. Some people will end up better off with the new standard deduction, and those with more expensive homes can keep using the mortgage deduction.  This is one of the few proposals coming out of the Republican congress that actually helps poor people more than rich people. Whenever you put less than 20% down, you are usually required to pay private mortgage insurance (PMI) to protect the lender in case you default on your loan.  You pay this until you reach 20% equity in your home.  Check out an amortization calculator to see how long that would take you.  Most schedules have you paying more interest at the start of your loan and less principal.  PMI gets you nothing - no interest or principal paid - it's throwing money away in a very real sense (more in this answer).  Still, if you want to do it, make sure to add PMI to the cost per month. It is also possible to get two mortgages, one for your 20% down payment and one for the 80%, and avoid PMI.  Lenders are fairly cautious about doing that right now given the housing crash, but you may be able to find one who will let you do the two mortgages.  This will raise your monthly payment in its own way, of course. Also remember to factor in the costs of home ownership into your calculations.  Check the county or city website to figure out the property tax on that home, divide by twelve, and add that number to your payment.  Estimate your homeowners insurance (of course you get to drop renters insurance, so make sure to calculate that on the renting side of the costs) and divide the yearly cost by 12 and add that in.  Most importantly, add 1-2% of the value of the house yearly for maintenance and repair costs to your budget.  All those costs are going to eat away at your 3-400 a little bit.  So you've got to save about $70 a month towards repairs, etc. for the case of every 10-50 years when you need a new roof and so on. Many experts suggest having the maintenance money in savings on top of your emergency fund from day one of ownership in case your water heater suddenly dies or your roof starts leaking.  Make sure you've also estimated closing costs on this house, or that the seller will pay your costs.  Otherwise you loose part of that from your down payment or other savings. Once you add up all those numbers you can figure out if buying is a good proposition.  With the plan to stay put for five years, it sounds like it truly might be.  I'm not arguing against it, just laying out all the factors for you. The NYT Rent Versus Buy calculator lays out most of these items in terms of renting or buying, and might help you make that decision. EDIT: As Tim noted in the comments below, real monthly cost should take into account deductions from mortgage interest and property tax paid.  This calculator can help you figure that out.  This question will be one to watch for answers on how to calculate cost and return on home buying, with the answer by mbhunter being an important qualification "That sounds like a particularly egregious version of exclusivity. However, the way that you could handle that is to include a ""contingency"" in your purchase agreement stating that your offer is contingent upon the seller paying the brokerage fee. The argument against this, and something your broker might use to encourage you not to do so, is that it makes your offer less attractive to the buyer. If they have two offers in hand for the same price, one with contingencies and one without, they will likely take the no-contingency offer. In my area, right now, house offers are being made without very common contingencies like a financing contingency (meaning you can back out if you can't finance the property) or an inspection contingency. So, if your market is really competitive, this may not work. One last thought is that you could also use this to negotiate with your broker. Simply say you're only sign this expecting that any offer would have such a contingency. If it's untenable in your current market, it will likely cause your broker to move on. Either way, I'd say you should push back and potentially talk to some other brokers. A good broker is worth their weight in gold, and a bad one will cost you a boat load. And if you're in Seattle, I'll introduce you to literally the best one in the world. :-)"