selling house yourself

[4theCYcle]

H#ll no. Not necessary. 100% not recommend if they already have a buyer. They just need a closing service

I would agree. It's just that some people get nervous in those situations of not having a person to turn to for information. I'm lucky enough I have a friend that's a realtor.

While it's not "necessary," it actually helps. I'm in the sale pending process as a FSBO and I was strict early on of not paying the buyer agent commission. A week into it, I realized my best traffic was coming from agent representation. I almost had a cash offer with a buyer wanted to move closer to her elderly parents with no agent, but the floor plan wasn't the preference and never saw the offer. You can negotiate, but unless buyers are comfortable representing themselves, your options are limited.

 

[erikbj]

We used Iahomesforsale.com. Before if hit their website we already had a buyer. But they were a great resource. They had real estate contracts and other forms we could use. And they have relationships with attorneys, escrow companies, etc. All were very reasonalbe. They helped walk us through the process. I think is cost us $450 (5 years ago) and it was well worth it. Saved us $10K.

Biggest challenge to selling it yourself if picking the price. IMO

Iahomes does a price analysis for you or at least they did last year when i used them. I just looked on zillow for houses in my area what they were selling for and then i looked at the upgrades we had done to the house and found a number we were happy with (that also seemed fair to the buyer) and listed it.

 

[isufbcurt]

We bought our house this way and it was awesome.

We agreed to a price with the seller, he drew up a purchase agreement, we had an attorney look at it, then went to the bank and the bank handled the rest.

 

[BeachAve]

Obviously if they have a buyer, then that doesn't apply. But if you are starting from scratch - you'll get 5-10x the traffic than you would without offering 3% to a buyers agent (at least in the DM area).

Uh no
85% of homebuyers find their home on ZILLOW and Trulia, etc

You must be a realtor? Lol

The Internet has completely changed the industry

FSBO companies like FsboHomes.com offer your own web listing page that links with your Zillow listing -- and it'll get plenty of hits

In fact, if it gets too many it means the home is crap or overpriced

Why give up 3.5-7% of your equity to a realtor -- when you don't have to?

 

[SCNCY]

Uh no
85% of homebuyers find their home on ZILLOW and Trulia, etc

The Internet has completely changed the industry

FSBO companies like FsboHomes.com offer your own web listing page that links with your Zillow listing -- and it'll get plenty of hits

Not sure about the %, but I see this as true. I just recently bought a house a couple months ago, and I went to Zillow and Trulia and sent the homes to my realator. All she did was set up the visits. She did not recommend me a single home to visit herself. It was nice having her around to look at the quality of the home and her opinion. But I think at a second go around, I can do it myself.

Also, I did not know banks could handle all of the closing documents, like title, deed, insurance, etc. When I bought my house, I went to a title company. I guess when I sell, I will have to do more research on what my bank can do for me. My seller paid my realtor fees.

So from what I have gathered so far is that you need two things. 1) a lawyer to draft a purchase agreement, and 2) a bank that will cover closing.

 

[cycloneworld]

Uh no
85% of homebuyers find their home on ZILLOW and Trulia, etc

You must be a realtor? Lol

The Internet has completely changed the industry

FSBO companies like FsboHomes.com offer your own web listing page that links with your Zillow listing -- and it'll get plenty of hits

In fact, if it gets too many it means the home is crap or overpriced

Why give up 3.5-7% of your equity to a realtor -- when you don't have to?

Ideally, sure.

And I'm no realtor. I'm on record here saying its robbery what you have to pay them.

But its a reality of the situation. Why would I go find a home myself when I can have a realtor as my buying agent for free?

A house will get 5-10x the showings if you pay the 3% to the buyer's agent. So if you want to sell your home quickly, its the best way to go. If you want to sit back and wait, you'll likely be able to find a buyer without an agent.

The internet has NOT completely changed the industry. The industry is almost EXACTLY the same as it was. The industry NEEDS to be disrupted but at this point that hasn't happened yet.

 

[JY07]

The internet has NOT completely changed the industry. The industry is almost EXACTLY the same as it was. The industry NEEDS to be disrupted but at this point that hasn't happened yet.

That's not true at all: there are flat fee and discounted/4.5% fee brokerages popping up all over the place.. those would not exist w/o the internet

Like the previous posts have mentioned, most of the time nowadays buyers tell the realtors what houses they want to see opposed to the other way around.

At that point the only thing you're really using the realtor for is setting up the showings, but with apps like Showing Time where buyers/sellers can setup and approve them, even that need is dwindling

 

[cycloneworld]

That's not true at all: there are flat fee and discounted/4.5% fee brokerages popping up all over the place.. those would not exist w/o the internet

Like the previous posts have mentioned, most of the time nowadays buyers tell the realtors what houses they want to see opposed to the other way around.

At that point the only thing you're really using the realtor for is setting up the showings, but with apps like Showing Time where buyers/sellers can setup and approve them, even that need is dwindling

I get that things have changed, but not drastically by any means. Flat fee/discounted brokerages have been around for quite some time.

And I agree that all the realtor does is set up showings but if you are a buyer, why would you not use one when you pay NOTHING for their services. People are lazy and aren't going to call numerous homeowners directly and set up their own showings when someone will do that for them for free. Which is why the system needs a major overhaul before things will drastically change.

Again, the amount of potential buyers using a realtor vs. not is a 5-10x difference. You can certainly sell your house by offering 0% commission and that might work for some. But you are really narrowing your potential buyers pool.

 

[JY07]

And I agree that all the realtor does is set up showings but if you are a buyer, why would you not use one when you pay NOTHING for their services.

The only party that brings money to the table in the transaction is the buyer: if the buyer is paying 'nothing', where's that money to pay the realtor coming from?

You can shuffle the line items around however you want, but at the end of the day the buyer is paying for their realtor.

 

[ArgentCy]

No they aren't, its really coming out of the seller's equity in the house. Sure you can argue that the buyer (or more specifically the bank) is ultimately on the hook for the money, but does it matter to them if the seller paid 5%, 7% or nothing in commissions? Nope. Therefore it is the sellers paying for realtors.

I would say that if you need some help or advice on pricing the home you can always call an appraiser in the area. This probably isn't necessary in a tract subdivision with lots of sales and good information but in more difficult areas it is probably worth the ~$400-500.

 

[ruxCYtable]

As others have said, it's pretty darn easy. We did one ourselves, another using a service. Both were pretty equally simple. Asked around, found a real estate attorney, when someone wanted to make an offer, we handed them his card. Done.

 

[JY07]

Sure you can argue that the buyer (or more specifically the bank) is ultimately on the hook for the money, but does it matter to them if the seller paid 5%, 7% or nothing in commissions? Nope.

Yes, generally if I'm negotiating something I do care if the price is artificially inflated 7%

 

[ArgentCy]

As a buyer you should negotiate the best price you can regardless if they are paying a commission or not. It may be a point you can make with the sellers and is another tactic but that is all. Just because they paid a commission doesn't mean you get a 7% lower price. I see lots of FSBO that sell for top dollar, some likely for more than if they had sold with a realtor.

 

[cycloneworld]

Yes, generally if I'm negotiating something I do care if the price is artificially inflated 7%

But its not (theoretically). In most cases, buyers are paying market price. Not market price + 6-7%. I.e. if a house is worth $200,000, generally people are paying $200,000. Not $212,000 to offset the seller's RE commissions. That comes out of the seller's equity.

This space is ripe for disruption but so far, it just hasn't happened.

 

[JY07]

But its not (theoretically). In most cases, buyers are paying market price. Not market price + 6-7%. I.e. if a house is worth $200,000, generally people are paying $200,000. Not $212,000 to offset the seller's RE commissions. That comes out of the seller's equity.

This space is ripe for disruption but so far, it just hasn't happened.

Well it's really backwards: it's not 6% over market price - the 6% is the norm and already baked in.

Let's say you were selling your house today and you received two offers:

1) Your full price ask at $200k. The buyer is represented and 3% goes to the buyer's agent, netting you $194k

2) An offer under full price at $197k, however the buyer is not represented. You net $197k

As the seller, you would likely take offer #2.

Most people's mentality is the same as Argents, where they're under the impression having a buyer's agent is a no-brainer since it "doesn't cost you anything", but that's not really the case

 

[cycloneworld]

Well it's really backwards: it's not 6% over market price - the 6% is the norm and already baked in.

Let's say you were selling your house today and you received two offers:

1) Your full price ask at $200k. The buyer is represented and 3% goes to the buyer's agent, netting you $194k

2) An offer under full price at $197k, however the buyer is not represented. You net $197k

As the seller, you would likely take offer #2.

Most people's mentality is the same as Argents, where they're under the impression having a buyer's agent is a no-brainer since it "doesn't cost you anything", but that's not really the case

Having a buyer's agent DOESN'T cost you anything. It costs the seller. You are still paying the price that you want for a house. I.e. You can offer $197k without an agent. But that doesn't mean you have to offer $200k with an agent. You can, and most likely will, offer $197k in both cases.

I would say that in general, a buyer is going to more or less pay the same price with our without an agent. But of course there will be exceptions like your example that certainly will happen.

 

[ArgentCy]

Well it's really backwards: it's not 6% over market price - the 6% is the norm and already baked in.

Let's say you were selling your house today and you received two offers:

1) Your full price ask at $200k. The buyer is represented and 3% goes to the buyer's agent, netting you $194k

2) An offer under full price at $197k, however the buyer is not represented. You net $197k

As the seller, you would likely take offer #2.

Most people's mentality is the same as Argents, where they're under the impression having a buyer's agent is a no-brainer since it "doesn't cost you anything", but that's not really the case

Your proving our point because now you looking at it from a seller's point of view, not a buyers. Either way the market has a natural variance depending on the area ranging from ~8% on the low end to ~20% or more on the high end. A good agent in the right areas could save far more money with superior negotiating skills but certainly not needed in every situation.

 

[ArgentCy]

In all of these hypothetical's the market value of the house is $200,000 plus/minus say 8%. The rest comes down to negotiations and small differences. It doesn't matter whose pockets the money ends up in.

 

[DRCHIRO]

We are selling ours right now in Norwalk and we're going to attempt to do it ourselves for the first month. Homes in the price range we are selling (220ish) are not lasting long out here. I met with an attorney today and it seems like the process should be fairly painless.
We used Zillow and Facebook and had a open house on Sunday a day after it was listed and had some nice traffic.

 

[cycloneworld]

We are selling ours right now in Norwalk and we're going to attempt to do it ourselves for the first month. Homes in the price range we are selling (220ish) are not lasting long out here. I met with an attorney today and it seems like the process should be fairly painless.
We used Zillow and Facebook and had a open house on Sunday a day after it was listed and had some nice traffic.

If you are in no rush, there is really no reason not to try and sell it yourself in this market. If that's the case, I'd try to sell it with no commission. If that didn't produce traffic, I'd offer the 3% to the buyer's agent.